Check #1: "Companies spend 43% more on sustainability reporting than sustainability innovation?"

A few days ago I was called out. My inflationary use of the term ???? got me the apparently well-deserved nickname Mr. ????. My second over the past 12 months. ?????? came first, but ok, I guess I deserve them both.

So, what was it all about? Well, this statement literally screamed for attention bullying its way into my LinkedIn feed over and over again:

Spending on sustainability reporting exceeds spending on sustainability innovation by 43%.

My ????-Bingo alarm bells were deafening. While I may have argued with arguments first, I increasingly resorted to a more time efficient "This is ????". I got the sense that people desperately searching to expand their reach on social media with simplistic statements used and abused this statement over and over again. Easier to copy-paste ???? and collect likes for something everyone seems to agree with in this hectic and restless world than to dig deeper.

Before we go through a thorough analysis of whether the statement is ???? or not, I need to figure out what the term ???? actually means. Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:

a rude word for complete nonsense or something that is not true.

Ups, sorry, so it is indeed rude a rude word out of place in civilised conversations. But I will stick to my ??s and keep calling it ????.

???? would also do, but then again it seems bullshitology seems a new field of research. Searching for ???? on Google Scholar yields an impressive 123.000 results. Is ???? scientifically accepted? Perhaps so and not just as a field of study, but science itself appears to increasingly turn ????. In medicine I guess you can call it clinical ????. But hold on, ???? in science (also caused by conflicts of interests) is for another day.

So, we now have well established that ???? is all around us and that it is a commonly used term in scientific literature. Besides the fact that the word appears rude, I somehow need to find a reliable way to confirm whether using ???? is an appropriate term or not.

So, I asked ChatGPT "How can I detect whether a statement is bullshit?" It came up with 8 categories that would blow apart the scope of such an article. So I asked "Can you summarize this into only the most important questions to ask?" on top. Here we go:

?Is the statement clear and specific?

?Does it provide credible evidence or verifiable facts?

?Is the reasoning logical, without contradictions or fallacies?

?What is the speaker's intent—are they more focused on truth or persuasion?

?Does the statement rely more on emotional appeal than substance?

?Can I verify it with reliable, independent sources?

Let's go through it one by one...

Is the statement clear and specific?

Yes, I guess so. At least on the face of it. Although then again what is even meant by the terms "sustainability reporting", which should in fact be termed ESG reporting, and "sustainability innovation"? The study is based on a survey of 5,000 C-suite executives and to be able to say that sustainability reporting is 43% more expensive than sustainability innovation you would have to agree on a definition for both, right? Was this included in the survey? Both terms can be ambigious and I suppose if you ask 10 different people in any given firm they might come with 10 different figures on how to count the expenses for sustainability reporting (only staff writing the report or also assurance, reporting infrastructure...) and sustainability innovation (pffff...). Or are there universally used datapoints for either in the IFRS financial reporting standards? I doubt it. At least in the report I see no definition for either term. So, this is a clear fail.

Result: ?

Does it provide credible evidence or verifiable facts?

Well, it is based on a survey of C-suite executives, who may or may not know all relevant figures. IBM hasn't disclosed the actual answers provided, so I only see a claim and no evidence.

Result: ?

Is the reasoning logical, without contradictions or fallacies?

I mean if C-suite executives say something, then they are right. Largely old white man rule the world for a reason. They are smarter than everyone else. Plus, I presume they weren't being asked to compare. IBM did this comparison for them. I don't see a problem here.

Result: ?

What is the speaker's intent—are they more focused on truth or persuasion?

Here we are not talking about a speaker, but IBM as a business. Since IBM is a profit-driven enterprise I would argue that they publish these studies first and foremost also with a profit-driven motive in mind. In this case to sell its AI solutions. Well, IBM is a datadriven enterprise, so I guess they like facts and figures and the almighty truth rather than opinionated persuasion. Yet, Lord behold, the entire study is based on a survey. Can't make up my mind on this one.

Result: ????♂?

Does the statement rely more on emotional appeal than substance?

It is a factual statement based on questionnable data. The real question is why one should compare reporting and innovation in the first place. Why not compare sustainability reporting to financial reporting? Would make more sense, right? Since "innovation" is a term associated with heaven and everything that is good, while reporting is hell on earth and a bureaucratic nightmare, I would argue that IBM plays with emotions rather than substance. Not so cool for a data-driven firm. Perhaps the laptops ran a bit hot. Need to check your cooling system.

Result: ?

Can I verify it with reliable, independent sources?

No. IBM only summarizes the results of the survey without providing the evidence that would enable the reader to dive deeper into the data hive that the survey yielded.

Result: ?

Results of bullshit test #1

IBM clearly fails. 4 ? vs. 1 ????♂? vs. 1 ?. So, thanks to ChatGPT I could prove that the statement "Companies spend 43% more on sustainability reporting than sustainability innovation?" is indeed ????.

P.S.: The scope of analysis was not the entire report, but only this single statement that the authors decided to put right at the top. Whether the statement is taken out of context or not by social media users is not for me to judge. What matters is that it is what get's seen. If you want to dive deeper into what IBM says, voila: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/9GOGKOGZ. Rather than make sustainability reporting, which in fact is only ESG reporting, sound too expensive, IBM actually tried to explain that there is a gap between identifying issues in reporting and doing something about it (although this should clearly not just be limited to innovation).

P.P.S.: I also asked ChatGPT whether it is ok to call a statement bullshit if it clearly is bullshit? But that's for later...