Business
Myth-busting will help accelerate ESG retreat
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
In recent years the ESG movement, which holds that corporate managers and investors should consider environmental, social and governance issues to benefit various “stakeholders”—in contrast to the more conventional view that the responsibility of business is to increase its profits for the benefit of its shareholders—has gathered force. Despite considerable evidence of ESG retrenching, it remains in wide currency. However, many points made in its favour are not supported by evidence. It’s important to separate myths from reality.
The Fraser Institute’s ESG essay series is a good resource. In one essay, Steven Globerman reviews the research on ESG scores and investor returns and finds that the claim made by many ESG promoters—that companies with higher ESG scores produce higher investor returns—lacks supporting evidence.
In another essay, 2013 Economics Nobelist Eugene F. Fama notes that competitive market forces better address corporate governance issues than externally imposed top-down structures. Many environmental and social problems too are better handled by bottom-up market forces than top-down initiatives, particularly from government.
Additional essays refute other ESG fallacies including that the ESG movement is the result of widespread demand from individual investors, consumers and workers (in fact, it’s primarily a top-down initiative of elites including government); that regulation-imposed ESG mandates improve corporate governance (they actually make it worse); and that business profit-maximization is harmful to stakeholders other than shareholders (in reality, businesses focusing on profits is generally good for their consumers, employees and suppliers). The entire series is worth reading.
Also worth reading is an article in the Financial Analysts Journal by Alex Edmans, a professor of finance at London Business School, which identifies and refutes 10 common ESG myths including the myth that a focus on shareholder value is harmful because maximizing shareholder value promotes an inefficient focus by management on short-term profit maximization. As Edmans explains, “Finance 101 teaches us that shareholder value is an inherently long-term concept. It is the present value of all future cash flows, from now until the end of time.”
To the extent that financial markets are efficient, expected future profits and losses are reflected in company share prices today, so even if corporate managers care only about today’s stock price, they will still try to maximize long-term value.
Edmans also takes aim at the claim that ESG stocks earn higher returns, again appealing to Finance 10. If ESG actually enhances a company’s shareholder value and this is known, it will be reflected in today’s stock price, so investors who buy the stock shouldn’t expect superior returns. “Feel-good” stocks should actually be expected to generate lower returns because if investors like holding certain stocks for non-financial reasons and dislike holding others, they’ll demand higher returns on the disfavoured stocks than the feel-good ones.
Various other myths include that “more ESG is always better” (in fact, ESG “exhibits diminishing returns and trade-offs exist,” Edmans writes) and that people improve ESG performance by paying for it (if people pay for improvements in some areas, it will cause companies to underweight other ESG dimensions). The final myth often promoted by ESG advocates and refuted in Edmans’s article is that regulation is justified because the market is imperfect. The blindingly obvious counterpoint—government is also imperfect.
ESG may be popular, but careful reading on the topic reveals that many points made in its favour are not supported by evidence. That may be one reason the ESG tide, at least in some places, is retreating.
Author:
From the Fraser Institute
Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…
For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.
It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.
Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.
Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.
A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.
Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.
The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.
Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.
Author:
From Heartland Daily News
By Paul Mueller
The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework allows a small group of corporate executives, financiers, government officials, and other elites, the ESG “puppeteers,” to force everyone to serve their interests. The policies they want to impose on society — renewable energy mandates, DEI programs, restricting emissions, or costly regulatory and compliance disclosures — increase everyone’s cost of living. But the puppeteers do not worry about that since they stand to gain financially from the “climate transition.”
Consider Mark Carney. After a successful career on Wall Street, he was a governor at two different central banks. Now he serves as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance for the United Nations, which means it is his job to persuade, cajole, or bully large financial institutions to sign onto the net-zero agenda.
But Carney also has a position at one of the biggest investment firms pushing the energy transition agenda: Brookfield Asset Management. He has little reason to be concerned about the unintended consequences of his climate agenda, such as higher energy and food prices. Nor will he feel the burden his agenda imposes on hundreds of millions of people around the world.
And he is certainly not the only one. Al Gore, John Kerry, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, and thousands of other leaders on ESG and climate activism will weather higher prices just fine. There would be little to object to if these folks merely invested their own resources, and the resources of voluntary investors, in their climate agenda projects. But instead, they use other people’s resources, usually without their knowledge or consent, to advance their personal goals.
Even worse, they regularly use government coercion to push their agenda, which — incidentally? — redounds to their economic benefit. Brookfield Asset Management, where Mark Carney runs his own $5 billion climate fund, invests in renewable energy and climate transition projects, the demand for which is largely driven by government mandates.
For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures has long advocated “Renewable Portfolio Standards” that require state utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. The Clean Energy States Alliance tracks which states have committed to moving to 100 percent renewable energy, currently 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. And then there are thousands of “State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.”
Behemoth hedge fund and asset manager BlackRock announced that it is acquiring a large infrastructure company, as a chance to participate in climate transition and benefit its clients financially. BlackRock leadership expects government-fueled demand for their projects, and billions of taxpayer dollars to fund the infrastructure necessary for the “climate transition.”
CEO Larry Fink has admitted, “We believe the expansion of both physical and digital infrastructure will continue to accelerate, as governments prioritize self-sufficiency and security through increased domestic industrial capacity, energy independence, and onshoring or near-shoring of critical sectors. Policymakers are only just beginning to implement once-in-a-generation financial incentives for new infrastructure technologies and projects.” [Emphasis added.]
Carney, Fink, and other climate financiers are not capitalists. They are corporatists who think the government should direct private industry. They want to work with government officials to benefit themselves and hamstring their competition. Capitalists engage in private voluntary association and exchange. They compete with other capitalists in the marketplace for consumer dollars. Success or failure falls squarely on their shoulders and the shoulders of their investors. They are subject to the desires of consumers and are rewarded for making their customers’ lives better.
Corporatists, on the other hand, are like puppeteers. Their donations influence government officials, and, in return, their funding comes out of coerced tax dollars, not voluntary exchange. Their success arises not from improving customers’ lives, but from manipulating the system. They put on a show of creating value rather than really creating value for people. In corporatism, the “public” goals of corporations matter more than the wellbeing of citizens.
But the corporatist ESG advocates are facing serious backlash too. The Texas Permanent School Fund withdrew $8.5 billion from Blackrock last week. They join almost a dozen state pensions that have withdrawn money from Blackrock management over the past few years. And last week Alabama passed legislation defunding public DEI programs. They follow in the footsteps of Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, and others.
State attorneys general have been applying significant pressure on companies that signed on to the “net zero” pledges championed by Carney, Fink, and other ESG advocates. JPMorgan and State Street both withdrew from Climate Action 100+ in February. Major insurance companies started withdrawing from the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance in 2023.
Still, most Americans either don’t know much about ESG and its potential negative consequences on their lives or, worse, actually favour letting ESG distort the market. This must change. It’s time the ESG puppeteers found out that the “puppets” have ideas, goals, and plans of their own. Investors, taxpayers, and voters should not be manipulated and used to climate activists’ ends.
They must keep pulling back on the strings or, better yet, cut them altogether.
Paul Mueller is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He received his PhD in economics from George Mason University. Previously, Dr. Mueller taught at The King’s College in New York City.
Originally posted at the American Institute for Economic Research, reposted with permission.
Schools shouldn’t sacrifice student performance to vague notions of ‘equity’
COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?
America Is Really Bad At Foreign Interventions. Why Does Biden Think Ukraine Will Be Any Different?
Medical Elites’ Disgrace Over Ivermectin
-
Automotive2 days agoGovernments in Canada accelerate EV ‘investments’ as automakers reverse course
-
Alberta2 days agoPharmacist-led clinics improve access to health care: Lessons from Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago30 million contraband cigarettes valued at $25 million dollars seized in Alberta
-
Automotive2 days agoRed States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates
-
National2 days agoTrudeau again blames ‘climate change’ for mostly man-made wildfires
-
Economy2 days agoBiden signs suicidal ‘No Coal’ pact, while rest of world builds 1,000 new plants
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days agoTrans Mountain completion shows victory of good faith Indigenous consultation
-
COVID-192 days agoHealthcare workers obtain partial win against Bonnie Henry in BC Supreme Court