Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

ESG will impose considerable harm on Canadian workers, doesn’t reflect the reality of how markets actually work

Published

6 minute read

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.

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

Automotive

Ford Files Patent to Surveil Drivers

Published on

News release from Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.

This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.

Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.

One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.

“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.

Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.

Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.

All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.

The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates.

Continue Reading

Business

Companies Are Getting Back To Business And Backing Away From DEI

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Devon Westhill

 

Classic American companies like John DeereHarley Davidson and Tractor Supply Co. are finally reevaluating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They are realizing that their consumers, many from rural, midwestern and working-class communities, don’t care for the DEI practices of corporate elites. They just want good service, reliable tractors and badass motorcycles.

The about-face is especially timely as the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision prohibiting race-based college admissions has increased scrutiny of private sector DEI practices. This new legal climate, combined with the discovery of problematic DEI programs at major American companies, means that corporations are at long last feeling significant pressure to prioritize excellence and efficiency over faddish diversity metrics.

Companies operating in the free market have one purpose: to provide quality goods and services to consumers in order to make a profit. For too long, much of corporate America has focused on virtue signaling to appease the left’s cultural mandates. Now, business incentives are forcing a return to the bottom line.

The change began in June when conservative commentator Robby Starbuck took to social media to expose companies masquerading as all-American brands with traditional values. He first exposed Tractor Supply’s DEI practices and announced that he would be investigating a list of other companies considered exemplars of Americana.

In response, Tractor Supply customers began boycotting the company, resulting in an 8% decrease in its stock price (a $2.8 billion market value loss) over five days. This led Tractor Supply to announce later that month the termination of its DEI programming. The company promised to stop submitting data for the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and withdrew sponsorship of LGBTQ+ pride events and voting campaigns, calling them “nonbusiness activities.”

Starbuck’s later exposure of John Deere’s DEI policies also caused the company to issue a statement announcing major cutbacks to their DEI programs. Harley DavidsonJack Daniels and Lowe’s followed suit, preemptively terminating their DEI programs and standards.

All of these companies should be commended for abandoning excessive DEI and getting back to business.

Now, instead of requiring costly, time-intensive programs to prove their liberal bona fides, they can focus on delivering results for their customers. Free from worry about optics and bureaucratic compliance, they can hire the most qualified employees and let them rise to the top.

But these decisions are not without their naysayers. DEI proponents have labeled these moves as bullying from far-right extremists and claim that terminating these policies will encourage gender and race discrimination in the workplace.

This hysteria is unwarranted and relies on the absurd claim that without DEI standards, there can be no equality, inclusion or respect in the workplace. Of course, it is crucial that businesses cultivate a culture of respect and dignity. Employees should be educated on their protections and duties regarding civil rights and basic civility in the workplace. All of the companies reversing on DEI have remained committed to fostering respectful, safe cultures for their employees.

In fact, too much corporate DEI can wreak havoc on a company’s morale. In many cases, it can result in scapegoating certain groups of people for grievous wrongs none of them had a hand in committing. It can also lead to damaging intellectual conformity and groupthink. DEI hiring quotas, in particular, can lead to serious legal risk. All of this results in the complete opposite of DEI’s purported goals. Instead, it increases workplace disunity and harms true diversity.

Ultimately, the DEI policies at these classic American companies have proven to only burden corporations, frustrate employees and confuse customers. Companies should prioritize producing better quality products, lowering prices, and offering attractive wages and benefits for all employees, instead of pouring time and money into ineffective policies that do not represent the American values of their customer base. So long, discrimination disguised as diversity.

Devon Westhill is the president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X