Acronyms = Good for $, Bad for Risk

We now see ESG, DEI, and other acronyms targeted by resentful populists. I blame advisors. An odd thing for me to say, as, err, an advisor. But hear me out.

The intentions may not be nefarious, but when applied in a blanket setting (as is often the approach with advisors tied to predefined and inflexible methodologies), it can feel like you’re the square peg being shoved through a round hole.

In my book Bootstrapping Ethics, I discussed how diversity might (should?) look different in a military veteran-run organisation than in a femtech startup. Similarly, a genuine commitment to sustainability might manifest differently in a semiconductor manufacturer (worker welfare and conflict minerals as priorities) than in a social media platform (content moderation, misinformation, server energy use, etc.).

However, when wielded by folks wedded to ideology over pragmatism (often incentivised by crassly conceived regulation), the acronyms can become blanket “best practice” checklists of pointlessness. These benchmarks leave all but those with the deepest pockets behind.

Managing two or three sustainable development goals with commitment and expertise is much better than piecemeal efforts across 18.

For organisations that genuinely care about impact, the demise of acronyms and one-size-fits-none consultants would be good. It’s a chance to double down on what matters. What do you think?