BY RANDELL LEACH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/03/23
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on June 27, 2022, in New York City.
The backlash against so-called “woke capitalism” is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Companies that prioritize positive environmental and social impacts in addition to profit are responding rationally to the market and to a business case that’s been proven over decades. It’s hypocritical and short-sighted for political leaders to coerce the market to align with their interests, rather than what’s good for people, our economy and our planet.
In his annual “Letter to CEOs”, even BlackRock chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote that stakeholder capitalism “is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper.”
Stakeholder, sustainable, conscious, “woke” — whatever you choose to call it, this is the free market in action — aligning and adapting to efficiently create value in changing market conditions. Businesses constantly analyze market data and trends to inform decisions about what products to offer, which customer segments to serve, and how to stay competitive. Profit is important, but it’s not the only data point for smart business leaders. Maximizing revenue (by adapting to the values-based preferences of customers) and minimizing costs, waste, and risks are key for investors. Insulating companies from risks — whether systemic, reputational or financial— and competing for labor and finite resources are also part of this complex calculation. Market participants are increasingly recognizing the value of acting in alignment with a broader set of stakeholders. Market transparency and access to information has increased as has the consequences of misalignment.
Politicians may disagree with the results of these analyses. But they should not deploy the power of the government to stifle competition that benefits employees, customers, suppliers and communities, as some are attempting. In fact, they too have a duty to align their agencies to protect people, our collective natural resources, and the market.
Instead, critics should ask themselves: Why have more and more businesses integrated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into their models over the last decades? The answer is that they are simply aligning their resources with their stakeholders’ interests — which is efficient, profitable, and both economically and environmentally beneficial.
The fact is that triple bottom line models have been proven successful in a meta-analysis of more than 2,000 studies. Nearly two-thirds of these studies showed a positive correlation between ESG and financial performance, while less than 10 percent showed a negative correlation. The hypothesis: these firms are innovating, adapting to the market, and competing for resources and talent.
What’s more, many consumers prefer businesses that demonstrate impact or align with their values. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers customer loyalty survey found that younger consumers (Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z) are more likely to intentionally support like-minded brands. These generations collectively account for 62% of the U.S. population — a huge consumer market that will only increase spending as they age and build wealth. Businesses must be able to compete freely for this market share, including by demonstrating social and environmental impact that attracts customers.
The banking industry offers a good case study on why the anti-ESG backlash is actually anti-capitalism. Like any other business, banks are free to make operational decisions based on expertise, risk, and reputation, as long as those decisions don’t contradict existing anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. But lawmakers in Texas are now requiring banks to certify that they don’t restrict lending to firearms and weapons manufacturers before they can do lucrative business with the state. West Virginia has done the same with banks that restrict lending to coal and other fossil fuels.
Requiring all banks to lend to all industries — no matter their model, expertise, or customer base — doesn’t make business sense. Corporate lending is complex and nuanced. A bank that specializes in residential lending can’t apply that same expertise to financing tar sands refinement. These are unique industries with varying revenue, asset volatility, and risk models. If a bank doesn’t build the necessary expertise in its specific lending verticals, it exposes depositors to risk.
While this current backlash is playing out state-by-state in an inefficient patchwork, federal action is not out of the question. Under the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed a supposed “Fair Access” rule that would have prevented big banks ($100+ billion in assets) from refusing to lend to controversial sectors. The rule was rescinded when the Biden administration took over, but some Republican lawmakers are still trying to codify it via legislation. This sweeping interference in financial markets would be disastrous for the sector and our economy.We can’t ignore the toll the pandemic has taken on the health of our kidsTobacco control is not a zero-sum game
Of course, this is not to say that ESG or stakeholder capitalism are perfect concepts. Critics are right to say that definitions and disclosures are inconsistent, and that a lack of transparency enables greenwashing. But the solution to that is to improve standards, regulations and reporting, not toss it all out. We’re pleased to see a group of lawmakers form a caucus advocating for sustainable investing. This is the kind of movement we need.
Burying your head in the sand is not a viable approach in a market with finite natural and human resources, changing consumer demands, and increasing climate risk. Companies that prioritize social and environmental impacts while still generating returns for their shareholders are a model that we should applaud and replicate, not villainize. They represent capitalism as it’s meant to be: productive, responsive, innovative, forward-looking, and free.
Randell Leach is the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, a state-chartered, federally insured and for-profit bank whose economic rights are majority-owned by the U.S. Treasury and nonprofit Beneficial State Foundation, both of which are permanently governed in the public interest. Beneficial State Bank is one of the world’s top Certified B Corporations.
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on June 27, 2022, in New York City.
The backlash against so-called “woke capitalism” is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Companies that prioritize positive environmental and social impacts in addition to profit are responding rationally to the market and to a business case that’s been proven over decades. It’s hypocritical and short-sighted for political leaders to coerce the market to align with their interests, rather than what’s good for people, our economy and our planet.
In his annual “Letter to CEOs”, even BlackRock chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote that stakeholder capitalism “is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper.”
Stakeholder, sustainable, conscious, “woke” — whatever you choose to call it, this is the free market in action — aligning and adapting to efficiently create value in changing market conditions. Businesses constantly analyze market data and trends to inform decisions about what products to offer, which customer segments to serve, and how to stay competitive. Profit is important, but it’s not the only data point for smart business leaders. Maximizing revenue (by adapting to the values-based preferences of customers) and minimizing costs, waste, and risks are key for investors. Insulating companies from risks — whether systemic, reputational or financial— and competing for labor and finite resources are also part of this complex calculation. Market participants are increasingly recognizing the value of acting in alignment with a broader set of stakeholders. Market transparency and access to information has increased as has the consequences of misalignment.
Politicians may disagree with the results of these analyses. But they should not deploy the power of the government to stifle competition that benefits employees, customers, suppliers and communities, as some are attempting. In fact, they too have a duty to align their agencies to protect people, our collective natural resources, and the market.
Instead, critics should ask themselves: Why have more and more businesses integrated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into their models over the last decades? The answer is that they are simply aligning their resources with their stakeholders’ interests — which is efficient, profitable, and both economically and environmentally beneficial.
The fact is that triple bottom line models have been proven successful in a meta-analysis of more than 2,000 studies. Nearly two-thirds of these studies showed a positive correlation between ESG and financial performance, while less than 10 percent showed a negative correlation. The hypothesis: these firms are innovating, adapting to the market, and competing for resources and talent.
What’s more, many consumers prefer businesses that demonstrate impact or align with their values. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers customer loyalty survey found that younger consumers (Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z) are more likely to intentionally support like-minded brands. These generations collectively account for 62% of the U.S. population — a huge consumer market that will only increase spending as they age and build wealth. Businesses must be able to compete freely for this market share, including by demonstrating social and environmental impact that attracts customers.
The banking industry offers a good case study on why the anti-ESG backlash is actually anti-capitalism. Like any other business, banks are free to make operational decisions based on expertise, risk, and reputation, as long as those decisions don’t contradict existing anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. But lawmakers in Texas are now requiring banks to certify that they don’t restrict lending to firearms and weapons manufacturers before they can do lucrative business with the state. West Virginia has done the same with banks that restrict lending to coal and other fossil fuels.
Requiring all banks to lend to all industries — no matter their model, expertise, or customer base — doesn’t make business sense. Corporate lending is complex and nuanced. A bank that specializes in residential lending can’t apply that same expertise to financing tar sands refinement. These are unique industries with varying revenue, asset volatility, and risk models. If a bank doesn’t build the necessary expertise in its specific lending verticals, it exposes depositors to risk.
While this current backlash is playing out state-by-state in an inefficient patchwork, federal action is not out of the question. Under the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed a supposed “Fair Access” rule that would have prevented big banks ($100+ billion in assets) from refusing to lend to controversial sectors. The rule was rescinded when the Biden administration took over, but some Republican lawmakers are still trying to codify it via legislation. This sweeping interference in financial markets would be disastrous for the sector and our economy.We can’t ignore the toll the pandemic has taken on the health of our kidsTobacco control is not a zero-sum game
Of course, this is not to say that ESG or stakeholder capitalism are perfect concepts. Critics are right to say that definitions and disclosures are inconsistent, and that a lack of transparency enables greenwashing. But the solution to that is to improve standards, regulations and reporting, not toss it all out. We’re pleased to see a group of lawmakers form a caucus advocating for sustainable investing. This is the kind of movement we need.
Burying your head in the sand is not a viable approach in a market with finite natural and human resources, changing consumer demands, and increasing climate risk. Companies that prioritize social and environmental impacts while still generating returns for their shareholders are a model that we should applaud and replicate, not villainize. They represent capitalism as it’s meant to be: productive, responsive, innovative, forward-looking, and free.
Randell Leach is the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, a state-chartered, federally insured and for-profit bank whose economic rights are majority-owned by the U.S. Treasury and nonprofit Beneficial State Foundation, both of which are permanently governed in the public interest. Beneficial State Bank is one of the world’s top Certified B Corporations.
Republicans launch group to combat ‘threat’ posed by ESG investing
› Featured Investigations › ALEC Expands Private Board of Directors with Woke Capitalism Fighters
CRC Advisors Senior Vice President Mike Thompson (left) and 1792 Exchange CEO Paul Fitzpatrick.
By David Armiak |
February 3rd, 2023
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has expanded its private sector board of directors—or what it calls its “Private Enterprise Advisory Council”—to include operatives in the right-wing’s fight against “woke capitalism.”
ALEC states on its website that the board of directors composed of state lawmakers “enlists an advisory team of private-sector industry leaders” so that it can draw from their “real-world business experience” to “better promote the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.”
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) tracks changes in ALEC’s various boards as part of its ALECExposed project.
Historically, the private board has been composed of corporate and trade group lobbyists. However, ALEC’s 2023 board is taking a different approach by expanding the advisory council from 14 to 20 individuals and appointing 1792 Exchange CEO Paul Fitzpatrick and CRC Advisors Senior Vice President Mike Thompson.
Both Fitzpatrick and Thompson play important roles in the Right’s manufactured crisis around environmental, social and governance initiatives (ESGs) and promote government retaliation against corporations as a solution to what they term “woke capitalism.”
The two appointments highlight an internal rift within ALEC between far-right policy groups and fossil fuel interests on the one side and financial interests on the other. After ALEC’s energy task force voted unanimously to adopt the Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act as a model policy last December, the board declined to approve the measure on January 20 and sent it back to the task force for reconsideration due to a “lack of agreement among members of the ALEC Task Force on Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development.”
The American Bankers Association (ABA), state bankers associations and others led the challenge. “Government should not be dictating business decisions to the private sector, which is what the draft model policy proposed. We appreciate the strong vote by the ALEC board to send this proposal back to the task force for reconsideration,” ABA stated following the vote.
Fitzpatrick’s 1792 Exchange describes its mission as “to develop policy and resources to protect and equip non-profits, small businesses and philanthropy from ‘woke capitalism,’ to educate Congress and stakeholder organizations about the dangers of ESG… policies, and to help steer public companies in the United States back to neutral on ideological issues.”
The organization maintains an online tracking tool called the Spotlight Report, which grades companies on their “policies, practices, and other relevant criteria to determine the likelihood a company will cancel a contract or client, or boycott, divest, or deny services based on views or beliefs.”
Through its website, 1792 Exchange also offers its allies model contracts to use in the fight against ESG, such as these two obtained by CMD: a template called Request for Proposal for Banking Services Template and a primer on Addressing Vendor Contract Language in Regard to Religious Freedom.
In addition, 1792 Exchange shares research files, including examples obtained by CMD on abortion travel benefits companies provide, ESG backgrounders, and a Big Tech Scorecard prepared by Napa Legal for its so-called religious freedom and free speech warriors.
The group solicits donations as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but it is not registered with the IRS.
Before leading 1792 Exchange, Fitzpatrick was deputy chief of staff for former U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and chief of staff for former Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). He also served as director of development for the billionaire Koch brothers’ Freedom Partners (now Stand Together), and worked for almost 20 years for the Christian Right activist group Family Research Council.
In addition, Fitzpatrick sits on the board of the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), a weaponized group of Republican treasurers, auditors, and financial officers in 28 states that is aligned with ALEC and is dedicated to fighting “woke capitalism” and “defend[ing] the market economy” against the growing ESG movement among corporations to also consider community interests and impact in their pursuit of shareholder profits.
Operating Under the Radar
In 2020, Greg Mueller and Leonard Leo, who played an integral role in Trump’s effort to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judges, founded CRC Advisors—the group Thompson represents—to “funnel big money and expertise across the conservative movement.”
Although he manages to stay under the radar, Thompson is an important Christian Right operative who plays multiple leadership roles in campaigns and communications.
When he participated in the panel presentation “After Roe, Then What?” at a February 2022 meeting of the secretive Christian Right Council for National Policy, anti-abortion activist Marjorie Dannenfelser introduced Thompson as a “unique and gifted convener of coalitions,” and as the “vice president for communications for CAP, the Conservative Action Project, a group of conservatives who meet every Wednesday morning very, very, very, very early to talk about next steps.”
Like Fitzpatrick, Thompson is active in SFOF, as CMD first reported. CRC Advisors is deeply involved in manufacturing and sustaining the ESG crisis as a public relations firm for SFOF. The organization sent the largest number of staffers outside of financial officers and their staff to SFOF’s November 2022 meeting, with at least nine identified by CMD, including Thompson.
SFOF’s CEO Derek Kreifels consults with the “CRC folks” on op-eds, and an agenda prepared for Louisiana Treasurer and 2023 SFOF National Chair John Schroder obtained by CMD shows that CRC was coordinating media interviews for Schroder on the topic of “anti-ESG.”
CRC Advisors is screening information requests and placing media for Schroder’s office, according to emails obtained by CMD.
CRC Advisors is also consulting with other SFOF members, emails obtained by CMD demonstrate. In April, CRC’s Mike Martin coordinated and wrote talking points for 2022 SFOF National Chair John Murante, the state treasurer of Nebraska, for an appearance on Fox News where he attacked the current administration’s energy policies with snappy quips like, “Joe Biden’s policies are sucking the energy out of Americans.”
In May, CRC’s Jay Hopkins arranged for Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks to appear on the cable talk show Ringside Politics on Real America’s Voice.
CRC Advisors also has been paid close to $1 million (2018–21) for “public relations” by Consumers’ Research, which has spent millions of dollars on a campaign attacking BlackRock for its ESG investment practices and is a top-level sponsor of SFOF.
The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) also pays CRC Advisors $7,500 per month. Together with its affiliates, the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF) and the Center for Law and Policy, RAGA runs a cash-for-influence operation that coordinates the official actions of Republican state attorneys general and sells its corporate funders access to those AGs and their staff.
RLDF has an ESG Working Group for state AGs and their staff, and RAGA held an ESG and State Engagement panel at its 2022 Fall National Meeting in November, documents obtained by CMD detail.
Republicans AGs have collectively taken multiple actions in the anti-ESG fight.
ALEC also added lobbyists from Multistates Associates, the National Federation of Independent Business, Learn4Life, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, PhRMA, and StateLinx to its private board for 2023 and removed lobbyists from IBF Hospitality and the National Association of Manufacturers.
NetChoice President and CEO Steve DelBianco will serve as the national chair this year.
About David Armiak
David Armiak is research director with the Center for Media and Democracy. David joined CMD in 2015, has conducted extensive investigations on dark money, corporate corruption, and right-wing networks, and is responsible for filing and analyzing hundreds of public records requests every year. David has a strong research interest in social movements and political power, and has delivered many talks on the subject. He has a Bachelor's degree in philosophy and anthropology from Boston University and a Master's degree in Anthropology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
All articles by David Armiak
No comments:
Post a Comment