Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) (2024)

Environmental, social, and corporate governance
•What is ESG? • Arguments for and against ESG • Opposition to ESG • Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter

The term environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) refers to an investment or corporate governance approach that involves considering the extent to which corporations conform to certain standards related to environmental, social, and corporate governance issues (such as net carbon emission or corporate board diversity goals) and making business and investment decisions that promote those standards.

In the context of public policy, ESG refers to the use of non-financial ESG investing criteria in the regulation and management of public funds, including public pensions.

Opponents of ESG investing argue that it reduces investment diversification (which increases portfolio risk), harms financial performance, and does not focus on the likely maximization of financial returns to investors. Supporters of ESG investing argue that in the long run, ESG investing will lead to acceptable financial returns and that corporations can and should improve communities and the environment through the adoption of ESG philosophies and approaches.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

• Socially responsible investing
• Materiality (ESG)
• Sustainability (ESG)

Reform proposals related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG). Ballotpedia has tracked:

• Six types of reform approaches that oppose ESG investing.
• Five types of reform approaches that promote ESG investing.

State legislative approaches opposing and supporting ESG investing. Ballotpedia has tracked state legislation promoting:

• All six of the reforms opposing ESG.
• All five of the reforms supporting ESG.

Arguments about ESG investing. Ballotpedia has identified:

• Six types of arguments opposing ESG and ESG investing.
• Four types of arguments supporting ESG and ESG investing.
• Two other types of arguments related to ESG and ESG investing.

Opposition to ESG and ESG investing. Ballotpedia has tracked:

• State government activity opposing ESG investing
• Federal government activity opposing ESG investing
• Intellectual and scholarly opposition to ESG and the ESG investing movement
• Notable media coverage of opposition to the ESG investing movement
• Asset management companies established in opposition to ESG and the ESG investing movement

• BlackRock
• Vivek Ramaswamy
• Stephen Soukup

Scholarly work related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG). The following is a selection of scholarly works related to ESG:

• Woke, Inc. by Vivek Ramaswamy (2021)
• The Dictatorship of Woke Capital by Stephen Soukup (2021)

Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter. Click the links below to access the most recent editions of Ballotpedia's ESG newsletter:

• Economy and Society: April 2, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 26, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 19, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 12, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 5, 2024

Background: What is ESG?

See also: Materiality (ESG)

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) is an investment philosophy that says that investors should consider how a company aligns with a set of views on climate change, social justice, and diversity, in addition to expected financial returns. The financial services company Deloitte predicts that global ESG assets under professional management will be worth $80 trillion by 2024.^[6][7][8]

ESG requires an analysis of an organization's material factors. These are elements that the ESG philosophy believes are fundamental to a company's ESG strategy.^[6] Material factors that contribute to ESG may include "environmental issues like climate change and natural resource scarcity ... social issues like labor practices, product safety, and data security [and] governance matters that include board diversity, executive pay, and tax transparency," according to the global professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.^[7] Through ESG analysis, companies aim to understand material factors in terms of risks and opportunities for their business model.^[9]

There are no standardized definitions used for ESG material factors or standardized criteria used to grade companies. Various investment firms, organizations, and finance companies produce their own ESG ratings, scores, and indexes.^[10][11]

Organizations and investors can apply ESG analysis in different ways, including but not limited to adding ESG into other financially-focused risk factors and assessments (sometimes referred to as integration), basing investment on a company’s values, and looking for social and economic effects from investment and divestment on an ethical basis.^[8]

For more information on key terms and definitions related to ESG that are important for understanding policy and reform discussions, click a term in the list below.

• Proxy voting
• Fiduciary duty
• Asset management company
• Applied business ethics
• Stakeholder model of the corporation (stakeholder capitalism)
• Shareholder model of the corporation
• Socially responsible investing
• Materiality (ESG)
• Sustainability (ESG)

Reform proposals related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

See also: Reform proposals related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

This section lists reform proposals related to ESG from state legislation, model legislation, policy white papers, and other sources.

• Sole fiduciary approaches. This approach argues that governments should require fiduciaries of public funds to only consider financial factors when executing their duties.
• Anti-boycott approaches. This approach argues that governments should prohibit public contracts with or investments in companies that intentionally discriminate against certain companies or industries.
• Social credit scoring approaches. This approach argues that governments should restrict the use of social credit scoring by banks and financial institutions.
• Consumer and investor protection approaches. This approach argues that governments should invoke or amend consumer protection and corporate liability laws to require ESG investment product transparency and make corporations responsible for failures in ESG decision-making.
• Public disclosure requirement approaches. This approach argues that additional transparency is needed surrounding the ESG policies, investments, and considerations of state boards of investment and other government agencies.
• Federal mandate opposition approaches. This approach argues that state governments should oppose certain federal mandates allowing or requiring ESG considerations, especially as they relate to state investments.

Reform proposals supporting ESG

• Non-financial criteria consideration approaches. This approach argues that governments should require public fund managers to consider ESG data and other non-financial criteria in their investment strategies.
• Industry divestment approaches. This approach argues that governments should prohibit public investments in companies in certain industries that the government or agency believes are environmentally or socially harmful. Examples of such companies include oil producers, private prison businesses, gun manufacturers, and other types of industries.
• Corporate board diversity approaches. This approach argues that governments should require companies or publicly held companies to appoint a certain number of women, people of color, and people from other underrepresented groups to corporate boards of directors.
• Corporate disclosure approaches. This approach argues that corporations should be required to disclose certain types of ESG data, such as net emissions from business operations and climate-related risk calculations, to the government.
• ESG state contract requirement approaches. This approach argues that government contracts should include ESG requirements, conditions, or other criteria or that companies should have to meet certain ESG standards as a pre-condition for doing business with the public entity.

State legislative approaches opposing and supporting ESG investing

See also: State legislative approaches opposing ESG investing and State legislative approaches supporting ESG investing

This section lists the main types of state legislative approaches that oppose or support ESG investing based on regular ESG-related legislation tracking. To view a full list of state laws and approaches supporting ESG, click here. To view a full list of state laws and approaches opposing ESG, click here. All six major types of reform proposals opposing ESG investing that Ballotpedia has tracked from policy advocacy groups have been introduced in state legislatures. Click the links below for more information on each approach:

• Sole fiduciary approaches. This type of approach requires fiduciaries of public funds to only consider financial factors when executing their duties.
• Anti-boycott approaches. This type of approach prohibits state contracts with or public investment in companies that intentionally discriminate against certain companies or industries.
• Anti-discrimination and anti-ESG-scoring approaches. This type of approach restricts the use of social credit scoring by banks and financial institutions and prohibits discrimination on the basis of ESG factors.
• Consumer and investor protection approaches. This type of approach invokes or amends consumer protection and corporate liability laws to require ESG investment product transparency and make corporations responsible for failures in ESG decision-making.
• Public disclosure requirement approaches. This type of approach requires additional transparency surrounding the policies, investments, and considerations of state boards of investment and other government agencies.
• Federal mandate opposition approaches. This approach argues that state governments should oppose certain federal mandates allowing or requiring ESG considerations, especially as they relate to state investments.

All five major types of reform proposals supporting ESG investing that Ballotpedia has tracked have been introduced in state legislatures. Click the links below for more information on each approach:

• Non-financial criteria consideration approaches. This legislative approach requires public fund managers to consider ESG data and other non-financial criteria in their investment strategies.
• Industry and country divestment approaches. This legislative approach prohibits public investments in companies in certain industries that the state government believes are environmentally or socially harmful. Examples of such companies include oil producers, private prison businesses, gun manufacturers, and other types of industries.
• Corporate board diversity approaches. This legislative approach requires companies or publicly held companies to appoint a certain number of women, people of color, and people from other underrepresented groups to corporate boards of directors.
• Corporate disclosure approaches. This type of approach requires corporations to disclose certain types of ESG data, such as net emissions from business operations and climate-related risk calculations, to the state.
• ESG state contract requirement approaches. This type of approach requires that government contracts contain ESG requirements, conditions, or other criteria.

Opposition to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing

See also: Opposition to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing

This section lists noteworthy opposition to ESG investing in state governments, the federal government, the media, think tanks, scholarly works, and the private sector. Click the links below for information about the various kinds of opposition to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) and the ESG investing movement:

• State government activity opposing ESG investing

• Gubernatorial activity against ESG investing
• State financial officer activity against ESG investing
• State administrative board activity against ESG investing
• Attorney general activity against ESG investing
• State legislative activity against ESG investing

• Noteworthy legislative activity against ESG investing
• State legislative approaches opposing ESG investing

• State government litigation

• Federal government activity opposing ESG investing
• Intellectual and scholarly opposition to ESG and the ESG investing movement

• Books
• Editorials, op-eds, and columns
• Scholarly articles
• Think tank activity

• Notable media coverage of opposition to the ESG investing movement
• Asset Management Companies established in opposition to ESG and the ESG investing movement

Arguments about ESG investing

See also: Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

This section outlines the major types of arguments for, against, and about ESG investing. In many cases, arguments about ESG drive conversations about possible public policy reforms and ways to support or oppose ESG in the political sphere.

Opponents argue that ESG investments are "designed not to maximize financial returns but to impose a leftist social and economic agenda that cannot otherwise be implemented through the ballot box."^[12] They might also argue that focusing on ESG factors has harmed rates of return for beneficiaries of state public pension plans.^[13]

Supporters of ESG investing argue that in the long run, ESG investing will lead to acceptable financial returns and that corporations should prioritize activities and goals that they think will benefit society more than business growth. They might also argue that states should invest in companies that support ESG and boycott companies that do not pursue ESG priorities.^[1][14]

To learn more about each type of argument and view claims that support each argument, click the links in the lists below.

The following arguments against ESG investing suggest it is wrong or unnecessary:

• Argument: ESG does not produce better outcomes
• Argument: ESG detracts from business and investment goals
• Argument: ESG is not good for the environment
• Argument: ESG is not democratic
• Argument: ESG is not a sufficient substitute for government action to prevent climate change
• Argument: ESG promises are empty and primarily benefit large companies, not society

The following arguments supporting ESG investing suggest it is right or necessary:

• Argument: ESG produces better outcomes
• Argument: ESG is good for the environment
• Argument: ESG commitments force businesses to go beyond profit generation and take on additional responsibilities that benefit society
• Argument: ESG is democratic

The links below feature other arguments about ESG investing:

• Argument: Defining ESG and measuring its impact is difficult
• Argument: ESG is not what people think it is

Public pension information by state

See also: State public pension plans

Although ESG is an approach to investing, it has a strong connection to public policy through the management of public funds. States manage billions of dollars of funds in many cases (especially the funds in state pension plans) and often contract with asset management companies (AMCs) to direct their investment strategy. A state that considers ESG factors in its investment approach, for example, might contract with AMCs that avoid investments in industries related to fossil fuel production or that invest only in companies that meet certain corporate board diversity standards. States that do not consider ESG factors, on the other hand, might contract with AMCs that manage investments with the goal of maximizing financial performance, regardless of industry.

This section contains a list of pages that offer data related to state pension plans, including information about contributions, payments, and investments.

Influencers and organizations related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

Several of the largest institutional asset management companies, including investment firms like BlackRock and State Street, advocate for an ESG investing approach. Other individuals and organizations, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, Stephen Soukup, and the State Financial Officers Foundation oppose ESG investing approaches.^[6][7][8]

This section lists a selection of influencers in the ESG policy space. To learn more about an influencer and their contributions to discussions related to ESG, click an organization or individual in the list below.

• R. Edward Freeman
• BlackRock
• Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)
• As You Sow
• The Great Reset (World Economic Forum)
• Free Enterprise Project
• Institutional Shareholder Services
• Vivek Ramaswamy
• Stephen Soukup
• Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative
• Climate Action 100+

Scholarly work related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

This section lists a selection of scholarly works that contain reform proposals related to or arguments about ESG. To learn more about a book or article, click the list below.

• Woke, Inc. by Vivek Ramaswamy (2021)
• The Dictatorship of Woke Capital by Stephen Soukup (2021)

Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter

Economy and Society is a free weekly email newsletter that delivers news and information about the developments in corporate activism; corporate political engagement; and the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) trends and events that characterize the growing intersection between business and politics. To subscribe, click here. To read all previous editions, please see our archive. Below are the most recent editions:

• Economy and Society: April 2, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 26, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 19, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 12, 2024
• Economy and Society: March 5, 2024

See also

• Sustainability
• Materiality
• Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
• Opposition to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing

External links

• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes