In recent years, we have seen the evolution of corporate sustainability practices, with caveats, of course. The acronym ESG (environmental, social and governance) has taken over the agenda of investors, consumers and corporate employees, but the moment seems to be set back with the return of the search for profit at any cost. With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, we observe large corporations such as the Meta group and the fast food chain McDonald's retreat into their social practices.
There is no denying that the main purpose of a company is the generation of value and that its perpetuity is related to economic performance. In this way, the acronym ESG must be EESG, in which the economic comes first. After all, without cash or return, there is no way to invest in social and environmental practices. The problem is that the only goal can not be to guarantee profit at any cost, because the company ends up putting its image and brand at risk. And, with the growth of social networks, being away from the anxieties and demands of the population is a big problem and can cause the cancellation and boycott, even momentary, of the brand.
About 10 years ago, more specifically, in August 2015, the negotiations that culminated in the adoption, in September, of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), on the occasion of the United Nations Summit for Sustainable Development were concluded. At the time, an agreement was reached that contemplates 17 Goals and 169 goals, involving diversified sustainability themes ranging from issues such as poverty eradication and reduction of inequalities to inclusive economic growth. The agenda must be fulfilled by 2030.
Since the SDGs were launched, large corporations have joined the agenda and improved their processes to meet the goals. It is noteworthy, for example, the initiatives in search of diversity, equity and inclusion that have become part of the hiring policies of companies of all sizes. This policy has allowed people of various genders, races, with disabilities or neurodiverse opportunities in the labor market, although access to higher positions is restricted.
On the companies side, hiring people with different profiles allows the organization to understand the particularities of its consumers, expanding the service network, sales and, consequently, profit.A brand for everyone generates more value and more return in the long term.
This fact, however, began to be questioned and a wave of companies and institutions. Recent research released by the Conference Board, an American business entity with more than a thousand members, shows that half of the companies have already adjusted their terminology for diversity programs and other 20% consider similar change.
McDonald's is among the companies that have abandoned commitments to the so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) goals, disrupting demands that suppliers take on such practices.
Meta also backed down from a series of policies in these areas and informed employees that they will no longer be required to interview candidates from underrepresented groups for open positions or to pursue business with diversified suppliers. Walmart, Nissan Motors, Boing, Ford, Toyota and Harley Davidson have already followed suit. Walmart announced that it will no longer use race and gender parameters to select supply contracts and reduced training on racial equity. Other companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola and Uber have withdrawn or softened, in their corporate reports, mentions of diversity compensation criteria in their policies.
Here we take the DEI programs as an example, but the setback for the 70s and 80s, when the vision was to seek unscrupulous profit, is clear in several areas of sustainability, whether in the social or environmental field. At first, the view is that such goals generate expenses and not profit. A clear misconception when putting reputation at stake. To reject sustainability is to shoot at the foot of society and companies themselves. Profit at any cost, costs a lot.
