From my days as a part-time journalist during my years at University I remember one thing very well: The way you formulate the headline already implies a value judgement. So it is in this article. Asking for the sense in excluding Climate Change Data lets the reader automatically register some - however small - reaction in favor of not excluding this 'Data'. And I put it into inverted comma as data (in relation to how company accounts are affected by Climate Change) implies a false sense of precision.
Excluding the question if - and if so by how much - climate change is affected by human activity (or excessive breeding) - any effort to incorporate the data into company accounts in a meaningful way is fraught with huge problems.
Minor influences that progress literally at glacial speed (to use a pun) are hardly worth the bother. All the data collection will only provide (well-paid) jobs for a myriad of new-styled 'Climate Change Analysts' and assorted experts (such as the author of the article).
But what about major changes? Should any company report on the likely impact of sea levels rising by 3 metres or more? Or a rise in temperatures in certain region above the 40 or 45 degree mark? Making accurate predictions depend on the accuracy or inaccuracy of predictions about future changes in the Climate.
Company accounts are already a tender construct that is being abused all too often and this further complication would just make them even more liable to be distorted. Anyone with a brain should be able to form a judgement as to the risks inherent in an economic activity.
(12-June-2021)
Where's the sense in excluding climate change data from a company's accounts? (FN London, PayWall)
