House Oversight Committee holds ESG hearing (2023)
| Environmental, social, and corporate governance |
|---|
|
| • What is ESG? • Enacted ESG legislation • Arguments for and against ESG • Opposition to ESG • Federal ESG rules • ESG legislation tracker • Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter |
The House Oversight Committee on May 10 held a hearing on ESG, during which Republicans and Democrats took opposite perspectives on the issue. Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) criticized ESG in his opening statement:
| “ |
In his opening statement, Chairman Comer emphasized that asset managers and activist shareholders are partnering with liberal advocacy groups to push ESG priorities and a radical political agenda with Americans’ money. He stressed that ESG commitments are often at odds with their clients’ best interests, occur without their clients’ knowledge, and used to force businesses to comply to a far-left ideology. In addition, he highlighted the Biden Administration’s pursuit to advance ESG priorities over the economic, energy, and national security needs of the United States. He concluded that the Committee would continue to expose and investigate harmful ESG practices and hold unelected bureaucrats accountable for pushing their interests on the American people.[1] |
” |
Among other things, Chairman Comer said that he intends to hold more oversight hearings to investigate ESG policy:
| “ |
But today will not be the end of the Committee’s work. Asset managers should understand that they are stewards of money that is not theirs, and their failure to act in the best interests of their clients is a dereliction of duty. Proxy advisors should understand that they cannot intimidate and coerce companies to implement ESG policies without scrutiny. While this is the first official hearing in what will be a series of oversight actions by this Committee to explore ESG, we’ve already held several hearings to investigate related issues, including misguided energy policy and progressivism in the military. We must also continue our oversight of the Biden Administration’s government-wide efforts by unelected bureaucrats to dictate to the American people what they are allowed to say, spend their money on, or do with their hard-earned savings. Whether it’s the SEC and Federal Reserve; the EPA and Department of Energy; the Pentagon; the State Department, know this: we are watching.[1] |
” |
On the other side of the aisle, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued in favor of ESG and criticized House Republicans for opposing policies supporting the investment strategy.
| “ |
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) blasted the GOP attacks on “woke” ideology during a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday, arguing the term has a proud history and that it should guide companies in their business decisions. “The word work comes from the Indo-European root ‘weg,’ which means to be strong and alert,” Raskin said at a hearing focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. That word also evolved into the modern word vigilance. “The whole point of being a fiduciary is to be vigilant, watchful and alert to opportunities and risks,” Raskin said in defending ESG investing. “And that’s what asset managers, corporate board members and executives do with other people’s money.” The opposite of a woke investing strategy, Raskin argued, “is a negligent and inattentive investment strategy.”… “We are witnessing a widespread, highly coordinated, politically motivated attack on investors and the hard-working people they serve,” Illinois state treasurer Michael Frerichs told the committee. “ESG is about looking at a wider range of risks and value opportunities that can have a material financial impact on investment performance.”… The attack on sustainable investing is personal for Raskin, who saw his wife Sarah Bloom Raskin’s nomination for the role of top cop at the Federal Reserve fall apart over allegations that her concerns around climate financial risks were an attempt to do policy by the backdoor…. In a 2020 New York Times op-ed, Bloom Raskin argued that the federal reserve should not subsidize fossil fuels, a technology whose impacts on climate change and diminishing position versus newer technologies made it inherently risky.[1] |
” |
See also
- Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
- Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's ESG newsletter
External links
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
