How do companies' Bitcoin (or other proof-of-work cryptocurrencies) holdings impact their ESG ratings?

When I land on the Morningstar page for a fund, for example Legal & General Future World Climate Change Equity Factors Index Fund, or a Blackrock iShares ETF page, for example iShares MSCI World, in both cases there is a big chunk of "sustainability" information, some of it relevant to climate-change and carbon footprint. (UK links, because those are where I am and what I’m typically looking at. I’ve not tagged this united-kingdom though, because I guess similar information is presented elsewhere.)

My question is: have any of the organizations involved in the preparation of these metrics said anything about how they will account for the carbon footprint of companies like Tesla, Microstrategy, GBTC, Ruffer Investment Company and so on which are holding Bitcoin in their corporate treasuries?

On the one hand, I could understand an argument that since all the energy intensive "mining" activity is done elsewhere by other companies, there’s "nothing to see here". On the other hand, proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are so energy intensive that it would seem to discredit climate-focussed ESG metrics if companies becoming increasingly involved in trading and holding its tokens are given a "free pass" on climate/carbon-related scores. So I’m curious if the various organizations involved in ESG scoring and screening have said anything about how they propose to handle the apparent conflict between proof-of-work cryptos and climate-oriented ESG scoring.