Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Lib and let die
Aug 26, 2004

oliveoil posted:

Musk replied to this tweet and it reminded me of this thread:

https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1665440977824231438

"Behaviors are gonna have to change and this is one thing we're asking companies. Uh you have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors."

This time it's for a good cause but I find it somewhat strange that a company that owns a piece of pretty much everything we interact with claims to be able, willing, and actively "forcing behaviors" if I've understood this right.

They don't even seem like a majority shareholder so it's bizarre to see them "forcing" anything but maybe they can do stuff like threaten to sell one company and support a competitor or something. I'm not rich and I don't know what options come with having lots of money so it's hard to understand how they can claim to "force" things but it's bizarre to see an unelected group of rich people with influence over every part of our society implying they use that influence to make things the way they want them to be.

I feel like they can openly talk about it in this case because they're doing good things this time but I don't trust rich people in general so it's hard to believe they're not using that influence in bad ways and simply being quiet about it.

I've said this hundreds and hundreds of times across various channels of communication, and I'm going to say it again:

Corporate Social Responsibility is a sham. Its only purpose is to provide the private entities responsible for both economic and social inequity a seemingly-legitimate platform from which to conduct their own PR greenwashing campaigns while paying themselves back through tax credits driven by the nonprofit-industrial complex.

I typically use Deloitte as an example when discussing CSR, but since BlackRock is in the news for this particular clip, I'll try and whip up some data from publicly available sources on the fly.

First, let's start with the publicly reported data from BlackRock's political PAC Blackrock Fund Services Group: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/blackrock-funds-services-group/C00479246/summary/2020

So, with our data in hand, we can start to break down the notion that Blackrock is a "socially responsible" company by way of their push to create more diverse workforces. Flip on over to the "Candidate Recipients" tab and start googling some names.

Kevin Brady, R-Texas received $10,000 in the 2020 election cycle.

In 2022, Mr. Brady voted against the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022.
In 2021, Mr. Brady voted against the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021.
In 2017, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (again).
In 2016, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the Conscience Protection Act of 2016.
In 2015, Mr. Brady co-sponsored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
In 2015, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015.

I think you get the point.

In conclusion, BlackRock is perfectly happy to push for more diverse workplaces, while being perfectly happy to trade societal-wide protections for the rights of that diverse workforce for politicians that will more easily facilitate finance number go up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply