Myth-busting will help accelerate ESG retreat

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:

Matthew Lau

Related Topics:#ESG #ESGRetreat #FraserInstitute #MatthewLau

Up Next

Canada’s EV strategy has cost $4 million a job: Jack Mintz

Don't Miss

Canadians in every province will pay more than $1,750 per person in 2023-24 on government interest costs amounting to $81.8 billion

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta threatens to fight Trudeau government restrictions on Canada’s plastics industry

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Principal at Calgary Elementary School charged with possession of child pornography

Fraser Institute / 5 hours ago

Federal government’s fiscal record—one for the history books

Automotive

The EV ‘Bloodbath’ Arrives Early

Published on April 28, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Ever since March 16, when presidential candidate Donald Trump created a controversy by predicting President Joe Biden’s efforts to force Americans to convert their lives to electric-vehicle (EV) lifestyles would end in a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry, the industry’s own disastrous results have consistently proven him accurate.

The latest example came this week when Ford Motor Company reported that it had somehow managed to lose $132,000 per unit sold during Q1 2024 in its Model e EV division. The disastrous first quarter results follow the equally disastrous results for 2023, when the company said it lost $4.7 billion in Model e for the full 12-month period.

While the company has remained profitable overall thanks to strong demand for its legacy internal combustion SUV, pickup, and heavy vehicle models, the string of major losses in its EV line led the company to announce a shift in strategic vision in early April. Ford CEO Jim Farley said then that the company would delay the introduction of additional planned all-electric models and scale back production of current models like the F-150 Lightning pickup while refocusing efforts on introducing new hybrid models across its business line.

General Motors reported it had good overall Q1 results, but they were based on strong sales of its gas-powered SUV and truck models, not its EVs. GM is so gun-shy about reporting EV-specific results that it doesn’t break them out in its quarterly reports, so there is no way of knowing what the real bottom line amounts to from that part of the business. This is possibly a practice Ford should consider adopting.

After reporting its own disappointing Q1 results in which adjusted earnings collapsed by 48% and deliveries dropped by 20% from the previous quarter, Tesla announced it is laying off 10 percent of its global workforce, including 2,688 employees at its Austin plant, where its vaunted Cybertruck is manufactured. Since its introduction in November, the Cybertruck has been beset by buyer complaints ranging from breakdowns within minutes after taking delivery, to its $3,000 camping tent feature failing to deploy, to an incident in which one buyer complained his vehicle shut down for 5 hours after he failed to put the truck in “carwash mode” before running it through a local car wash.

Meanwhile, international auto rental company Hertz is now fire selling its own fleet of Teslas and other EV models in its efforts to salvage a little final value from what is turning out to be a disastrous EV gamble. In a giant fit of green virtue-signaling, the company invested whole hog into the Biden subsidy program in 2021 with a mass purchase of as many as 100,000 Teslas and 50,000 Polestar models, only to find that customer demand for renting electric cars was as tepid as demand to buy them outright. For its troubles, Hertz reported it had lost $392 million during Q1, attributing $195 million of the loss to its EV struggles. Hertz’s share price plummeted by about 20% on April 25, and was down by 55% for the year.

If all this financial carnage does not yet constitute a “bloodbath” for the U.S. EV sector, it is difficult to imagine what would. But wait: It really isn’t all that hard to imagine at all, is it? When he used that term back in March, Trump was referring not just to the ruinous Biden subsidy program, but also to plans by China to establish an EV-manufacturing beachhead in Mexico, from which it would be able to flood the U.S. market with its cheap but high-quality electric models. That would definitely cause an already disastrous domestic EV market to get even worse, wouldn’t it?

The bottom line here is that it is becoming obvious even to ardent EV fans that US consumer demand for EVs has reached a peak long before the industry and government expected it would.

It’s a bit of a perfect storm, one that rent-seeking company executives and obliging policymakers brought upon themselves. Given that this outcome was highly predictable, with so many warning that it was in fact inevitable, a reckoning from investors and corporate boards and voters will soon come due. It could become a bloodbath of its own, and perhaps it should.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Business

Honda deal latest episode of corporate welfare in Ontario

Published on April 27, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Tegan Hill

If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

On Thursday, the Trudeau and Ford governments announced they will dole out an estimated $5 billion in corporate welfare to Honda so the auto giant can build an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. This is the third such deal in Ontario, following similar corporate welfare handouts to Volkswagen ($13.2 billion) and Stellantis ($15.0 billion). Like the previous two deals, the Honda deal comes at a significant cost to taxpayers and will almost certainly fail to create widespread economic benefits for Ontarians.

The Trudeau and Ford governments finalized the Honda deal after more than a year of negotiations, with both governments promising direct incentives and tax credits. Of course, this isn’t free money. Taxpayers in Ontario and the rest of Canada will pay for this corporate welfare through their taxes.

Unfortunately, corporate welfare is nothing new. Governments in Canada have a long history of picking their favoured firms or industries and using a wide range of subsidies and other incentives to benefit those firms or industries selected for preferential treatment.

According to a recent study, the federal government spent $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019 (the last pre-COVID year). Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. (Notably, the study excludes other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the total cost of corporate welfare during this period is actually much higher.)

Of course, when announcing the Honda deal, the Trudeau and Ford governments attempted to sell this latest example of corporate welfare as a way to create jobs. In reality, however, there’s little to no empirical evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.

Instead, these governments are simply picking winners and losers, shifting jobs and investment away from other firms and industries and circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau and Ford governments believe they know better than investors and entrepreneurs, so they’re using taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. Again, corporate welfare actually hinders economic growth, which Ontario and Canada desperately need, and often fails to produce jobs that would not otherwise have been created, while also requiring financial support from taxpayers.

It’s only a matter of time before other automakers ask for similar handouts from Ontario and the federal government. Indeed, after Volkswagen secured billions in federal subsidies, Stellantis stopped construction of an EV battery plant in Windsor until it received similar subsidies from the Trudeau government. Call it copycat corporate welfare.

Government handouts to corporations do not pave the path to economic success in Canada. To help foster widespread prosperity, governments should help create an environment where all businesses can succeed, rather than picking winners and losers on the backs of taxpayers.