#esg

A lot of office workers in India and the U.S. have been laid off recently.

But somehow there are still plenty of remote workers sitting in Dublin, Ireland. Why is ESG management holding onto them? What kind of justification is being made for keeping these roles?

From what I can see, most of them don’t bring anything special to the table. I’m not seeing strong skills in areas like reverse engineering or development. Honestly, it feels like teams in India or the U.S. could take over that work and do it better.

So what’s really going on here? Is ESG management going against company policy? Or do these people have connections with upper management? A lot of them seem to be legacy folks from the old Symantec days.

When will ESG take care of the redundant managers?

There are still many redundant managers in ESG.
Below is the HR guide to weed out them:

1. Managers reporting into other managers at the same level.
2. Managers with less than half their direct reports in the same location.
3. Managers with fewer than 8 direct reports.
4. Managers who are remote employees themselves.

The GM of ESG should really take a hard look at the managers under the directors, since directors will always try to protect the ones they’re tight with. And keep an eye on recent org changes, because reporting lines can get shuffled around just to help certain managers dodge these criteria.

Nike has disclosed that executive compensation includes ESG metrics, which explicitly include diversity outcomes. While the company doesn’t break out the exact weighting, market norms suggest ~10%–20% of annual bonuses are tied to these factors.

Using reasonable assumptions:
• ~385 VPs globally
• VP bonus: ~$100K–$500K
• ESG/diversity weighting: ~10%–20%

Implied diversity-linked bonus per VP:
• ~$10K (low)
• ~$30K–$50K (typical)
• Up to ~$100K

Estimated total annual payout:
• Low: ~$3.9M
• Most likely: ~$12M–$18M
• High: ~$38.5M

Midpoint:
$14M Annually

Why this matters:

At the midpoint, that’s roughly $14M (and could be much more) per year in incentives aligned to these outcomes at the VP level alone.

Bottom line:
A defensible estimate is that Nike directs ~$10M–$20M annually of VP incentive compensation toward diversity-linked metrics; raising legitimate questions about how heavily these targets are weighted relative to other performance priorities.

This post uses only publicly available information, and observational analysis derived from such. Further augmented by published industry trends.

Numbers will be revealed in the first quarter of ’26.

What do you think? Let’s discuss.

My vote: Definitely yes, again.

Company probably hired an outside consultant and paid them $250K just for the name change and rebranding. Just drop TIAA & CREF from all funds for starters. Very few people even know what the acronyms mean anymore.

Good to see Colbert making this announcement. We have been wondering where he disappeared to. Curious as to the newly named Socially Responsible fund and how many companies in that fund have been sued, paid settlements, support or have government contracts that support the war machine, etc. Someone needs to call out these Social funds as putting lipstick on a pig.

———

NEW YORK, November 17, 2025 – TIAA today announced that three variable annuity accounts in its flagship $290 billion CREF Variable Annuity suite will receive new names effective November 30, 2025, to better reflect their investment strategies and align with widely recognized industry terminology. The name changes will make it easier for clients to understand each account's strategy and build balanced portfolios without accidental gaps or overlaps.
The three accounts receiving updated names are:

CREF Stock Account will become CREF Total Global Stock Account to more clearly communicate that this actively managed account invests in stocks of companies of all sizes in both U.S. and foreign companies.

CREF Equity Index Account will become *CREF S&P 500 Index** Account to more clearly align with the benchmark it follows—the S&P 500 Index.

CREF Social Choice Account will become CREF Responsible Balanced BS Account to better describe the account's focus on ESG (environmental, social and governance) and impact investing. "Balanced" was added to clarify that the account holds both equities and fixed income.

The accounts' investment strategies and management will not change. Fees and expenses will also remain the same.

"These name updates reflect our commitment to transparency and will help our clients make informed investment decisions," said Colbert Narcisse, Chief Product & Business Development officer at TIAA. "We are making it clearer how each account invests, which helps our institutional clients and participants better understand their options and build portfolios aligned with their retirement goals."

Participants who hold one or more of these accounts will begin seeing the new names on statements issued after November 30, 2025, and in their online accounts after the effective date.

BVB tried to transform Shell into something virtuous. If you believe that burning fossil fuels results in climate change, and that the global ecosystem is unable to absorb the rising CO2 levels with devastating results, then something had to change. Oil cos need to make deals with governments around the world that violate human rights. Their activities cause environmental damage everywhere they are conducted. Of course, selling Shell's "dirty" assets to someone else who will do the same things, perhaps even less ethically, improves nothing in the short term. But if that money is taken and used to chart a different path, in the long term, maybe Shell could make a difference ... even if that path necessarily leads to Shell's own extinction because green energy will become less and less profitable as it scales.
So where did BVB go wrong? First, green energy is unprofitable even in the short without subsidies. That means Shell's business must must align with political priorities that swing wildly. But Shell needed to be able to bullsh-t its investors that it had a path to profitability so it took the money. Second, green energy has technological hurdles that must be overcome or it will fail. Think batteries, wind and solar variability, and the grid collapse in Iberia. Third, Shell's chosen green energies will NEVER meet its net zero goals. They generate way more carbon, and environmental damage, than they save. Shell should have directed its efforts into other technologies that have hurdles that are likely to be solved and then would be closer to carbon neutral. Fourth, the green energy movement that Shell tried to lead, was a scam that US voters revolted against, with the EU soon to follow as their citizenry tires of their inflated energy prices and the effect on their economies. Think ESG scores and greenwashing by claiming credits for trees that you have cut down yet, and net zero promises with lots of fine print, and buying Russian oil but we're sorry you caught us, and Davos elites flying in on their private jets and then proposing things like good citizen scorekeeping (hey, the CCP is doing it, why shouldn't everyone else) and limits on meat consumption and dozens of other ways for the elite to maintain their wealth and power over the miserable plebians.
Shell aligned itself with the left, the only ones who opened their arms (not including the "stakeholders" who sued Shell in Dutch court and chased it out of the country), but the left went too far. The left that gained control (and still has control in places like GB) wanted to tear down the colonizing racist power structure and replace it with a society based on intersectionality, DEI, gender fluidity and all that entails, open borders, politically motivated extended economic shutdown (except for the politicians at their own parties), and so on. There was social backlash that resulted in political reversals and Shell lost on all of its big bets.

Enterprise Security Group (ESG) - Any layoffs?

Please share if your team has been affected.

ESG seems to be the most popular division at Broadcom. I don’t see any other division discussions here.
Quarter after quarter, shameless ESG is always below the line of doom, like a parasite hogging the host.

It seems manager have already data for December layoffs. Which will be communicated in the last week of November.

Please share if your team has been affected.

This is part of year-end layoffs round. More information will be released soon. Brush up your resume and hang on tight.

This time is a big one.

What is happening with ESG? The coffee talk does not sound promising and any one know what the road map is and how much revenue its making.

What are your thoughts on the latest ESG coffee talk? What’s our final path forward?

Why again ??????

Can somebody please confirm this?

Symantec and Carbon Black are performing badly ??