Social-Political Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Council for Inclusive Capitalism - III
Standardized Metrics & Environment Reporting
The socialist background and ecumenical foundations of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism (CIC), the new self-appointed and Vatican-blessed overseer of the global economy, has already been examined (here and here). This new organization, led by Lynn Rothschild and endorsed by Pope Francis, appears to be an instrument to influence businesses corporations across the world to adopt a Global Socialism re-baptized as “Inclusive Capitalism.”
It aims to do this through rewards and threats – promising companies profitable returns if they submit, and threatening disastrous financial losses if they refuse.
In this article, I will look at Stakeholder Capitalism and how the CIC is pushing for global standardized metrics.
Stakeholder Capitalism: Dictatorship of an ESG oligarchy
The CIC pushes for something that has been called Stakeholder Capitalism. This is a Capitalist system in which “stakeholders” – vaguely identified as employees, owners, all members of the supply chain, communities and societies at large – will control a company’s decision-making. It is a system quite similar to the Self-Management Socialism proposed by Miterrand in 1981.
It differs from State Capitalism [Communism and Nazism], as well as from the conventional Capitalism that we know, which is the shareholder Capitalism. (See here and here)
In a critique of Stakeholder Capitalism, University of Notre Dame Prof. Mark Hornshaw in Australia pointed out the flaws inherent in this new system, showing its similarities to Fascism:
“Socialism means the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favor of mythical ‘collective ownership,’ but the brutal reality is that it is a system of forceful centralized control...
"In the same vein, ‘For Fascism the state is absolute, individuals and corporations [are] relative’ said Mussolini. Either way, the holders of centralized power, by controlling production, control your life. They become the solitary ‘stakeholder’ in all decisions involving material resources...
"A system that replaces the goals of true stakeholders with the iron will of ruling elites, which retains nominal private ownership, but uses government force to pressure firms to serve centrally determined goals, looks and smells an awful lot like economic Fascism.”
Interestingly, it is said that transhumanist-globalist Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, was among the first to coin the term Stakeholder Capitalism, laid out in his 1973 Davos Manifesto, here. He even wrote a book promoting this concept, here.
Standardized metrics
Stakeholder Capitalism is presented as the ultimate democratic economic system, where “equity” and “justice” are at the center of business, blurring the lines between economy and philanthropy. But the question arises: Who defines what is “good” for society and the best practices for companies?
In recent years, like an octopus’ tentacles rising from a murky ocean, companies across the world have mysteriously begun “aligning” under standardized metrics (aka Stakeholder Capitalism metrics – SCM), which are widely used to measure a company’s adherence to norms established by an globalist economic oligarchy as being “good” for society.
It is important to note that this new “alignment” is not a spontaneous occurrence; it could only be achieved through the leadership of the Secret Forces, who have been fighting for the last 500 years to destroy Christendom and create a New World Order. This alignment to standardized metrics has been called convergent stakeholder theory.
Groups promoting these metrics include: the United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its International Business Council (IBC), the International Sustainability Board, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the global B Lab group. Since the CIC has focused much attention on this last group (B-Lab), we will look at it in more detail later on.
In a video seminar the CIC invited Emily Bayley, Head of ESG, Private Sector at the World Economic Forum (ESG stands for environmental, social, governance), to speak. She stated the WEF’s goal on implementing Inclusive Capitalism: “We’re still working to see how we can equip what will be a new international body that will hopefully start to set the ESG reporting standards as we’ve done with financial accounting standards across the world.” (13:30 mark)
What is ESG reporting? The new standardized metrics involve measuring a company’s ESG compliance. This means companies are expected to comply with new environmental standards (reducing carbon emissions, using recycled materials, etc.), social standards (promoting “marginalized” groups: LGBT, BLM, illegal immigrants & feminism), and governance standards (co-ownership, or employee ownership of companies). The metrics of this last area – governance – fall perfectly in line with self-managing Socialism, which was stated in the USSR’s Constitution as the final end of Communism (see last paragraph & footnote five here).
At the 33:01 mark in the same video, Joseph Goodwin, Strategy & Public Policy Executive at Bank of America, reveals one of the CIC’s main raisons d’être: “One of the great consequences and perhaps one of the ultimate goals of our efforts is that we’re really helping to drive towards global convergence, simplification and standardization of non-financial reporting ...
"Common metrics create a consistent way of measuring companies’ long-term value across industry, and this in turn helps direct investment towards the high performer and align capital to those who are progressing the SDGs [the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.”
Carrot & stick maneuvers
Like herding cattle to a common feeding trough, Goodwin gives threats and promises to companies to force them accept these norms. He reasons:
1) There is no escaping this new set of norms: “We knew regulation in the non-financial reporting space was coming.” (35:50 mark) ”Just because rules are coming, doesn’t mean we should slow down and stop.” (42:15 mark)
2) If companies submit, they will have a voice in setting the regulations, an illusory carrot-and-stick maneuver: “The more that companies can get ahead of it and work with investors and all stakeholders to curate the metrics that best serve as proxies for the SDGs, the more influence we can have over the regulation as it is being promulgated. (42:15 mark)
3) Companies will see financial rewards if they comply; if not, they will fail: “On the positive side, research shows that companies that focus on ESG priorities are much less likely to fail [financially] than companies that do not ... Those companies that actually adopt ESG disclosure strategies and follow through on it actually outperform those that just sort of talk the talk without walking the walk.” (34:45 here)
Predicted by our Vatican II Collection
As Mr. Atila Guimarães noted in Volume V: Animus Delendi II (pp. 136-138), this new international order was being prepared and clamored for by Conciliar Popes and other progressivists to combat and subvert Western Capitalism, which they call “structures of sin” (see more on that here, here and here). In particular, John Paul II pushed for this new international order in his Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis. (1)
Thus, Pope Francis’ post-communist CIC initiative is not a new phenomenon. Conciliar Popes – John XXIII (2) , Paul VI, John Paul II and especially Benedict XVI – have pushed for this new global socialist economic order, which they see as an imperative goal for Progressivism to reach. Catholics should resist this novelty, which contradicts the social teaching of the Church and implements the same Communism that Our Lady of Fatima warned us about, only on a global scale.
To be continued
It aims to do this through rewards and threats – promising companies profitable returns if they submit, and threatening disastrous financial losses if they refuse.
In this article, I will look at Stakeholder Capitalism and how the CIC is pushing for global standardized metrics.
Stakeholder Capitalism: Dictatorship of an ESG oligarchy
The CIC pushes for something that has been called Stakeholder Capitalism. This is a Capitalist system in which “stakeholders” – vaguely identified as employees, owners, all members of the supply chain, communities and societies at large – will control a company’s decision-making. It is a system quite similar to the Self-Management Socialism proposed by Miterrand in 1981.
It differs from State Capitalism [Communism and Nazism], as well as from the conventional Capitalism that we know, which is the shareholder Capitalism. (See here and here)
Prof. Mark Hornshaw
“Socialism means the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favor of mythical ‘collective ownership,’ but the brutal reality is that it is a system of forceful centralized control...
"In the same vein, ‘For Fascism the state is absolute, individuals and corporations [are] relative’ said Mussolini. Either way, the holders of centralized power, by controlling production, control your life. They become the solitary ‘stakeholder’ in all decisions involving material resources...
"A system that replaces the goals of true stakeholders with the iron will of ruling elites, which retains nominal private ownership, but uses government force to pressure firms to serve centrally determined goals, looks and smells an awful lot like economic Fascism.”
Interestingly, it is said that transhumanist-globalist Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, was among the first to coin the term Stakeholder Capitalism, laid out in his 1973 Davos Manifesto, here. He even wrote a book promoting this concept, here.
Standardized metrics
Stakeholder Capitalism is presented as the ultimate democratic economic system, where “equity” and “justice” are at the center of business, blurring the lines between economy and philanthropy. But the question arises: Who defines what is “good” for society and the best practices for companies?
In recent years, like an octopus’ tentacles rising from a murky ocean, companies across the world have mysteriously begun “aligning” under standardized metrics (aka Stakeholder Capitalism metrics – SCM), which are widely used to measure a company’s adherence to norms established by an globalist economic oligarchy as being “good” for society.
It is important to note that this new “alignment” is not a spontaneous occurrence; it could only be achieved through the leadership of the Secret Forces, who have been fighting for the last 500 years to destroy Christendom and create a New World Order. This alignment to standardized metrics has been called convergent stakeholder theory.
Groups promoting these metrics include: the United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its International Business Council (IBC), the International Sustainability Board, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the global B Lab group. Since the CIC has focused much attention on this last group (B-Lab), we will look at it in more detail later on.
Emily Bayley
What is ESG reporting? The new standardized metrics involve measuring a company’s ESG compliance. This means companies are expected to comply with new environmental standards (reducing carbon emissions, using recycled materials, etc.), social standards (promoting “marginalized” groups: LGBT, BLM, illegal immigrants & feminism), and governance standards (co-ownership, or employee ownership of companies). The metrics of this last area – governance – fall perfectly in line with self-managing Socialism, which was stated in the USSR’s Constitution as the final end of Communism (see last paragraph & footnote five here).
At the 33:01 mark in the same video, Joseph Goodwin, Strategy & Public Policy Executive at Bank of America, reveals one of the CIC’s main raisons d’être: “One of the great consequences and perhaps one of the ultimate goals of our efforts is that we’re really helping to drive towards global convergence, simplification and standardization of non-financial reporting ...
"Common metrics create a consistent way of measuring companies’ long-term value across industry, and this in turn helps direct investment towards the high performer and align capital to those who are progressing the SDGs [the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.”
Carrot & stick maneuvers
Like herding cattle to a common feeding trough, Goodwin gives threats and promises to companies to force them accept these norms. He reasons:
1) There is no escaping this new set of norms: “We knew regulation in the non-financial reporting space was coming.” (35:50 mark) ”Just because rules are coming, doesn’t mean we should slow down and stop.” (42:15 mark)
3) Companies will see financial rewards if they comply; if not, they will fail: “On the positive side, research shows that companies that focus on ESG priorities are much less likely to fail [financially] than companies that do not ... Those companies that actually adopt ESG disclosure strategies and follow through on it actually outperform those that just sort of talk the talk without walking the walk.” (34:45 here)
Predicted by our Vatican II Collection
As Mr. Atila Guimarães noted in Volume V: Animus Delendi II (pp. 136-138), this new international order was being prepared and clamored for by Conciliar Popes and other progressivists to combat and subvert Western Capitalism, which they call “structures of sin” (see more on that here, here and here). In particular, John Paul II pushed for this new international order in his Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis. (1)
Thus, Pope Francis’ post-communist CIC initiative is not a new phenomenon. Conciliar Popes – John XXIII (2) , Paul VI, John Paul II and especially Benedict XVI – have pushed for this new global socialist economic order, which they see as an imperative goal for Progressivism to reach. Catholics should resist this novelty, which contradicts the social teaching of the Church and implements the same Communism that Our Lady of Fatima warned us about, only on a global scale.
- Some excerpts of Sollicitudo rei socialis follow:
• “In fact, if the social question has acquired a worldwide dimension, this is because the demand for justice can only be satisfied on that level." (Section 10, paragraph 2)
• "The great international organizations, and a number of the regional organizations, contribute to this [world peace] in no small measure. Their united efforts make possible more effective action.” (Section 26, paragraph 9)
• “Thus it should be obvious that development either becomes shared in common by every part of the world or it undergoes a process of regression even in zones marked by constant progress. This tells us a great deal about the nature of authentic development: either all the nations of the world participate, or it will not be true development.” (Section 17, paragraph 1)
• “A real international system may be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality of all peoples.” (Section 39, paragraph 4)
• “Solidarity therefore must play its part in the realization of this divine plan, both on the level of individuals and on the level of national and international society.” (Section 40, paragraph 3)
• “None of what has been said can be achieved without the collaboration of all - especially the international community - in the framework of a solidarity which includes everyone, beginning with the most neglected.” (Section 45, paragraph 1) - In his Mater et Magistra, John XXIII advocated for international cooperation in this regard, saying: “In isolation from the rest of the world, they [individual nations] are quite incapable of finding an adequate solution to their major problems. The nations, therefore, must work with each other for their mutual development and perfection... That is why international understanding and co-operation are so necessary.” (Section 202)
Pope John XXIII advocated a “new order” based on a “more balanced human relationship” on a “national and international level.” (Section 212) He also seems to have left an open door to self-managing socialism and the violent socialist-agrarian reforms that occurred in post-conciliar Latin America, through these statements:
• “It is especially desirable today that workers gradually come to share in the ownership of their company;” (Section 77)
• “Justice is to be observed not only in the distribution of wealth, but also in regard to the conditions in which men are engaged in producing this wealth.” (Section 82)
• “Now, if ever, is the time to insist on a more widespread distribution of property, in view of the rapid economic development of an increasing number of States. It will not be difficult for the body politic… to pursue an economic and social policy which facilitates the widest possible distribution of private property in terms of durable consumer goods, houses, land, tools and equipment, and shares in medium and large business concerns.” (Section 115)
To be continued
Posted January 9, 2023
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |