The ‘woke police’ are coming for ESG — here’s why they should stand down

The people we elect to solve problems in America have a rich assortment from which to choose. We have persistent wage and wealth gaps, accelerating climate change, insufficient defenses against cyberattacks, divisive culture wars, a fossilized energy economy, a stalemate on international nuclear arms control, threats of civil war, domestic terrorism, and more.

So why do some politicians make a big deal out of problems that don’t exist? Fake problems, as it were.

Take the campaign against ESG. ESG refers to the environmental, social and good-governance policies adopted by many businesses, money managers and shareholders to ensure investments don’t result in environmental damages, social inequity and other adverse consequences.

Critics are on the warpath, especially on the far right. In a recent op-ed, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), chairman of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, goes on a serious rant. “ESG is being used to promote woke, leftists policies through authoritarian means,” he writes. “A feature of ESG is the cozy relationship between radically left big government and the radical leftists in big business.”

“ESG is a dangerous homage to the long history of attacks on the people by their own government,” he continues. It’s “the making of a totalistic society where Americans are under the thumb of the corrupt, controlling D.C. cartel.”

With only slightly less invective, Florida governor and prospective presidential candidate Ron DeSantis puts ESG high on his hit list of so-called woke policies. He is about to sign a bill requiring the state’s $182 billion retirement program to consider only “pecuniary factors” when it invests its funds. As March began, Kentucky, Mississippi, Indiana, Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota had similar policies, according to a Harvard report.

However, the only totalitarian thing in the ESG universe is how conservative lawmakers are inserting themselves between financial managers and clients who want their money put into socially and environmentally responsible enterprises. The government has no business interfering with that relationship.

One of the principal drivers of ESG opposition is the decision by several institutional retirement funds to avoid fossil fuels. “Woke police” contend the practice violates money managers’ fiduciary duty to maximize their client’s investment returns. But environmental and social policies have financial implications.

“It’s becoming clear that those making proactive strides to hold themselves accountable [to ESG criteria] may be better in position to thrive long term,” according to the business management consulting firm Deloitte. One of its officers added that sustainability has become a business imperative about “unlocking value for a company and its stakeholders, as well as creating a sustainable future, where people and the planet prosper together.”

For example, with climate change becoming an increasingly urgent problem, carbon-free renewable energy is a much better bet than fossil fuels in both the short and long terms. The fiduciary duty of money managers and publicly traded corporations is to consider investment risks as well as rewards. Because fossil fuels are the leading cause of global climate change, nearly 200 nations plan to phase them out. Scientists warn that most of the remaining reserves of oil, natural gas and coal must remain underground.

The oil and gas industry also faces the risk that investments in new pipelines and other infrastructure will be stranded — in other words, forced to retire before investments pay off — as the world continues shifting to carbon-free energy.

Renewable-energy technologies are already less expensive than fossil fuels in many parts of the world. Financial advisory firm Lazard issues annual reports on the “levelized’ cost of different energy resources — that is, the price that covers all the production costs of a resource over its lifetime. This year’s report, published earlier this month, concludes the global boom in renewable energy and energy storage will continue because the unsubsidized price of electricity from solar and onshore wind technologies is well below the cost of gas-fired generation.

In addition, Lazard found the unsubsidized levelized cost of solar and wind power coupled with energy storage is “approaching competitive levels with conventional generation.”

Many investors want, and even demand, that their money be put into ESG-guided investments. A Deloitte survey last year found “ESG considerations continue to transform today’s financial landscape” as companies respond to “rapidly increasing stakeholder expectations.”

As far back as 2019, the Harvard Business Review called ESG an “investor revolution” and said it was outdated to think it wasn’t good business. “ESG issues have traditionally been of secondary concern to investors,” the Review explained. “But in recent years, institutional investors and pension funds have grown too large to diversify away from systemic risks, forcing them to consider the environmental and social impact of their portfolios.”

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Crapo (Idaho) and Mitt Romney (Utah) are some of the latest to jump aboard the anti-ESG bandwagon, even though they have been renewable energy advocates in their states. Explaining Grassley’s position, a spokesman said ESG involves “coercive elements” opposed to the senator’s position that “capital markets should drive a low-cost shift to cleaner energy.”

That’s exactly what’s happening. The woke police should stay out of it.

William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs. He also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House.