Business
ESG will impose considerable harm on Canadian workers, doesn’t reflect the reality of how markets actually work
From the Fraser Institute
By Steven Globerman, Jack Mintz, and Bryce Tingle
The ESG movement—which calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—will cause substantial harm to the economy and
workers, finds two new essays by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Investor support for ESG is starting to wane, which isn’t surprising as the considerable harms ESG mandates pose come to light,” said Steven Globerman, resident scholar at the Fraser Institute and author of It’s Time to Move on from ESG.
The essay summarizes the arguments against imposing top-down ESG mandates. In particular, evidence shows that (1) ESG-branded investment funds do not perform better than conventional investment funds, (2) companies that proclaim to pursue ESG-related activities are not more profitable than companies that do not, and (3) mandating ESG-related corporate disclosures imposes additional costs on public companies and diverts resources away from productivity-enhancing investments, harming workers.
A separate new essay in the Institute’s series on ESG, Putting Economics Back into ESG written by Jack Mintz and Bryce Tingle of the University of Calgary, highlights how the current concept of ESG mandates being pursued in Canada are incompatible with basic economic theory and fail to understand how markets actually work. As a result, ESG mandates will (1) discourage new businesses from locating in Canada, (2) investors will be reluctant to invest in Canada, (3) Canadian companies will be less competitive than their international peers, (4) capital will leave Canada for jurisdictions without restrictive ESG mandates, and (5) economic growth will slow and workers will suffer as a result.
But these harms can be minimized if the definition of what constitutes ESG is expanded, securities commissions are not tasked with regulating ESG, but instead focus on ensuring market integrity, and if governments prosecute fraud in ESG branded funds, and likewise, governments impose liability for the use of ESG ratings, which have been found to be invalid and unreliable.
Crucially, both essays conclude that public policy objectives, such as those addressed by ESG initiatives, should be decided by and acted on by democratically elected governments, not private sector actors.
“There is no reason to believe that managers and business executives enjoy any comparative advantage in identifying and implementing broad environmental and social policies compared to politicians and regulators,” said Globerman.
“The evidence is clear—the private sector best serves the interests of society when it focuses on maximizing shareholder wealth within the confines of the established laws, not complying with top-down imposed ESG mandates that will harm the economy and ultimately Canadian workers.”
- The ESG movement calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—ostensibly in the public interest.
- One school of thought supporting ESG is that doing so will make companies more profitable and thereby increase the wealth of their shareholders.
- However, academic research to date has failed to identify a consistent and statistically significant positive relationship between corporate ESG ratings and the stock market performance of companies.
- In fact, research instead suggests that adopting an ESG-intensive model might compromise the efficient production and distribution of goods and services and thereby slow the overall rate of real economic growth. Slower real economic growth means societies will be less able to afford investments to address environmental and other ESG-related priorities.
- The second school of thought is that companies, their senior managers, and their boards have an ethical obligation to implement ESG initiatives that go beyond simply complying with existing laws and regulations, even if it means reduced profitability. However, corporate managers and board members cannot and should not be expected to determine public policy priorities. The latter should be identified by democratic means and not by unelected private sector managers or investors.
- Given that there are indications that investor support for ESG is waning, it is apparent that the time has come for corporate leaders and politicians to acknowledge that it’s time to move on from ESG.
Authors:
Quick Hit:
President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.
Key Details:
- In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s “financial retaliation” and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
- Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
- The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade policy.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
“It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,” Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.
Trump’s letter made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that “goods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.” The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.
However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. “If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said, adding that tariffs “may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.”
Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration “will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.”
The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a “major threat” to both the economy and national security.
Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested even broader tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that “the tariffs have been very well-received” and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.
The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.
“Not everybody has to get a letter,” Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. “You know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.”
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
Alberta Next: Immigration
“This is a total fucking disaster”
-
Also Interesting1 day ago9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Business1 day agoCannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Business2 days agoWEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Media1 day agoCBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field