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 Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
Alberta maintains a balanced budget while ensuring pressures from population growth are being addressed.
Alberta faces rising risks, including ongoing resource volatility, geopolitical instability and rising pressures at home. With more than 450,000 people moving to Alberta in the last three years, the province has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to address these pressures and ensure Albertans continue to be supported. Alberta’s government is determined to make every dollar go further with targeted and responsible spending on the priorities of Albertans.
The province is forecasting a $4.6 billion surplus at the end of 2024-25, up from the $2.9 billion first quarter forecast and $355 million from budget, due mainly to higher revenue from personal income taxes and non-renewable resources.
Given the current significant uncertainty in global geopolitics and energy markets, Alberta’s government must continue to make prudent choices to meet its responsibilities, including ongoing bargaining for thousands of public sector workers, fast-tracking school construction, cutting personal income taxes and ensuring Alberta’s surging population has access to high-quality health care, education and other public services.
“These are challenging times, but I believe Alberta is up to the challenge. By being intentional with every dollar, we can boost our prosperity and quality of life now and in the future.”
Midway through 2024-25, the province has stepped up to boost support to Albertans this fiscal year through key investments, including:
- $716 million to Health for physician compensation incentives and to help Alberta Health Services provide services to a growing and aging population.
- $125 million to address enrollment growth pressures in Alberta schools.
- $847 million for disaster and emergency assistance, including:
- $647 million to fight the Jasper wildfires
- $163 million for the Wildfire Disaster Recovery Program
- $5 million to support the municipality of Jasper (half to help with tourism recovery)
- $12 million to match donations to the Canadian Red Cross
- $20 million for emergency evacuation payments to evacuees in communities impacted by wildfires
- $240 million more for Seniors, Community and Social Services to support social support programs.
Looking forward, the province has adjusted its forecast for the price of oil to US$74 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate. It expects to earn more for its crude oil, with a narrowing of the light-heavy differential around US$14 per barrel, higher demand for heavier crude grades and a growing export capacity through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Despite these changes, Alberta still risks running a deficit in the coming fiscal year should oil prices continue to drop below $70 per barrel.
After a 4.4 per cent surge in the 2024 census year, Alberta’s population growth is expected to slow to 2.5 per cent in 2025, lower than the first quarter forecast of 3.2 per cent growth because of reduced immigration and non-permanent residents targets by the federal government.
Revenue
Revenue for 2024-25 is forecast at $77.9 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion from Budget 2024, including:
- $16.6 billion forecast from personal income taxes, up from $15.6 billion at budget.
- $20.3 billion forecast from non-renewable resource revenue, up from $17.3 billion at budget.
Expense
Expense for 2024-25 is forecast at $73.3 billion, an increase of $143 million from Budget 2024.
Surplus cash
After calculations and adjustments, $2.9 billion in surplus cash is forecast.
- $1.4 billion or half will pay debt coming due.
- The other half, or $1.4 billion, will be put into the Alberta Fund, which can be spent on further debt repayment, deposited into the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and/or spent on one-time initiatives.
Contingency
Of the $2 billion contingency included in Budget 2024, a preliminary allocation of $1.7 billion is forecast.
Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund
The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund grew in the second quarter to a market value of $24.3 billion as of Sept. 30, 2024, up from $23.4 billion at the end of the first quarter.
- The fund earned a 3.7 per cent return from July to September with a net investment income of $616 million, up from the 2.1 per cent return during the first quarter.
Debt
Taxpayer-supported debt is forecast at $84 billion as of March 31, 2025, $3.8 billion less than estimated in the budget because the higher surplus has lowered borrowing requirements.
- Debt servicing costs are forecast at $3.2 billion, down $216 million from budget.
Related information
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
Five Government Programs That Musk’s Government Efficiency Agency Could Put On The Chopping Block
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones
Trudeau government to roll out another digital border crossing app by 2026
Betting Site CEO Slams FBI Raid and Device Seizures As Politically Driven After Site Correctly Calls Trump’s Election Win
The Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury
-
conflict1 day agoUS and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
Business2 days agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel2 days agoGreen Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta1 day agoEarly Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
armed forces23 hours agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
ESG2 days agoCan’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!