What Is ‘Stakeholderism?’ Here’s a Quick Guide.
14th September 2026
One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate over ESG–which stands for environmental, social, and governance investing–is that the term has no set definition.
Although the term “ESG” has general outlines and a basic connotation, the particulars are ephemeral. It can mean one thing one day to one investor, company, or ratings agency, and something completely different the next day or to the next individual or organization.
For example, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recently released a list of more than 100 companies that applied under the EU’s new regulatory framework to be considered ESG ratings agencies.
Each of these ratings services has its own proprietary assessment variables and formulas and, as a result, its own proprietary definition of ESG–meaning that the term has more than 100 technically different meanings, even among those who are closest to the process and most heavily involved in its harmonization.
It’s been more than three years since BlackRock CEO Larry Fink told the Aspen Ideas Festival that he quit using the term “ESG,” yet his firm’s iShares family of ETFs is still by far the most dominant ESG firm in the world, managing roughly a third of global ESG investments.
ESG means nothing … and everything. It means whatever the user of the term wants it to mean at any given moment.
Much like ‘diversity’ … or ‘patriarchy’ or ‘supremacist’ or ‘misogyny’ or any of the other proglodyte smear-words.