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:
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Thomas English
President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) presents a more modest scope for the initiative, focusing primarily on “modernizing federal technology and software.”
The executive order refashions the Obama-era United States Digital Service (USDS) into the United States DOGE Service. Then-President Barack Obama created USDS in 2014 to enhance the reliability and usability of online federal services after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, an insurance exchange website created through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Trump’s USDS will now prioritize “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize efficiency and productivity” under the order, which makes no mention of slashing the federal budget, workforce or regulations — DOGE’s originally advertised purpose.
“I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’),” Trump said in his official announcement of the initiative in November. “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess government regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”
The order’s focus on streamlining federal technology and software stands in contrast to some of DOGE’s previously more expansive aims, including Elon Musk’s claim that “we can [cut the federal budget] by at least $2 trillion” at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in November. Musk now leads DOGE alone after Vivek Ramaswamy stepped down from the initiative Monday, apparently eying a 2026 gubernatorial run in Ohio.
The order says it serves to “advance the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda,” but omits many of the budget-cutting and workforce-slashing proposals during Trump’s campaign. Rather, the order positions DOGE as a technology modernization entity rather than an organization with direct authority to enact sweeping fiscal reforms. There is no mention, for instance, of trillions in budget cuts or a significant reduction in the federal workforce, though the president did separately enact a hiring freeze throughout the executive branch Monday.
“I can’t help but think that there’s more coming, that maybe more responsibilities will be added to it,” Susan Dudley, a public policy professor at George Washington University, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Dudley, who was also the top regulatory official in former President George W. Bush’s administration, said the structure of the new USDS could impact the recent lawsuits against the DOGE effort.
“I think it maybe moots the lawsuit that’s been brought for it not being FACA,” Dudley said. “So if this is how it’s organized — that it’s people in the government who bring in these special government employees on a temporary basis, that might mean that the lawsuit doesn’t really have any ground.”
Three organizations — the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Security Counselors (NSC) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — separately filed lawsuits against DOGE within minutes of Trump signing the executive order. The suits primarily challenge DOGE’s compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), alleging the department operates without the required transparency, balanced representation and public accountability.
The order also emphasizes not “be construed to impair or otherwise affect … the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.”
“And the only mention of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] is some kind of boilerplate at the end — that it doesn’t affect that. But that’s kind of general stuff you often see in executive orders,” Dudley continued, adding she doesn’t “have an inside track” on whether further DOGE-related executive orders will follow.
“It’s certainly, certainly more modest than I think Musk was anticipating,” Dudley said.
Trump’s order also establishes “DOGE Teams” consisting of at least four employees: a team lead, a human resources specialist, an engineer and an attorney. Each team will be assigned an executive agency with which it will implement the president’s “DOGE agenda.”
It remains unclear whether Monday’s executive order comprehensively defines DOGE, or if additional orders will be forthcoming to broaden its mandate.
From Conservative Party Communications
The Hon. Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Official Opposition, released the following statement on the threat of tariffs from the US:
“Canada is facing a critical challenge. On February 1st we are facing the risk of unjustified 25% tariffs by our largest trading partner that would have damaging consequences across our country. Our American counterparts say they want to stop the illegal flow of drugs and other criminal activity at our border. The Liberal government admits their weak border is a problem. That is why they announced a multibillion-dollar border plan—a plan they cannot fund because they shut down Parliament, preventing MPs and Senators from authorizing the funds.
“We also need retaliatory tariffs, something that requires urgent Parliamentary consideration.
“Yet, Liberals have shut Parliament in the middle of this crisis. Canada has never been so weak, and things have never been so out of control. Liberals are putting themselves and their leadership politics ahead of the country. Freeland and Carney are fighting for power rather than fighting for Canada.
“Common Sense Conservatives are calling for Trudeau to reopen Parliament now to pass new border controls, agree on trade retaliation and prepare a plan to rescue Canada’s weak economy.
“The Prime Minister has the power to ask the Governor General to cut short prorogation and get our Parliament working.
“Open Parliament. Take back control. Put Canada First.”
‘This Is So Disgusting’: Joe Rogan Unloads On Gavin Newsom For ‘Creepy’ Behavior In Front Of Wildfire Wreckage
Trump Talks To China Leader Xi Jinping About Several Topics As President-Elect Readies Himself For White House
Sweeping Deportations to Begin in Chicago Day After Inauguration
Coup in Romania – Fascinating interview with Presidential hopeful Calin Georgescu
-
Alberta1 day agoIs There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…
-
Business2 days agoUK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
-
Business2 days agoLiberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year
-
Business2 days agoCarney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Alberta2 days agoTrump delays implementation 25% tariffs: Premier Smith response
-
International2 days agoBiden preemptively pardons Fauci, Cheney, Milley on way out
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBiden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In