Five Falsehoods About The Anti-ESG Movement

Authored by Stefan Padfield via RealClearMarkets.com,

Proponents of ESG (environmental, social, and governance factors used in corporate decision-making) argue they are merely improving long-term decision-making.

Meanwhile, critics argue that ESG is in practice a Trojan horse for leftist agendas.

However, rather than debating critics, ESG proponents frequently resort to false narratives and ad hominem attacks.

The newly elected Trump administration should not be misled by these lies.

For example, this past July, an article titled Anti-ESG Proposals Surged in 2024 But Earned Less Support  attacked shareholder proposals critical of ESG, including many from my employer.

What follows are responses to five misrepresentations about the anti-ESG movement contained in that piece, which was authored by Heidi Welsh.

False Claim #1: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Motivated by Animus Toward LGBTQ People

Welsh claims that “LGBTQ antipathy” and “a strong animus against LGBTQ people cropped up” in our proposals. These are lies that may constitute actionable defamation because our concerns are not only legitimate, but pro-child.

For example, the Trevor Project still states the following on its website despite the underlying supporting research having been effectively debunked: “Medical affirming care can include [1] treatments that postpone physical changes [i.e. puberty blockers] as well as [2] treatments that lead to changes that would affirm one’s gender identity [i.e. surgery]” (citing WPATH, 2012).

Approaching this from another perspective, consider the following:

·        Is it loving to sow the seeds of gender dysphoria in young children by pushing on them the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body?

·        Is it loving to push on young children, at a time when they are highly vulnerable to suggestion, the idea that if they are anxious about their gender identity, then they should take puberty blockers or undergo life-altering sex-change surgery?

·        Is it loving to push these ideas on children behind the backs of their parents?

·        Is it loving to do these things when the alleged consensus around this “gender affirming care” is quite predictably crumbling before our very eyes?

One can quite reasonably — and without any “animus” — answer “no” to all these questions.

False Claim #2: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Waging a Racist and Bigoted War Against Value-Enhancing DEI

Welsh argues that: “The anti-ESG proposals continued to focus largely on disrupting the current business world consensus that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) improves companies and benefits investors.” One of the problems here is that this purported consensus is largely based on debunked research. As the National Center for Public Policy Research noted in a recent report: “The primary sources typically cited for the claim that the business case for diversity has been proven are a series of studies by corporate consultant McKinsey & Company, but these studies suffer from two glaring flaws: data mining and causation errors.” Furthermore, “consider that in approving a diversity-related rule for Nasdaq, the SEC was unable to make that [business case for diversity] claim after considering all the relevant studies.”

Yet, none of this stops DEI proponents from calling critics bigots. In fact, I recently engaged a self-described “Workplace Inclusion Expert” on LinkedIn who took merely two replies to assert: “saying you’re anti-DEI is the same as saying you’re anti anyone who’s not a straight, white male.”

This recourse to debunked studies and ad hominem attacks suggests DEI has a totalitarian underbelly that pushes an unfalsifiable, divisive narrative with the zeal of fanatical religious adherents.

False Claim #3: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Waging an Anti-Science War Against the Climate Science Consensus

On the issue of corporate initiatives purported to address climate change, Welsh wrote:

The key idea expressed in the recent uptick [in anti-ESG proposals] is that efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions are too expensive, likely futile, and based on questionable science. This view flies in the face of widespread scientific and investor consensus that climate change poses the most disruptive set of risks and opportunities we have ever faced.

This is essentially a non-sequitur. Even assuming that “climate change poses the most disruptive set of risks and opportunities we have ever faced,” it does not follow that all corporate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions are (1) cost-effective, (2) actually address the stated problem, or (3) are based on sound science. Evidence abounds that the rush to “do something” has led corporations to undermine their profitability without any legitimately offsetting climate benefit (see, e.g., here and here).

False Claim #4: The “Anti-ESG” Movement Encourages Hate Speech and Misinformation

It is interesting to note that Welsh views proposals designed to rein in biased and abusive applications of “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies as “anti-ESG.” If being concerned about the weaponization of “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies is anti-ESG, then perhaps concerns about ESG being a Trojan horse for totalitarian control of society by leftists aren’t so far-fetched. Given that simply asking “What is a woman?” has been deemed “hate speech,” it is reasonable to conclude there are risks of weaponizing “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies against conservatives. 

False Claim #5: The “Anti-ESG” Movement Undermines Philanthropy

Welsh lists proposals questioning charitable donations and political contributions as “anti-ESG.” However, if shareholders ask a corporation to review whether it is donating to any organizations that promote sex change surgeries for minors, given the reputational risks involved, one might be forgiven for wondering why that would be deemed “anti-ESG.” In the past, we’ve been told that ESG is simply a non-partisan method for improving information gathering, but to call such proposals “anti-ESG” exposes yet again the thinly veiled radical leftist agenda behind the acronym.

When the inevitable time comes for the new Trump administration to get its hands dirty unwinding the ESG-industrial complex, there will be no shortage of lies spouted in defense of ESG. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize of free markets undistorted by the forced imposition of ESG agendas.