![imposition def imposition def](https://www.compose.com.hk/images/PrepressApps/Imposition/marksetup.png)
Of course, we all understand the drive towards ESG investing. In truth, it only takes a few moments of reflection to work out this is a very dangerous road to travel down. Very soon, any form of defence or security contracting may be deemed unacceptable by the box-ticking, self-righteous busybodies of the ESG consultancies. What about guns and military vehicles? Or fighter planes, or naval ships? Or indeed systems to cope with cyber attacks?Īnd once you start going down that road, what about policing equipment such as water canons, or truncheons, or indeed guns for armed response units? And what about the jails, and all the stuff that has to be purchased to equip them, and keep them safe? If working on any form of maintenance and management of nuclear weapons is deemed unacceptable, then surely it won’t stop there. However, that is far from the whole story. Looked at from the finance director’s desk, saying no makes a lot of sense.
#Imposition def mod
If it won the MoD contract, and the shares were then sold off by the ESG funds, Serco’s shareholders would lose a lot more than the value of the work could ever generate. An increasing number of investment mandates insist on them. It is easy to sympathise with management’s decision. The result? The Ministry of Defence will have fewer private sector contractors to choose from, leading - as you would expect when there is less competition - to higher prices and a worse service. In reality, without strong defence, the environment would be in far worse shape and human rights abuses would be rampant.Īs this newspaper reported over the weekend, Serco became the latest company to turn down business because it didn’t match the standards demanded by ESG investors when it pulled out of the bidding to help manage Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal for the Atomic Weapons Establishment.Īpparently City fund managers told the company that taking the contract might mean they had to sell off their shares because of the ESG standards that increasingly determine what they can and can’t invest in. There is nothing wrong with investors demanding that companies work towards a more equal, sustainable and open society - but there is also nothing immoral or iniquitous about defending yourself. The growing movement for “Environmental, Social & Governance” investing - or ESG for short - has started to shift its focus from fossil fuels, slave labour and diversity into boycotting any company that is involved in defence.
#Imposition def software
Producing fighter aircraft, radar systems, or even software to protect a country from cyber attacks? Almost certainly forbidden. Developing a new range of tanks? Er, no thanks.