Welcome, Celine. I take cognitivism to be the view that moral judgements and ethical norms are cognitive in the sense that they can be true or false and some can be known to be true or known to be false. ('Some' is a concession to our finite cognitive capacities.)
It doesn't follow from this that 'No human concepts or actions are ethically neutral.' How could that deduction be drawn ?
Nor has cognitivism anything directly to do with consequences. Indeed, there are cognitive theories according to which we can know that some action or state of affairs is wrong regardless of its consequences. We can know, according to some such theories, that some actions are not to be done whatever the consequences.
'The values adhered to by society, the ethical maxims it follows and the rules it sticks to all reflect on the real time and situation' - maybe, though I am not clear about the meaning of the final clause. But there is no necessity for the relevant values, maxims or rules to have any cognitive status. They may be, as expressivists hold, merely expressions of emotion.
I really can't connect cognitivism with the 2008-10 mortgage crisis in any way that's plausible. This is not a criticism of you or of your question. It's the booklet's statements, which btw seem highly disconnected, that puzzle me.