Carbon consciousness good for recruitment, says Goldman

3 April 2006

2 minute read

Carbon consciousness good for recruitment, says Goldman

Goldman Sachs has been lambasted by some of its investors for being overly interested in saving the environment. But the bank says its green credentials are worth it, partly because they're a big draw on campus.

Activist shareholders the Free Enterprise Action Fund and the National Legal and Policy Centre (NLPC) lashed out last week at Goldman's new green credentials, claiming they were not in the shareholders' interest. Last year, Goldman donated 680,000 acres of land in Chile to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). The bank is also committed to reducing its impact on the environment and to supporting laws cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

According to The Independent, chief executive Hank Paulson defended the bank's environmental policy by pointing to students' enthusiasm for the stance. He is reported as saying: "There has been a huge outswell of support from college campuses. I was at the Harvard Business School recently, and I know that this is an advantage when it comes to hiring the best and brightest."

What do you think? Would you work for Goldman because it wants to save the environment, or does the fact that it paid its average employee $500,000 last year weigh a little more heavily in your consideration? Let us know what you think.

We will add your comment below and keep it anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.

AUTHORAnonymous

Insider Comment

5 comments

An
Anonymous
17 April 2007
Oh come on....a top graduate is really going to work for Goldman's only because of their green credentials. Its not exactly likely to be top of any graduate's comparison table, even if it keeps the marketing dept busy with a 'warm and fuzzy' image to sell.
I'm sure banks are responsible for far more pollution from the Chelsea tractors and fuel guzzling Ferrari's their bankers drive, than they could ever compensate for in Chilean forests.
Reply
sa
sarah
7 April 2006
These activist investors must be aliens.
For us humans Goldman is right.
Thanks
Dr. Eno Agbor.
Reply
sa
sarah
7 April 2006
It's worth reading this and some of what Milton Friedman said in relation to CSR.
http://www.acton.org/public...
I think this is a very interesting topic. What would your reaction as an editor be if say Barclays stopped all its charitable work and no longer allowed employees paid time off to pursue charitable work. What would shareholders say? Do institutions agree with Free Enterprise Action Fund (take a look at its site)? Would charities be up in arms? Would reputation be harmed?
Cheers
Reply
sa
sarah
7 April 2006
"What do you think? Would you work for Goldman because it wants to save the environment, or does the fact that it paid its average employee $500,000 last year weigh a little more heavily in your consideration?"
The fact that Goldman is taking this stance gives them tremendous credibility. It is reputation enhancing. Today's best and brightest want money, sure, but I guess they want to feel good about the company they work for, too, while earning their big bucks.
What other institution is big and bold enough to make a similar stance and enhance its reputation in such a way. Goldman makes no bones about the fact that this is driven by self-interest. The company deserves to be applauded for doing something positive.
Reply
sa
sarah
7 April 2006
Oh come on....a top graduate is really going to work for Goldman's only because of their green credentials. Its not exactly likely to be top of any graduate's comparison table, even if it keeps the marketing dept busy with a 'warm and fuzzy' image to sell.
I'm sure banks are responsible for far more pollution from the Chelsea tractors and fuel guzzling Ferrari's their bankers drive, than they could ever compensate for in Chilean forests.
Reply