CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites


A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.


An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.


The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.


Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Don’t call it a “comeback”… please. If you’ve been around sustainability, CSR and ESG long enough, you remember the days of what I call “garbage economics” – claims of outsized business value of company sustainability/ESG initiatives using bad/weak assumptions, misinterpretations of data or flat out misinformation (I touched on this last week). Practitioners inappropriately inflated the ROI on program expenses and economically justified their existence. The thing is, executives are smart and saw through it all pretty quickly, resulting in a widespread (and decades-long) mistrust of sustainability professionals and their attempts at quantifying business value.

On a positive note, garbage economics in sustainability/ESG seemed to have faded away recently. Not entirely, but quite a bit – and I have been encouraged by that change. Unfortunately, it still persists in some areas according to London Business School Professor of Finance and widely-respected ESG academic Alex Edmans. Concerning BlackRock’s widely referenced study, ‘Lifting Financial Performance By Investing in Women‘, earlier this month he penned

“… a review to help readers understand what they can take away from the study. Unfortunately, the answer is: almost nothing. The study makes fundamental errors, such as using dubious measures of financial performance (and switching between them, perhaps cherry-picking the ones that work), using dubious measures of gender diversity (and switching between them), and omitting basic controls.” 

He then goes on to detail his critique of the study’s methodology, data, inferences and conclusions, ending with his view that there is:

“… danger in taking research at face value, particularly if it claims a conclusion we want to be true and our confirmation bias is at play. Newspapers should not write about a study without scrutinising it first (or asking the opinion of experts in research), otherwise they spread misinformation. I previously wrote a simple guide that readers can use to discern whether a study is reliable before writing about it or sharing it.”

There is much truth to his concerns and they extend to practitioners and advisors. It can be challenging to make time to thoroughly read and give careful consideration to ESG reports, studies and articles, but it is important. At the very least, ask an experienced and trusted ESG advisor about information you are interested in to make sure it are worth relying on. We also review, vet and critique ESG publications for our readers and members. Let’s not go back to the time of garbage.

If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here: for daily updates delivered right to you.

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Lawrence Heim has been practicing in the field of ESG management for almost 40 years. He began his career as a legal assistant in the Environmental Practice of Vinson & Elkins working for a partner who is nationally recognized and an adjunct professor of environmental law at the University of Texas Law School. He moved into technical environmental consulting with ENSR Consulting & Engineering at the height of environmental regulatory development, working across a range of disciplines. He was one… View Profile