Mediaboss Marketing

Music artists who sing in Swiss German hardly ever make headlines outside their native territoryand not even there, if they choose a niche genre like reggae and if they are not under contract with a major label. That had been very much the reality for the singer and songwriter Lauwarm, who earns his living mainly as a carpenter. His YouTube channel usually counts less than five hundred subscribersuntil one little summer scandal made nearly 30,000 people click on one of his music videos.

The song that suddenly grabbed so much attention is fittingly titled sProblem, the problem, for it was an unexpected problem that drove the click numbers up: a July concert in Bern, Switzerlands capital, was stopped because guests of the venue felt uncomfortable that a white band was playing reggae and one of its guitarists sported blond dreadlocks. Cultural appropriation was their verdict. In ironic contrast to his stage name which means lukewarm, Lauwarm became a hot topic, grabbing headlines in both Germanys most prestigious weekly, Die ZEIT, and its most notorious tabloid, BILD. It felt like an odd repeat, as months earlier the young German singer Ronja Maltzahn was uninvited from a concert hosted by the Fridays for Future movement because she, too, wears her hair in dreadlocks.

Just as the online anger on allegedly insensitive hairstyles subsided, another debate on cultural appropriation and racism dominated opinion pages: the cancellation of Winnetou.

Winne-who, you might wonder?

Winnetou is probably the only Native American celebrity figure who is utterly unknown in the United States. The brainchild of German author Karl May (18421912), the story of the noble savage and Chief of the Apaches has been devoured by generations of dominantly German-speaking readers, and a series of movies has an equally loyal following. In fact, the story gets re-discovered and re-interpreted regularly, be it as an over-the-top comedy and satire like the wildly successful movie Der Schuh des Manitu (2001) or as a prequel to Mays story in an upcoming childrens movie on the young Chief Winnetou.

One of Germanys biggest childrens book and board game publishers, Ravensburger, announced the publication of new books and puzzles to accompany the movie release. But before a single copy reached the stores, Ravensburger announced that it would not sell the movie tie-ins after allit claimed that it had recognized how culturally insensitive the planned publications would have been. And suddenly, journalists also dug up the two-year-old decision by ARD, Germanys and the worlds largest public broadcaster network, to no longer show any Winnetou movies.

Yes, you would not learn anything about real Native Americans and their way of life, the history of oppression and discrimination they faced and still face by reading or watching Karl May movies. The author only visited the United States oncethe success of his Winnetou books made him affluent enough to travel overseas. And yes, Karl May was anything but a moral role model; he was indeed a scoundrel who had served time in prison and who was always on the lookout for an easy way to make an extra dime.

But in contrast to those who have now called for banning his work and adaptations thereof, most readers are and were well aware of the limitations of both work and author: the first thing I learned about Native Americans in Swiss primary (elementary) school was that I should not believe anything May wrote. The focus for readers and movie audiences was rather on the moral lessons in his books, such as the value of respect and tolerance, friendship, and loyalty.

Both the debate on Winnetou and on dreadlocks perfectly mirror controversies in the United Statesyet the mirror seems distorted: the verbatim and unquestioned introduction of terms such as cultural appropriation, woke, and cancel culture is problematic enough given the dramatically different histories and current demographics of German-speaking countries. But it is not only the terms as such that are adopted, but also the antagonistic style associated with them in the US context: problems regarding cultural appropriation, racism, and/or colonialism are to be solved by pressure, cancellation, and the negation of any true dialogue or room for compromise.

At the same time, right-wing commentators and activists may not (yet) ask for book bans as they successfully do in the United States, but they have likewise adopted a deafeningly shrill tone when it comes to addressing the concerns of liberal progressives. True dialogue would, however, require listening, that is, active listening and paying attention to what is said. Case in point: a media analysis portal has found that the Winnetou debate overstated the influence of so-called woke activists and instead followed a simplistic narrative.

A polarized and uncompromising debate fought on the basis of contextually inadequate conceptsit is tempting to call this an Americanization of cultural and political debates.

Swiss and German warriors not only point the finger at each other in their culture warsthey also point it at a third party: the United States

The same can be observed with the arguably most contentious culture war issue right now, namely abortion. Switzerland is notoriously slow in social liberalization processesafter all, Swiss women only received the right to vote in 1971. Six years later, and thus four years after Roe v. Wade, Swiss voters decided against liberalizing abortion, even though the suggested policy was quite strict in comparison to Roe: for the first twelve weeks of a pregnancy, women would have had unconditional access to an abortion; after the first trimester, medical reasons would have been required. In 2002, nearly thirty years later, social and moral attitudes had changed: More than 72% of Swiss voters favored the so-called Fristenlsung.

Challenges to said law have been futilethere is a robust consensus that abortion should remain legal and accessible under these conditions. And yet, Dobbs created a moment of panic: not only did many Austrian, German, and Swiss media outlets misrepresent the decision so that many people believed that abortion had become completely illegal in the entire United States. Some also suggested that the decision might affect Europe. The specter of a Kulturkampf in lockstep with American culture wars?

Needless to say, such a development is highly unlikely. While culture war issues are indeed pressing concerns in the United States, European onlookers are mainly one thing: voyeurs, and often self-righteous ones at that. In this vein, Dobbs has served some European politicians and media commentators as an opportunity to display their own righteousness with little regard for the fact that their countries regulations would be irreconcilable with Roe.

German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, for instance, declared her solidarity with US women by taking to the streets. Minister Baerbock stressed that abortion was part of a womens right to control her own body. Yet in Germany, the legal situation is closer to what Mississippi aimed for originally than the reality of Roeand the Minister herself only took a stance against the prohibition of abortion ads rather than the abortion restrictions as such.

Controversies on culture war issues are generally dominated by an accusatory logic. But in contrast to US debates, Swiss and German warriors not only point the finger at each otherthey also point it at a third party: the United States. On the one hand, US terminology feeds the vocabulary and theories underlying these controversies. On the other hand, the US is given as either a deterring or inspiring example, whatever serves the narrative. Neither is conducive to a constructive debateand all of it is a distraction from our actual problems and our own flaws.

See the original post:
From Culture Wars to Kulturkrieg? Claudia Franziska Brhwiler

Clinging to Culture Wars & Conspiracy Theories, Extremist Candidates Weaponized Disinformation to Try to Stop the Gears of Progress from Turning; But a Series of Projected Outcomes on Tuesday are Expected to Reveal that Growing Voter Momentum f  Human Rights Campaign

Read more here:
Clinging to Culture Wars & Conspiracy Theories, Extremist Candidates Weaponized Disinformation to Try to Stop the Gears of Progress from Turning;...

Disney (DIS) and Apple (AAPL) became the latest companies in the crosshairs of anti-ESG efforts after Vivek Ramaswamy, the executive chairman of Peter Thiel-backed Strive Capital, sent letters to the companies urging them to halt diversity audits and avoid making political statements.

In the letter released on Monday, the "Woke, Inc." author railed against the companies and financial institutions for promoting "one-sided political agendas." Ramaswamy has been a vocal critic of the practice of incorporating environmental, social, and corporate governance issues, known as ESG, into corporate and investment decision-making.

ESG has become more entrenched in the financial world. But like everything else these days, it's attracting scrutiny and skepticism from all quarters. In other words: from Wall Street to the Comptroller's office in Texas, ESG has become a lightning rod and the end game, at this point, isn't exactly clear.

At its core, the ESG approach gauges potential risks and opportunities not usually accounted for in financial measures. These factors range from a company's exposure to climate-related risk to board room diversity.

Folks like Ramaswamy aside, ESG strategies have gained traction. In 2020, 92% of S&P 500 companies and 70% of Russell 1000 companies published an ESG-related sustainability report, according to Governance & Accountability Institute, up from just 20% a decade earlier. And nearly a third of S&P 500 companies mentioned ESG on their earnings calls in the fourth quarter of 2021, Factset reported.

But the acronym has ballooned into a shorthand expression for a variety of different meanings. It could represent an investment framework for risk analysis, corporate responsibility efforts, or an ideological agenda, depending on who you ask. Without uniform standards or definitions, the belief that ESG can serve all stakeholders equally has weakened lately. Even adherents have raised a number of concerns about ESG, including the difficulty in measuring impact, potential interference with business operations, tradeoffs across the three pillars of ESG, and a murky relationship with financial performance.

Story continues

The Utah State Capitol, rear, is shown behind an oil refinery on Thursday, May 12, 2022, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The backlash over ESG has arrived in a number of forums: op-eds, Elon Musk tweets, scrutiny from state politicians, and an anti-ESG fund from Strive Capital backed by PayPal co-founder and Republican activist Peter Thiel that has raised more than $250 million. These politically-charged allegations that ESG is an apparatus for ushering in "woke" capitalism have added to a storm of challenges for the strategy long dominated by an optimistic streak.

Still, investors and companies don't appear to be dialing back their commitments. In fact, some are taking the concept even further. Patagonia, long held up for its exemplary sustainability practices, recently pushed the envelope again when its founders announced they donated the $3 billion company to fight climate change.

We're getting to a point now where ESG has kind of moved out of purely financial circles and into the mainstream, Lindsey Stewart, director of investment stewardship at Morningstar, told Yahoo Finance. And people are starting to really ask: 'What does that mean in practice for me for my business, for my portfolio?' And perhaps the answers that we landed on even as recently as last year are not necessarily the same ones that we'll end on this year or next year with new risks emerging."

Among those who are skeptical of ESG's lofty goals include Tariq Fancy, the former head of sustainable investing at BlackRock. Fancy has become a vocal critic of ESG, likening it to "wheat grass to a cancer patient" and a "dangerous placebo."

The real question at the bottom of ESG that's never really been answered satisfactorily is, are we doing this to make the world a better place or to improve investment returns? Fancy told Yahoo Finance Live (video above). And the promise by ESG is arguably three things: You get better returns, you make the world a better place, and asset managers get more in fees.

In reality," he added, "I can tell you only the third thing is happening.

Morning sunlight is reflected off buildings in the financial district of lower Manhattan at the start of a work day on Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022, in New York. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)

The term 'ESG' was minted in a 2004 UN Global Compact report that urged the financial industry to consider companies' environmental and social stewardship in order to compete in a more globalized world.

The notion that companies should be socially responsible for strategic or ethical reasons has been around for much longer, however. There was a divestment campaign in the 1980s against apartheid in South Africa and the development of new environmentally-focused frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Carbon Disclosure Project in the late '90s. These initiatives usually fell under different terms, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) or socially responsible investing (SRI), but the premise was similar.

Since ESG took over, it has grown tremendously, with the global pandemic, a racial reckoning stemming from the George Floyd protests in the U.S., and growing awareness of the human-created climate crisis fueling demand for ESG-labeled assets. Impressive returns generated by those funds in recent years also helped the cause.

While the relationship between ESG initiatives and financial returns has been the subject of debate and isn't yet settled, ESG integration and corporate efforts appear to boost performance and limit downside risk, especially over longer-term horizons, an NYU review of more than 1,000 research papers found.

Just how big has the market for ESG gotten? It's hard to tell.

By the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance's (GSIA) measure, as of 2020, $35 trillion in assets were held in sustainable investments more than a third of all assets under management. That figure includes assets that are screened for desirable or undesirable factors as well as ESG incorporation, a broad definition that means some form of ESG consideration was taken into account alongside other investment strategies.

Morningstar, which accounts for global funds marked specifically as sustainable, says the amount held in sustainable funds is closer to $2.47 trillion after inflows into sustainable funds hit a new record in 2019 and then doubled in 2020.

Although there are discrepancies in the overall size of the market for ESG assets, it's clear the concept has become hard for companies to ignore.

As the externalities are increasing and increasing in their complexity, it's basically reinforcing the need for companies to think about their purpose and how they address these externalities, Lucy Perz, a senior partner at McKinsey, told Yahoo Finance.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos gestures as he delivers a speech during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, Britain, November 2, 2021. Paul Ellis/Pool via REUTERS

The market for ESG-related assets took a step back in the second quarter with U.S. sustainable funds seeing outflows for the first time in five years as ESG faced crosswinds from tightening financial conditions, scrutiny over assets held in Russia prior to the country's invasion of Ukraine, and the onset of a bear market in the S&P 500.

There were other controversial moments earlier in 2022, such as when S&P Global removed EV maker Tesla from its benchmark ESG index but added Exxon Mobil, citing industry weighting and Tesla's social and governance ratings.

That led some including Tesla chief Elon Musk to point out apparent hypocrisy in the ESG approach. Critics argued that fund managers have been allowed to slap a green label onto standard assets in order to charge a higher fee or, in a more charitable view, they overpromise on environmental and social policies.

The fact of the matter is when you dig into what (ESG) is today, it's primarily marketing policies that are non-binding, and they can't be binding because we have legal duties to focus only on sort of maximizing return, Fancy said. It's a set of products that really just shuffle around things that already exist so that you can give baskets of already traded publicly shares to socially conscious investors and get a fee bump.

A man checks his documents after leaving a government-run job centre in Malaga, southern Spain January 3, 2018. REUTERS/Jon Nazca

Regulators want to solve some of those problems by making it easier for investors to compare companies' exposures to climate change and clamp down on greenwashing. The next evolution of ESG investing will likely depend upon uniform standards and enhanced disclosure requirements.

In the U.S., the SEC is evaluating more than 14,000 comments on proposed rules that would require companies to disclose climate-related risks as well as their greenhouse gas emissions.

Most of the comments are supportive," SEC Chair Gary Gensler told the Senate Banking Committee last Thursday. "Investors are using this information now, and they want the information, and I think it does fit into our 80-or-90-year history of how we do disclosures.

This aerial picture taken on February 27, 2019 in Jacobsdorf, eastern Germany shows wind turbines in the wind farm "Odervorland" in the Oder-Spree district in the morning fog. (PATRICK PLEUL/DPA/AFP via Getty Images)

Morningstar's Stewart sees ESG evolving; he noted that companies are including more specific environmental disclosures beyond carbon emissions and climate goals and have started to focus more on diversity initiatives and human rights as well.

However, better measurement of ESG factors such as emissions and water usage may just be a starting point for tackling these issues.

In general, information and disclosure at the right level is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for change across the board, Hamid Samandari, senior partner at McKinsey and co-author of 'Does ESG really matterand why?', told Yahoo Finance. It will help with both internal decisions and the choices that other stakeholders make, but information in itself is not sufficient.

The backlash against ESG has taken another turn lately. Once consigned to financial circles, these debates are now being aired out in public as right-wing politicians slam Wall Street firms for their ESG strategies.

In late August, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banned state pension fund managers from taking environmental, social, and governance issues into consideration when making investment decisions. Texas enlisted a ban of its own, barring 348 funds and 10 companies, including BlackRock, UBS, and Credit Suisse, from doing business with the state over their vocal ESG stance and alleged "boycott" of the fossil fuel industry.

BlackRock, a promoter of sustainable investing with nearly $10 trillion in assets under management, rebuffed claims that it boycotts oil companies, asserting that it has $310 billion invested in energy companies, Bloomberg reported.

BlackRock Chairman and CEO Laurence Fink is interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network's "Opening Bell with Maria Bartiromo," in New York. Fink, who oversees the management of about $7 trillion in funds, said in his influential annual letter to CEOs Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, that he believes we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance because of a warming planet. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

On Wednesday, blue states also hit back at those moves in an open letter signed by state treasurers and comptrollers from 15 states including Illinois, New York, California, and Maine.

"The blacklisting states apparently believe, despite ample evidence and scientific consensus to the contrary, that poor working conditions, unfair compensation, discrimination and harassment, and even poor governance practices do not represent material threats to the companies in which they invest," the letter stated. "They refuse to acknowledge, in the face of sweltering heat, floods, tornadoes, snowstorms and other extreme weather, that climate change is real and is a true business threat to all of us."

The dispute has also spread to shareholder meetings. Morningstar found that there were a record number of ESG resolutions during the 2022 proxy season, including a handful of anti-ESG proposals.

According to Morningstar's Stewart, the wording of these "Trojan Horse-like" proposals mimic that of ESG proposals. For instance, an anti-ESG proposal might request a company to disclose how its diversity initiatives affect groups without a history of exclusion.

I see this anti-ESG push as the next extension of the ongoing culture war, Morningstar ESG equity strategist Kristoffer Inton said in a Morningstar's report. Many of these thoughts, and even some of the bills, are written without a great understanding of sustainable investing. Any investor who ignores ESG risk, like any other risk, does so at their own peril.

Shareholders in overflow rooms watch on big screens as Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett, left, and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger preside over the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting in Omaha, Neb., Saturday, May 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

While few of the 43 anti-ESG proposals received traction, they did offer groups a chance to voice complaints against ESG or advance a cause, especially at high-profile companies. The overwhelming number of proposals came from just three right-leaning groups: The National Legal and Policy Center, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and Steven J. Milloy, a lobbyist with ties to the tobacco and oil industries.

While ESG strategy has come under fire, the demand for companies to pay attention to issues like climate change and worker conditions has remained resilient.

In a recent report, McKinsey partners argued there's one factor that ESG cynics are missing: corporate social license, or the trust held between a company and its stakeholders. We do see room for improvement across all dimensions," McKinsey's Samandari said. "At the same time, we believe that the underlying impulse remains more valid than ever."

A Patagonia store is seen on Jan. 12, 2022, in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

The authors held up the early successes of some companies as a reason for optimism. They also explained that improved measurements will also improve clarity on corporate actions and investments. One of the things that we anticipate going forward is that there'll be an improvement in measurements as we've seen, for example, in other fields, such as financial accounting, Perz said.

ESG as a buzzword may ultimately dissolve or evolve into something different. But the McKinsey partners contend that clients, investors, talent, and leaders have already started going in the direction of facing the climate crisis and other social issues, and that will continue.

Will the acronym stay or go? I don't know, and this is not what is important, Samandari said. "The underlying point that it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to ignore what economists call externalities that is, the unaccounted side effects of their operations within the society and the environment.

Grace is an assistant editor for Yahoo Finance.

Read the latest news on the climate crisis from Yahoo Finance

Click here for the latest stock market news and in-depth analysis, including events that move stocks

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Download the Yahoo Finance app for Apple or Android

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, and YouTube

Read more:
What is ESG? The latest front in the culture wars - Yahoo Finance

The following article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content-sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication by other news outlets as it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.

In the second edition of OCJs state Board of Education series, the candidates for District 10 discuss controversial topics.

The first edition focused on funding and school choice click or tap here to read.

To learn why you should be paying attention to the Board of Education races, click or tap here.

District 10 is made up of Senate districts 21, 27 and 28. This contains the east side of Cuyahoga County, part of Geauga County and all of both Summit and Portage counties.

To find out if you are in District 10: The Sec. of State website has a handy tool calledFind my District.

If it says District 10, you can learn more about the candidates youll be voting on below.

All candidates are elected as nonpartisan, however, they always have political leanings.

Tim Miller is the Akron-based incumbent. He was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine to complete the last two years of a four-year term. He is a former Akron Schools board member. He also leans conservative.

Tom Jackson is from Solon, one of the east side suburbs of Cleveland. He has a degree in education and is on the Solon City Schools Strategic Planning team. He leans progressive.

Cierra Lynch Shehorn is a Summit County consultant. She owns her own firm and has worked in PR and media relations. She leans conservative.

The battle around what students should be taught in school continues to rage on in not just the Ohio Legislature but also at the local level.

Parents have been raising concerns on each side for about two years now, but the debate is heating up as the election gets closer.

Dozens of families, students and educators have reached out to OCJ, asking the team to speak to candidates for the state school board about the culture wars.

Democratic-leaning candidate Tom Jackson wants to protect educators from issues that he says detract from their real mission teaching the students.

What we have are largely false attacks and efforts to solve non-existing problems, Jackson said. And its being driven by the state Legislature.

More than 100 schools across the state arereceiving calls for book bans,to stop discussions of race, sexuality and gender or to teach atrocities such as the Holocaust from both sides.

House Bill 616states that no school district, community school, STEM school, non-public school that enrolls students who are participating in a state scholarship program, or any employee or other third party representing a school district or school, can teach any divisive or inherently racist concepts. That includes all of the critical race theory, intersectional theory, the 1619 project, diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes and inherited racial guilt.

The next section of the bill touches on sexuality and gender identity.

RELATED: Lawmakers hear Ohios version of Floridas Dont Say Gay bill

This bill came after OCJ aired an exclusive report about comments made by one of the primary sponsors of the original divisive concepts bill H.B. 327. The report stemmed from an interview exchange between state Representative Sarah Fowler Arthur (R-Ashtabula) and a OCJ reporter Morgan Trau in early March.

RELATED: Comments about the Holocaust from representative sponsoring divisive concepts bill raise concerns

During the interview, Fowler Arthur was asked about the financial aspect of the bill. While attempting to talk about funding, she brought up the Holocaust, saying that students needed to hear the massacre from the perspective of the German soldiers.

After the exclusive OCJ story on House Bill 327s sponsors comments on the Holocaust went international, the original divisive concepts bill has been renamed the both sides bill or the both sides of the Holocaust bill.

The lawmakers say this is to provide transparency to parents and to protect against indoctrination.

If a bill that says we need to teach all sides of the Holocaust gets a committee hearing in the state, well, thats just an embarrassment for the state, Jackson added. Theres no room for this.

Not addressing the specific bills, conservative-leaning Cierra Lynch Shehorn said she believes in parental rights and that schools should be able to do what they want.

It ties into transparency and local control, she said. Those are things that I really believe in. I dont believe in the state overstepping.

When pressed about how she would handle the state enforcing rules on how to teach subjects like the Holocaust, or gender, to local schools, she said that her role would be to just serve the purpose given to by the General Assembly.

She is much more interested in making sure there is a functioning school board than dealing with controversial topics.

While Conservative-leaning incumbent Tim Miller said he also believes in local control, like the other two candidates, he differs from Lynch Shehorn by explicitly condemning censorship.

On book banning and things of that nature, Im not supportive of that, he said. You certainly have to be aware of age appropriateness.

Miller is against banning books especially when it comes to high-level and college classes, which tend to be more worldly.

Some people didnt like some of the material there, but those are college-level classes, Miller said. Kids of that age should be exposed to everything and anything. If youre going into a four-year degree, thats part of a four-year degree.

Despite his support of exposure to difficult topics, Miller was one of the Board of Education members to repeal a 2020 anti-racism resolution.

The resolution condemned racism, made a goal to have equity in opportunities for students of color and encouraged diversity training.

When asked about his vote, the incumbent said he still stands behind it. Defending himself, he said he voted to remove the condemnation of racism document due to a technicality.

After that resolution passed, the state required diversity, equity, inclusion training for all state employees, he said. So that part of Resolution 20 was not needed anymore.

He took a lot of blowback for his vote in Akron, he said.

The board ended up with a replacement resolution, he said. The gist of the new resolution is that the board condemns any teachings that seek to divide.

Im here to help every child, regardless of their background, you know, race, color, creed, orientation and things of that nature, Miller said.

It is likely Lynch Shehorn would have voted the same way as Miller.

Im not a big fan of resolutions, she said. I believe that we need to leave the legislating to the legislators.

OCJ repeatedly asked Lynch Shehorn for her response to specific bills and how she would consider discussions of race in class, but she would not answer. Instead, she insisted that she is just there to serve the General Assembly.

Jackson was adamantly against this logic, citing it is ridiculous that condemning racism has become a political battle.

I will leave it up to your viewers on what you would call an anti-anti-racism resolution, he said.

The repeal of the anti-racism resolution shows a lot about the members who voted for it, the Democratic-leaning candidate said.

Teachers already had to deal with so much during the pandemic and now they have to deal with laws introduced or signed that the vast majority of educators are against. It is up to the school board to support them, he said.

To attack [teachers] for political or cultural reasons is just a disservice to the very children that were trying to support and lift up, Jackson added. We need people that are going to stand up to those forces and really be champions of public schools in Ohio.

FollowWEWSstatehouse reporter Morgan Trau onTwitterandFacebook.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Originally posted here:
District 10: Ohio's Board of Education candidates talk culture wars - Ohio Capital Journal

On a muggy day in Tampa this summer, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida took the podium and unleashed an attack on what he claimed was one of the principal threats to the livelihoods and freedoms of upstanding American citizens.

This is something in many respects that is crushing the little guy, he said. So we want to make sure that were standing on the side of average people.

DeSantis was not talking about aggression from overseas, high gas prices, inflation, pandemic lockdowns or even the Democratic Party.

Instead, he was talking about the rise of ESG, a catchall term in the corporate world used to denote a businesss focus on issues such as climate change and diversity.

Standing before a banner that read, Government of Laws, Not Woke CEOs, DeSantis railed against companies that he said were trying to use their power to advance a liberal agenda.

From Wall Street banks to massive asset managers and big tech companies, we have seen the corporate elite use their economic power to impose policies on the country that they could not achieve at the ballot box, he said.

DeSantis went on to announce measures intended to reduce the role of ESG or environmental, social and governance policies in investing in Floridas pension system. In doing so, he said, he was asserting the authority of our constitutional system over ideological corporate power. Besides stoking fears of globalism, it was a message likely to resonate with his base.

For nearly two decades developed economies throughout the world have adopted ESG investing policies setting aspirational targets to reduce carbon emissions, use more renewable energy or add more diversity to the workforce virtually without controversy.

The need for more such policies and commitment of funds for climate mitigation and adaptation will be among the topics discussed this week as scientists, corporate sustainability officers, government officials and others, including former Vice President Al Gore and John Kerry, now the US special presidential envoy for climate, gather in New York for The New York Times Climate Forward conference.

The event is part of Climate Week, an annual global summit that runs during the U.N. General Assembly, where the role of corporations in combating climate change and achieving social justice is emphasized, with such panels as Investing in Equity and the Economy.

But in recent months, what has become a plain vanilla bit of sustainability reporting in other parts of the world has, along with the related term stakeholder capitalism, emerged as the latest front in the culture wars roiling US politics.

Conservatives in the United States, closely aligned with the oil and gas industries, have begun calling foul as companies and investment firms embrace efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address international and local inequities. And in recent months, they have pushed beyond rhetoric to punish corporations they say are unduly focused on issues that they argue are unrelated to a companys bottom line.

Theres a lot of politics around the term ESG right now, said Reid Thomas, a managing director at JTC, a fund manager. Youve got different sides pushing back at each other.

Yet even as the rhetoric heats up, and executives brace for more attacks by Republican politicians, most companies and investment firms are standing their ground. Many corporate leaders say that, as a long-term strategy, it is in their best interests to invest in climate solutions and their workforces and worth the uncomfortable public relations moments in the short term.

Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, is a frequent champion of ESG He defended the firms policies in his annual letter to chief executives this year.

Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics, he wrote. 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.

The ongoing culture war

Tensions between conservative and corporate America have been growing for years. After the election of President Donald Trump, many CEOs found themselves at odds with the White House on issues including immigration, race relations and efforts to mitigate climate change by reining in oil and gas production and use.

Now, in addition to staking out policy positions that are unpopular with many Republicans, big corporations and investment firms are working to integrate ESG more deeply into their businesses.

Rarely do the setting of such goals result in swift and dramatic changes to how firms operate. And indeed, many companies are accused of greenwashing touting their commitments to ESG without instituting any real reforms.

Nevertheless, conservative leaders are now taking on the biggest companies in the country, attacking ESG and working to portray environmental and social priorities as bad for business and politically motivated evidence, they charge, that corporate America is committed to globalism and in cahoots with the left.

A record number of anti-ESG shareholder proposals were introduced over the last year.

Texas became the first state to pass a law that barred major financial institutions from state business if they were deemed to be boycotting the oil and gas industry. In truth, the financial firms targeted by the law still do ample business with the fossil fuel industry, but have pulled back lending for some parts of the oil and gas business that they believe to be poor investments.

Several more states, including West Virginia and Oklahoma, have passed similar laws this year.

At the same time, Republican state attorneys general have targeted BlackRock, accusing it of putting its climate agenda ahead of clients and being in league with climate activists because it is supporting the goals established at the Paris climate conference in 2015 and working on efforts to phase out fossil fuels, which are dangerously warming the planet.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, a potential presidential contender in 2024, said this summer that he wanted to rein in ESG.

A financial firm that says it is guided by biblical principles, Inspire Investing, lashed out at companies pursuing ESG efforts, saying that the term has become weaponized by liberal activists to push forward their harmful, social-Marxist agenda.

Elon Musk, the worlds richest man, has also soured on the term. ESG is a scam, he wrote on Twitter this year. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.

And with each passing week, more states are taking steps to penalize companies they say are unduly focused on climate issues, with DeSantis making good on his threat to ban ESG considerations from its pension fund managers, and Texas expanding its list of banned financial institutions to include many of the worlds biggest banks.

I see this anti-ESG push as the next extension of the ongoing culture war, Kristoffer Inton, an analyst with the research firm Morningstar, said in a recent report. Many of these thoughts, and even some of the bills, are written without a great understanding of sustainable investing. Any investor who ignores ESG risk, like any other risk, does so at their own peril.

Yet as the right ratchets up its attacks on companies, most executives are staying the course, at least for now.

We see ESG, or resilience, or more specifically our decarbonization and diversity programs, as ways to enhance long term value for our companies, said Jean Rogers, head of ESG at Blackstone, the worlds largest private equity firm. So we are really not looking at the political fray.

Companies say that their efforts to reduce emissions are sound long term investments because the risks of climate change are increasingly material, and that efforts to promote more diversity among their workforces improves corporate culture.

Fund managers and investors arent really deterred by all of the noise, Thomas said. And, he said, the money is flowing in the direction of investing in issues like climate and equity.

BlackRock has defended its stance as a sound investment strategy. We believe investors and companies that take a forward-looking position with respect to climate risk and its implications for the energy transition will generate better long-term financial outcomes, the company wrote.

Many other big companies have taken similar positions.

The market is recognizing this and doing it because its good for business, not because its part of a political agenda, said Steven M. Rothstein, managing director at the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets, a group that supports sustainable businesses.

What is more, plenty of opportunistic corporations sense that there is money to be made as more renewable energy projects are built around the world.

This transition can lead to enormous opportunities, Rothstein said. There will be trillions invested in green technologies.

Confusing and inconsistent

Given the absence of uniform standards, what people mean when they say ESG is constantly evolving. After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, analysts at Citi made the case that weapons-makers and defense contractors should qualify as socially positive investments because they were helping protect democracy.

Meanwhile, a whole new industry has emerged of providers offering reports, data, metrics and technology services to help big companies keep track of their ESG efforts.

There are hundreds of different reporting frameworks out there that are all confusing and inconsistent, Thomas said. There are hundreds of different companies out there selling reporting software.

Making matters worse is the fact that even those who support corporate efforts to combat climate change acknowledge that some funds and companies that boast of their environmental accomplishments are overstating their impact.

ESG funds do a lot of greenwashing, which we know, said Mary Cerulli, founder of Climate Finance Action. Its tainted the whole legitimacy of the broader framework.

Climate is a risk

For now at least, conservatives appear to have the upper hand in the battle to control the public narrative.

Theyve been spinning this narrative that ESG is woke, and theyve had a big head start in messaging, Cerulli said.

Prominent conservative commentators have amplified the message, often misrepresenting what the term means.

ESG has no real definition, but in effect it requires companies and countries to shut down their most productive sectors in the name of climate change and equity, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in a segment this summer.

And yet even as the attacks continue, big companies appear to be moving forward with their efforts to prioritize environmental issues.

The majority of anti-ESG shareholder proposals have failed to gain support from investors, according to the Morningstar report. More than 90% of companies in the S&P 500 index now publish an ESG report. And the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering adopting new rules that would require public companies to submit more detailed analysis of climate related risks and greenhouse gas emissions.

The private market is speaking, Rothstein said. And they are saying that climate is a risk.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Continue reading here:
Another culture war front: Are companies too woke when it comes to climate? - Kathimerini English Edition