That stands for environmental, social and governance, factors used by credit rating firms and big-time investors to assess the risk attached to corporate and government bonds.
It’s complicated and, at the high-finance level, unavoidably subjective. But investors in corporate or government debt might reasonably want to know all they can about the issuer of that debt. Not only how it is doing now but also how its prospects might be affected by environmental changes , social dynamics or governance . That includes both the effects the company or government has on the world and the impact the world has on the issuer of the debt.
What Oaks fails to note is if that is the way the market - pushed by government - is moving, it would be financial malpractice for S&P not to figure that into its ratings.
Utah prides itself - a lot - on being the best managed state in the country. But, Repub leaders must be gun-shy about being evaluated environmentally and socially (think GSL/water conservation and being ranked last in country in gender equality). Understandable nervousness.