ESG Emerges as Sleeper Issue in the 2024 Presidential Campaign

ESG Emerges as Sleeper Issue in the 2024 Presidential Campaign

'Environmental, social, and corporate governance, or ESG, is a model for allowing climate change and liberal social goals to be priorities often greater than, profit.'

Biden vetoed bipartisan legislation that stripped federal pension funds of ESG priorities over generating investment returns.

Republicans Quickly Responded

'“In Florida and across the nation, we’ve heard from law-abiding small business owners and consumers who’ve been denied access to financial services because of where they work or what they believe in,” DeSantis said after signing an anti-ESG bill of his own. “Through this legislation, Florida will continue to lead the nation against big banks and corporate activists who’ve colluded to inject 'woke' ideology into the global marketplace, regardless of the financial interests of beneficiaries.”'

'the Trump administration moved against ESG first, trying to keep pension plan administrators from making such offerings default options. "When investments are made to further a particular environmental or social cause, returns unsurprisingly suffer," then-Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia wrote in the Wall Street Journal at the time.'

They didn't say that they couldn't be offered, just that pension money could not be automatically placed into such funds.

'There is a broader concern about conservatives losing access to financial markets and other institutions as ideology plays a larger role in corporate governance.'

Equal access is a fundamental American Value. Please discuss.

 

I’ve been seeing stories about businesses, some of the very big businesses, risk having funding and banking problems unless they go full blown woke. We’ve already seen how credit card companies tried to stop doing business with companies who sell guns.

 

Thats what its really gonna come down to. Toe the progressive line or you don't get fed bucks.

Alternative economies are going to be the future means of resistance and rebellion.

 

Or, we break the totalitarians.

ESG Dystopia: Why Corporations Are Doubling Down On Woke Even As They Lose Billions

'It’s been a bloodbath for the majority of companies that go overtly woke in the new era of American consumer rebellion, and the establishment is not happy.'

Yeah, well...

LGB was about opening the doors so that all could fully participate in American life. TQ+ is about blowing the building up, abusing and grooming children and exploiting and mocking women.

'Corporations like Disney, Anheuser-Busch and Target are plunging in profits and losing billions in market cap after pledging fealty to the trans agenda. In particular, the public is setting out to make examples of institutions that support trans indoctrination of children. Simply put, a line in the sand has been crossed.'

'conservatives and independents have the real majority power in the US. In response, the media is claiming that this movement is a form of “economic terrorism.” That is to say, if you refuse to support the woke hive mind with your wallet, you should be considered domestic enemy. '

Yeah, well...

These bossy 'activist groups would have NO POWER whatsoever if it weren’t for the unprecedented backing they receive from governments, non-profits, think-tanks and the corporate world. And, a lot of this support has been injected through ESG-style financing as well as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs.'

'ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) is becoming a well known term and is, at bottom, a form of “impact investing” – Meaning, major lenders such as Blackrock or Carlyle Group, or think-tanks like the Ford Foundation, seek to control societal outcomes using lending as leverage. Social engineering.'

'In the past, lenders would base their financing standards on good credit scores and the likelihood of return on investment. If you had a business with a history of solid returns and worthy collateral then you would probably get whatever loans you needed. Today, however, lenders are trying to set political and ideological terms for companies seeking to obtain financing. You must signal your virtue to get access to money, and this includes supporting climate and carbon initiatives, reorganizing your labor based on diversity and inclusion rules, even promoting LGBT activism might be a big factor in your next infusion of cash.'

'The higher your ESG score, the more likely it is that you will qualify for access to debt. This is part of the reason why a large array of corporations are increasingly jumping on the “pride month” bandwagon. All they have to do is slap some rainbows on some products or commercials or publicly defend the trans grooming of children and suddenly they are golden for another year of subsidized funds.'

'But what happens in a world where consumer loyalty is no longer a guarantee and the public stops buying from chains that promote woke concepts? What happens when going woke also means going broke? Is ESG cash really worth losing half your customers or more?'

When it comes to customers, division is subtraction.

'As central banks raise interest rates and cut their balance sheets the easy money party that started back in 2008 is ending. After a decade of exponential growth ESG is now in steep decline, and this is directly tied to the policies of central banks like the Federal Reserve. In the past year it is no longer viable to dump money into mostly useless woke projects. Yet, the woke trend continues. Why?'

'Twenty years ago, the name of the game in the business world was “brand building.” If you could build your brand and gain market loyalty you could sustain your profit model for decades to come. Now, corporations are actually willing to destroy the very brands they spent so much time and money developing all in the name of political idolatry.'

 

*Sources?

Supporting evidence?

From your definition, here, it seems you Righties are on the wrong side of public opinion, yet again. All ESG means, is that there can be weight given to other issues, beside just whatever will make shareholders the greatest profit. If your thread prediction is right, and this is an issue in 2024 (which I doubt), then you will find that most people do see problems with completely amoral, solely profit- driven Capitalism. That doesn't mean that they want, or that anyone is calling for, Socialism. This is a positive development.

 

Setting aside pejoratives such as 'woke' and taking a step back from the fray, we're witness to a deeper issue. We have, at present, a regulated [not 'free market'] capitalist economy here in the United States of America. The deeper issue, as I see it, is whether this economic system exists to serve us or whether we exist to serve the economic system. There are forces pushing in both directions.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

What about "freedom"? Doesn't the GOP want investors to have "freedom" as to where they put their retirement money? If they are okay with a lower return, why not let them invest in socially-responsible companies?

On the other hand, the GOP NEVER has a problem with the "freedom" of financial managers and advisors to rip off their clients. This really shows the priorities here, this is not about protecting investors, it is about the anti-LGBQT agenda, because GOP primary voters want to wipe ANY reminder of the existence of such people, whom they deem abnormal, off the map.

 

Most retirees want to get the best returns they can on their 401k and pension fund investments. Saving up enough for your later years is hard enough without having your investments forced to serve the goals of the far left elements of the Democrat Party.

Even some Democrats see the dangers posed by this policy. They voted for the bipartisan bill that would have curbed it. The Biden puppet vetoed it, no doubt under the instructions of those who pull its strings.

 

Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. When has the GOP condoned the conduct of financial managers who ripped off their clients?

 

So anyone who gives their opinion has to have proof while your opinion can be drummed out your butthole and everyone should just accept it as gospel. Got it.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/275363-republicans-vow-to-fight-new-fiduciary-rule/

Your are welcome!

 

Unconvincing. The article never outlines what the regulations are. Are these regulations ESG? If so, then I am with the Republicans.

There is one “dog whistle” for me. When I see Elizabeth Warren mentioned, my reaction is the same as your reaction toward Trump. She is the pits. Her career started when she falsely declared herself to be a Cherokee Indian and went down from there. I have more Native American in me than she has. I would never check that box on a job application.

 

You really ought the wait for the person who you think that you're rephrasing, to confirm whether or not you've "got it" right-- because, as usual, you didn't get it. My claim was only about public opinion-- something which, barring there being any poll, asking the specific question, is understood to be a matter of opinion-- which is a very different sort of thing, than making factual assertions about businesses risking their funding, and having "banking problems unless they go full blown woke." That those two things are very different types of assertions, should be self-evident. If you are citing something that has supposedly happened, then you are not merely giving your opinion. I hope that is a simple enough explanation for you.

 

I didn’t rephrase anything. In fact, your first sentence is pretty much incomprehensible gibberish, maybe you should rephrase yourself. Lol!

The rest of your “explanation” is predicated under the false belief you didn’t make a factual assertion and therefore don’t need supporting evidence like the poster you are asking evidence from in his factual assertions.

except that you did:

You make a factual assertion and then base your opinion on it. Just like the other poster.

You know what’s better than hypocrisy? Clueless hypocrisy!

 

Protecting people from themselves. I thought that's what the party of "freedom" was against. I guessed wrong.

Unconvincing? Did the GOP vote against a fiduciary rule or not? Do you know what a fiduciary is? Here is a quote:

“Congress must act to stop this costly, complicated and potentially conflicting rule that’s unfair to millions of American families who only want the freedom to plan for financial independence and the right to shape their own destiny,”

I guess "freedom to plan for financial independence" means nothing to the GOP and authoritarians like DeSantis when it comes fighting their anti-LGBQT and anti-social responsibility agenda. Of course, you not seeing the hypocrisy is not surprising (actually, I bet you actually DO see it, but you'd never admit it).

 

Social responsibility is a profit enhancer as it appeals to consumers cognizant of environmental perils among other societal concerns.

Free enterprise must not be subjected to authoritarian mandates.

Most companies have long practiced some form of corporate social and environmental responsibility with the broad goal, simply, of contributing to the well-being of the communities and society they affect and on which they depend....​

 

USE YOUR SEARCH BAR.

USE YOUR SEARCH BAR IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION.

I see no evidence of that, and you have provided none.

"Other Issues" that the fiduciary benefit of the investor. You want to invest in something because you think it's a good cause? Use your own damn money.

If you have goal other than shareholders profit, go pursue that goal, WITH YOUR OWN MONEY.

What is a problem is commandeering OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and directing it toward YOUR political purposes.

No it isn't, it's an illegitimate taking of the property of another.

Too many People have a sick twisted compulsion to illegitimately control others, and I think the American People are getting fed up with it.

 

Wokeism is insidious and dangerous. I rank it in third place among the problems facing the nation right after federal government and China.

 

Of course. The bipartisan bill that Bribed Joe vetoed simply said that the ESG funds could not be the default choice. They were free to be offered, and folks were free to invest in them, if they desire.

You're ranting and not making a lot of sense.

LGB won the argument because it was about opening doors, fundamental fairness and ensuring that all Americans fully experience society. TQ+ is losing the argument because it's about demeaning women, exploiting girls, grooming children and even violence against women.

You sound dangerous. Those are the kind of wild insane claims that can result in an unjustified violent response to simple words and disagreement.

It's also a sign that you sense that you are losing the argument and you're angry that your illegitimate desire to illicitly control others is being frustrated.

 

The extremist New Green Deal agenda is not a good investment because they don't care about what happens to people who have saved money and played by the rules. I have an excellent investment advisor who is helping me with my stock portfolio and keeping me abreast of what is going on. Yes, my wife and I buy and sell, but there is no "churn." Last years I ended up with more in my 401k even after I took the required distribution out of it. You can't ask for better than that.

As Elizabeth Warren, she is nothing but an older AOC. I would not want her anywhere near my retirement funds. She hates people like me. She is a completely dishonest, nasty far leftist, who brings nothing positive to the table.

 

Your personal hyper-ideological opinion aside, socially-responsible Americans are doing quite well with their ethical approach to investing.

... Making socially responsible investments isn’t hard as long as you know what values you want to focus on or avoid.

For example, the sustainable investing universe of funds has grown fivefold in the past decade, according to Morningstar, which counted 534 sustainable funds as of 2021. More than 121 of those funds were newly launched that year, 48 more funds than had been launched in 2020...

Many mutual fund and ETF providers now offer SRI options, such as the Parnassus Core Equity Fund (PRBLX), which incorporates all ESG factors into its decision-making process, or the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) that invests in socially responsible companies focused on clean energy.

Some fund providers also provide exclusively SRI investments, such as Calvert Investments, which offers more than two dozen SRI funds, including both stock and bond as well as international and domestic options...

Socially responsible investors are less concerned with minimizing the financial risks of immoral business practices than they are with ensuring their investment dollars are supporting good causes—or at least avoiding the bad ones. Financial returns are secondary to doing good.

This doesn’t mean SRI can’t be both morally upstanding and profitable. In 2022, the Morningstar U.S. Sustainability Index outperformed its non-SRI parent by more than 0.6% and the S&P 500 by 0.7%. Similarly, most sustainable funds outperformed their Morningstar category indexes on a risk-adjusted return basis in 2021.

A meta-analysis by the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business of more than 1,000 research papers published between 2015 and 2020 found that among studies focused on risk-adjusted attributes, 59% found that sustainable options performed as well or better than conventional approaches while only 14% saw a negative result.

[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/sri-socially-responsible-investing/]​

 

And even worse than that, is clueless & illiterate hypocrisy. Let me try to help you; here is the beginning of what you'd quoted from me:

DEFinning said: ↑
*Sources?

Supporting evidence?

From your definition, here, it seems you Righties are on the wrong side of public opinion, yet again. All ESG means, is that there can be weight given to other issues, beside just whatever will make shareholders the greatest profit.
<End Quote>

What part of that bolded phrase, are you having trouble understanding? My explanation of ESG, had been based on the definition given in the OP.

That means, the OP was my source. Hence, your comment that I failed to provide a source, is demonstrably false-- see those bolded words (in my quote).

I had not understood that this was your meaning, from the poorly expressed thought, of your initial criticism:

Tipper101 said: ↑
So anyone who gives their opinion has to have proof while your opinion can be drummed out your butthole and everyone should just accept it as gospel. Got it.
<End Quote>

Since I did not consider my referring to the OP's definition, as my own giving of some opinion that would be in need of supporting evidence, it would naturally not occur to me (or to anyone) that this was what you were referring to, in your inadequately explained criticism. Instead, I could only assume you were referring to my claim that "Righties are on the wrong side of public opinion, yet again," because, as I later said in my initial post, "you will find that most people do see problems with completely amoral, solely profit- driven Capitalism."

Hopefully this makes my words no longer "incomprehensible gibberish," to your highly flawed perception.

On a related note, have you ever tried,
Hooked On Phonics?

 

Because customer loyalty can be coerced with enough regulations, and the people who want more LGBT stuff also want the sort of regulations that can be used to coerce market loyalty. If Bud Light and Target are the only businesses that your bank will process credit transactions with, then you either use cash, or buy Bud Light from Target. And then they'll either ban cash or inflate it to worthlessness. Probably the CBDC will be mandated as a means to fix the hyperinflation that ends up making cash worthless, and the CBDC will only work at businesses that virtue signalled 'woke' hard enough.

I intend to be brewing my own beer by then. If I have any to spare, I will happily trade it for gold, silver, beef, tobacco, coffee or ammo

 

Our Constitution empowers government to sensibly regulate our free economy.

 

Elizabeth Warren is one of the biggest liars to ever sit in Congress.