What constitutes a socially desirable policy depends entirely on one’s point of view – and often on one’s political interests.

ESG’s social criteria force companies to adhere to political demands even when it has nothing to do with the company’s business. That could include hiring based on gender or race rather than merits, releasing public statements in support of political movements or taking a political stance on election issues, investing in specific neighborhoods, “white privilege” training for employees, and maybe soon, whether or not a company aids employees in abortions.

Meanwhile, other social issues are completely ignored. For example, should investments in China be allowed while the Chinese Government wages an ongoing genocide or uses forced labor in its quest for economic dominance? What about the Chinese state-sponsored systematic theft of intellectual property?

An investment advisor recommending investment decisions based on socially desirable outcomes is subjective at best and intentionally manipulative at worst.