LETTER: Warm applause for criticism of ESG ‘experts’

Amazingly, I found myself warming to Roger Dixon’s comments about the credibility of climate change scientists, especially considering a recent article in Physorg entitled “More than 99.9% of studies agree: humans caused climate change” (“Will the real climate-change experts please stand up?”, October 30).

It states: “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.” This article goes on to say, “In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the data set of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were sceptical of human-caused climate change.” Interestingly, the naysayers include “economic geologists”.

Dixon rightly points out his concern about the reliability of data towards the ever-increasing focus on environmental, social & governance (ESG) issues, which are becoming a global mantra for governments and business and public interest groups. However, though ESGs has been around for a long time it is only in recent years that they have created an avalanche of interest to the extent that a whole industry has been created to advise on what principles and policies and commitments will be needed to address whatever the ESG objectives are. At this stage it seems that ESG commitments remain “principles based”, not rules based, because we don’t really know what the rules are, precisely because of Dixon’s concerns.

My departure from agreement with Dixon is his diversion to the narrower tenet of the renewable energy sector, and then his normal default position of setting up a “code” so the so-called experts for preparing public reports on the matter should be subject to that code’s ethics and enforceable disciplinary processes. Why on earth would he want to be a policeman for ESG when he questions the very science and data behind it?

Readers should be reminded that a number of years ago we proposed the establishment of the SA Environmental, Social & Governance “code” which Dixon rejected and rightly (I have to admit he was right) downgraded it to what it is today, The SA Guidelines for the Reporting of Environmental, Social & Governance Parameters within the Solid Minerals and Oil & Gas Industries 2017. This guideline won an award at the UN in 2019 and Annalie Botha received the UN award on behalf of the Samrec Samval Committee, a prestigious statement indeed for SA.

For heaven’s sake, no more policing, Mr Dixon, and I will staunchly fight any move towards a rules-based ESG standard but warmly support principles-based guidelines until the very matter he raises of reliable climate change information is resolved.

Andy Clay
Via email

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.