The blowback against environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives in investments and corporate strategies is quickly building momentum in conservative politics.
“It has become an identifying political issue, where politicians can plant a flag to declare where they stand,” said Lance Dial, a partner at law firm Morgan Lewis. “This is really more about politics than about the law.”
In many states where anti-ESG bills are not just up for debate but have been signed into law, the underlying motivation appears to be protecting core industries—oil and gas, coal, even agriculture—from losing access to capital.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec.
Trial Membership
First week free, then $499 for an annual Membership
Cancel anytime within the trial period.
Annual Membership best value
Subscribe now for $365
Our lowest price ($1 per day) for one year.
Hester Peirce of the Securities and Exchange Commission argued materiality-based standards—not environmental, social, and governance standards—best suit investors’ needs during a recent speech.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly considering pulling back on key elements of its proposed climate-related disclosure rule following pushback from investors, companies, and the public.
Compliance practitioners share their experiences navigating responsibilities related to environmental, social, and governance without stepping on the toes of other colleagues.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network announced a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend the deadline for companies created or registered in 2024 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports.
The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to its rule covering fund names to ensure the regulation is appropriate to address new investment drivers, namely environmental, social, and governance matters.
The actions of companies like Amazon and new legislation passed in California prove it’s no longer a question of if companies will be required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions—it’s a question of when, experts told attendees at CW’s virtual ESG Summit.
