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.

Read the Essay: It’s Time to Move on from ESG

Read the Essay: Putting Economics Back into ESG

Authors:

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Jack Mintz

President’s Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Bryce Tingle

N. Murray Edwards Chair in Business Law, University of Calgary

Up Next

BC MLA candidate picks up free crack pipes and cocaine snorting kit

Don't Miss

Parks Canada Tries to Cancel Sir John A. Macdonald in his Own Home

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

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Daily Caller / 4 hours ago

NEWT GINGRICH: Europe’s Elites Were Finally Told To Take A Look In The Mirror

armed forces / 4 hours ago

Trump fires chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, appoints new military leader

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.