There are two ways to throttle business. One is a noose thrown over them involuntarily by government — the other is the noose they put on themselves voluntarily.  One contemporary self-chosen noose is known as 'corporate self-responsibility', aka collectivism applied to corporations, explained in this guest post by Kimberlee Josephson. Corporations, she notes, have come to view themselves as social stewards for moral and social change, and are increasingly declaring that they have to "give back." But is that a good thing?

A Brief History of Corporate Social Responsibility

by Kimberlee Josephson

The phenomenon of so-called CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) gained notoriety with Howard R. Bowen’s 1953 publication Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, and although times have since changed and CSR has taken on various forms since, a constant question remains unchanged.

What is the role of business in society?

Some claim that a greater focus on corporate social performance over corporate financial performance is now warranted, while others adhere to a more classical viewpoint, siding with Theodore Levitt’s assertion that business should simply aim to achieve material gain while operating in good faith. Levitt, a German-American economist and professor at the Harvard Business School, spoke of “The Dangers of Social Responsibility” in a 1958 Harvard Business Review article. He posited that profit maximisation over the long term should be the primary goal of business as this would have a 'spillover effect' improving the wellbeing of society. [As if business's primary goal itself is unimportant! - Ed.]

The propensity to exchange to benefit oneself as a means for societal advancement was most notably espoused in Adam Smith’s 1776 magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations. ("It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner," he declared, "but from their regard to their own interest."), but Milton Friedman later drove this message home in his seminal essay in the New York Times Magazine about how the “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.”

Yet, the prioritisation of self-gain has proven to be a hard pill to swallow for a culture that seeks emotional fulfillment via altruism. As such, businesses have not only been encouraged to engage in CSR, but also to harness it and pursue a 'higher' calling.

A prominent depiction of the evolution of business interest in CSR, along with society’s expectations for business behavior, is Archie Carroll’s 'CSR Pyramid,' first published in 1991.

At the base of the pyramid is the economic responsibility for firms to be a productive element of society and contribute to the financial wellbeing of the organisation. The next level concerns the legal responsibility of a firm to abide by the ground rules and regulations within the societies they operate. Further up the pyramid concerns a firm’s ethical responsibility, since laws are not sufficient in and of themselves for maintaining order. Indeed, societies establish mores and conventions which influence culture and communal interactions. For instance, it is not illegal to cheat on one’s spouse, but it does violate the institution of marriage; and to the same extent firms are wedded to the societies they are established within and should abide by certain expectations to maintain a healthy relationship.

The top of the pyramid is designated as the discretionary responsibility of philanthropy, wherein the company “gives back,” and this responsibility was posited to be “desired” by society rather than required.

The CSR Pyramid is still widely referenced and Dr. Wayne Visser, CSR professional [sic], who attests it to be a useful framework for managerial decision making. However, over time, the expectations for the top two tiers of the pyramid have expanded, and even what constitutes ethical behaviour has evolved since Carroll’s publication.

In today’s competitive landscape, CSR constitutes a management strategy that goes beyond corporate giving and charitable networks. In fact, as defined by the United Nations, CSR is quite distinct from philanthropy given that in addition to an economic impact it takes into consideration a firm's social and environmental impact.

An emphasis on the people, planet, and profit has become par for the course, and a variety of methods and forms of assessment regarding "sustainability" have come about for companies to prove their “good” work. John Elkington, who coined the term triple bottom line (TBL) for determining the social, environmental, and economic impact of a firm, claims TBL doesn’t go far enough and the business view of CSR is too narrow. Elkington claims that firms should go beyond aiming to be the “best in the world” and instead aspire to be the “best for the world.”

What is “best,” and for whom it is best, though, is largely subjective and open to interpretation. For instance, some social issues are undebatable, such as the desire to end world hunger, but the means for addressing them are usually complex and contestable. [And corporations by their own productivity — and by focussing on their day jobs — have been doing that dramatically in recent decades with barely any applause whatsoever. — Ed.]

Nevertheless, corporations now view themselves as social stewards with a moral charge, and this is an important shift to note, particularly since it is being driven by public opinion.

A 2018 study reported that 78 percent of Americans believe companies must have a positive societal impact beyond their productive purpose, and 77 percent of Americans “feel a stronger emotional connection” to purpose-driven corporations. Companies are responding to public sentiments and reinforcing such expectations through cause-related marketing campaigns and social labelling schemes, and this is a worrisome matter given the potential to compound the issues at hand.

Unlike the stages of the CSR Pyramid, which tended to be industry oriented, firms stretching beyond their domain of competence to prove themselves as worthy contributors to society at large (rather than streamlining efforts toward core stakeholders) is disconcerting for shareholders and distracting for budding entrepreneurs.

The spearheading of virtuous ventures and advocacy advertising show no sign of slowing down—and it won’t, until social pressure shifts back to value rather than virtue.

[Kimberlee's post first appeared at FEE.Org. Hat tip Loiuse Lamontagne and Thomas Miovas Jr]

What's ESG? What's ZIRP? -- and why should you care?

ZIRP (zero-interest rate policies) characterises the cheap credit that has flooded out of central banks in the last decade or more. 

ESG (environmental, social, and governance) is the dripping wet "stakeholder" theory that demands that so-called "ethical investors" should direct companies to undertake more politically-correct projects. It is the stakeholder theory route to collectivism.

Fortunately, as Peter Earle explains in this guest post, shareholders and consumers are starting to flex their muscles, and the credit contraction is making a lot of what was formerly cheap very expensive.

ESG as an Artifact of ZIRP

Guest post by Peter C. Earle

Founding myths tend to be mired in obscurity, and like many other investment trends, the roots of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) philosophies are unclear.

The founding of the World Economic Forum is one origin. Stakeholder theory is another of ESG’s clear antecedents, especially as formalised in R. Edward Freeman’s 1984 book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. The 2004 World Bank report “Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World” is another contender, providing as it did guidelines for firms to integrate ESG practices into their daily operations. And the publication of the reporting framework United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing in April 2006 (the most recent version of which can be found here) was another.

Its origins however are less important than the destruction it has caused.

Wherever it began, ESG clearly hit its stride within the last five to ten years. Those were heady times for bankers and financiers, first characterised by zero interest rate policies (ZIRP) and then, during the pandemic, by massively expansionary monetary and fiscal programs. Yet in the last two years or so, the prevailing economic circumstances have changed considerably. Inflation at four-decade highs is battering firms by raising the cost of doing business. It is also negatively impacting corporate revenues, as consumers retrench by cutting back on expenditures.

Nowhere are these effects more evident than in shareholder land, where the fourth-quarter 2022 S&P 500 earnings season is just about over. “Earnings quality” is an evaluation of the soundness of current corporate earnings and, consequently, how well they are likely to predict future earnings. For the past year, and certainly for the last quarter, the quality of earnings has been abysmal. One particular element – “accruals,” or cashless earnings – are their highest reported level ever, according to UBS. In that same report, we find the somewhat shocking revelation that nearly one in three Russell 3000 index constituents is unprofitable.

For those and other reasons, a theme in many of the fourth-quarter corporate earnings reports has been cost-cutting: Disney, Newscorp, eBay, Boeing, Alphabet, Dell, General Motors, and a handful of investment banks are all eliminating jobs and slashing unnecessary expenses. And although firms regularly write off the value of certain assets and goodwill, that process accelerates during recessions. 

Firms are additionally contending with the highest interest rates they’ve faced since 2007, and in some cases back to 2001. A substantial amount of corporate debt assumed at lower interest rates is now more costly to service, as a generation of managers grapple with a world of interest rates (and its effects) that they've never seen before.

Dividend payments for example, typically considered sacrosanct during all but the most severe financial straits, are being targeted for savings. February 24th in Fortune:

Intel, the world’s largest maker of computer processors, this week slashed its dividend payment to the lowest level in 16 years in an effort to preserve cash and help turn around its business. Hanesbrands Inc., a century-old apparel maker, earlier this month eliminated the quarterly dividend it started paying nearly a decade ago. VF Corp., which owns Vans, The North Face, and other brands, also cut its dividend in recent weeks as it works to reduce its debt burden … Retailers in particular face declining profits, as persistent inflation also erodes consumers’ willingness to spend. So far this year, as many as 17 companies in the Dow Jones US Total Stock Index cut their dividends, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

All of this suggests two things.

First, if large firms are doing everything they can to reduce unnecessary overhead, then feel-good initiatives and other corporate baubles are likely to face the chopping block – even if quietly. ESG observance is one of those very costly trinkets, bringing as it does compliance costs, legal costs, measurement costs, and opportunity costs. The reporting requirements alone associated with upholding ESG standards are high, and rising. In 2022, two studies attempted to estimate those costs:

Corporate Issuers are currently spending an average of more than $675,000 per year on climate-related disclosures, and institutional investors are spending nearly $1.4 million on average to collect, analyze and report climate data, according to a new survey released by the SustainAbility Institute by ERM … The survey gathered data from 39 corporate issuers from across multiple U.S. sectors, with a market cap range of under $1 billion to over $200 billion, and 35 institutional investors representing a total of $7.2 trillion of AUM … The SEC has released its own estimates for complying with its proposed rules, predicting first year costs at $640,000, and annual ongoing costs for issuers at $530,000. The study explored the specific elements covered by the SEC requirements, and found that issuers on average spend $533,000 on these, in line with the SEC estimates. Elements not included in the SEC requirements included costs related to proxy responses to climate-related shareholder proposals, and costs for activities including developing and reporting on low-carbon transition plans, and for stakeholder engagement and government relations.

Difficulty measuring costs means difficulty budgeting for them. Another recent report commented:

Although it is inherently difficult to assess the costs [of ESG], it is fair to anticipate significant costs for ambitious ESG goals. In an article in The Economist, a specific cost estimate was made in relation to offset a company’s entire carbon footprint. This was estimated to cost about 0.4 percent of annual revenues. This could already be a huge component for many companies, but it is only one aspect of merely one ESG factor.

Yet that comment concludes with the kind of assurance that flows effortlessly from consultants well-positioned to, frankly, make a lot of money off of ESG compliance: “However, there is no real choice. The climate certainly cannot wait.” Given the recent backlash against ESG, whether driven by ideology or accounting, it’s clear that there is a real choice, and that choice is being invoked with increasing frequency throughout the commercial world.

Second, the recent explosion of ESG adoption may have been in the spirit, if not embodying a strictly theoretical manifestation, of malinvestment as predicted by Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT). 

Without engaging in a lengthy discussion of ABCT, artificially-low interest rates (interest rates set by policymakers instead of markets) undercut the natural rate of interest, misleading entrepreneurs and business managers. Many years of negligible interest rates, indeed negative real rates, have given rise to bubble-like firms, projects, and I would argue, by extension, business concepts. The latter, which include but are not limited to ESG, seem feasible and arguably essential when the money spigots are open. When interest rates normalise and sobriety re-obtains, cost structures reassert themselves. It’s back to the business of business. 

Interest rates are now beginning to normalise. And, perhaps, business practices with them.

Gone are the salad days of easy money, and with it the schmaltzy wishlists of niceties which a decade of monetary expansion permitted activists to blithely force upon corporate executives. In the face of rising interest rates, an uncertain path for inflation, budget-constrained consumers, and rapidly deteriorating corporate earnings, shareholders are likely to take a closer look at how and where their money is being spent than they have in some time. 

Although it is unlikely to disappear completely, the ESG fad is probably past the crest of its popularity. It’s time again for firms to focus, singularly and completely, on the inestimable task of making money.

* * * * 

Peter C. Earle is an economist who joined the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in 2018. Prior to that he spent over 20 years as a trader and analyst at a number of securities firms and hedge funds in the New York metropolitan area. His research focuses on financial markets, monetary policy, and problems in economic measurement. He has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, NPR, and in numerous other media outlets and publications. Pete holds an MA in Applied Economics from American University, an MBA (Finance), and a BS in Engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

His post first appeared at the AIER blog.

"Competition Is the Antidote to Big Tech's Bad Behaviour, Not Politicians"

"Big Tech is a hot button issue, and prohibiting access is a big deal. But these companies have the right to do so ...
    "As long as a company isn’t physically or forcefully harming another individual or their property, the ability to intervene is limited until new legislation is enacted, and we should be wary of calling for further government interference and be mindful that new laws can backfire....
    “The best regulator of technology… is simply more technology. And despite fears that ... gatekeepers have closed networks that the next generation of entrepreneurs need to reach their audience, somehow they do it anyway — often embarrassingly fast, whether the presumed tyrant being deposed is a long-time incumbent or last year’s startup darling.”
    "[L]ike any vice that is in our life, individuals need to take on some personal accountability for what has transpired in the online and trading realms.
    "The power players didn’t achieve their status by force, and most allowed us access to their services for free (whether for tweeting our thoughts or jumping on a bandwagon for buying stock). It is the producers and users (composed of individuals) who have furthered such ventures....
    "If given a chance, the market will eventually provide solutions to many of the grievances stemming from Big Tech's clumsy efforts to control user content. Creative destruction will bring better processes. And Henry Hazlitt’s succinct words of wisdom are important to remember in situations such as this—'The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector.'
    "Solutions will arise as long as regulatory bodies are kept at bay and rational ethical entrepreneurs and innovators are left unbridled. What is needed now is true economic freedom (removing the incentive of cronyism and political policing) and the welcoming of enterprising individuals."

~ Kimberlee Josephson, from her article 'Why Competition Is the Antidote to Big Tech's Bad Behaviour, Not Politicians'

 

World-class surfer of central banks' tidal wave of counterfeit capital,

Klaus Schwab, speaking to fellow surfers at his absurdly influential World 

Economic Forum. [Image credit: World Economic Forum, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

Vladimir Lenin once boasted that capitalists would sell the rope to hang themselves -- and then set about organising things to make that happen. He failed, but so-called capitalists still line up to keep trying: one latest attempt being something they call 'stakeholder capitalism,' characterised by so-called 'responsible investing.' As Dan Sanchez explains in this Guest Post, it's anything but...

"ESG" -- Capitalism's 'Great Reset'?

Guest Post by Dan Sanchez

Capitalism needs few descriptive adjectives beyond the words "laissez-faire" or "unhampered." In recent years however, so-called "stakeholder capitalism" has taken the global economy by storm. Its champions proclaim that it will save—and remake—the world. Will it live up to its hype or will it destroy capitalism in the name of reforming it?

Proponents pitch their "stakeholder capitalism" as an antidote to the excesses of so-called “shareholder capitalism,” which they condemn as too narrowly focused on maximising profits (especially short-term profits) for corporate shareholders. This, they argue, is socially irresponsible and destructive, because it disregards the interests of other stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, employees, local communities, and society in general.

"Stakeholder capitalism" [which earns every inverted comma we can muster - Ed.] is ostensibly about offering business leaders incentives to take these wider considerations into account and thus make more “sustainable” decisions. This, it is argued, is also better in the long run for businesses’ bottom lines.

The Rise and Reign of ESG

Today’s dominant strain of "stakeholder capitalism" is the doctrine known as ESG, which stands for “environmental, social, and corporate governance.” Got that? The acronym was coined in the 2004 report of Who Cares Wins, a joint initiative of elite financial institutions invited by no less than the United Nations “to develop guidelines and recommendations on how to better integrate environmental, social and corporate governance issues in asset management, securities brokerage services, and associated research functions.”

In other words, how best to make businesses throw themselves under the bus before governments do it for them.

Who Cares Wins operated under the auspices of the UN’s Global Compact, which, according to the report, “is a corporate responsibility initiative launched by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 with the primary goal of implementing universal principles in business.” For "universal" read "the UN's."

Much "progress" has been made toward that goal. Since 2004, ESG has evolved from talk of “guidelines and recommendations” to hard, explicit standards that hold sway over huge swathes of the global economy and billions of dollars worth of investment decisions. ESG has begun to move the world.

These standards to which businesses are all-but required to dance are set by ESG rating agencies like the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and enforced by investment firms that manage ESG funds. One such firm is Blackrock, whose CEO Larry Fink is a leading champion of both ESG and SASB.

In December, Reuters published a report titled “How 2021 became the year of ESG investing” which stated that, “ESG funds now account for 10% of worldwide fund assets.”

And in April, Bloomberg reported that ESG, “by some estimates represents more than $40 trillion in assets. According to Morningstar, genuine ESG funds held about $2.7 trillion in managed assets at the end of the fourth quarter.”

To access any of that capital, it is no longer enough for a business to offer a good return on investment (or, sometimes, any at all). It must also report “environmental” and “social” metrics that meet ESG standards.

Is that a welcome development? Will the general public as non-owning “stakeholders” of these businesses be better off thanks to the implementation of ESG standards? Is stakeholder capitalism beginning to reform shareholder capitalism by widening its perspective and curing it of its narrow-minded fixation on profit uber alles?

Capitalism Is for Consumers

To answer that, some clarification is in order. First of all, “shareholder capitalism” is a misleading term for laissez-faire capitalism. It is true that, as Milton Friedman wrote in his 1970 critique of the “social responsibility of business” rhetoric of the time:

In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.

Since the owners of a publicly traded corporation are its shareholders, it is true that they are and ought to be the “bosses” of a corporation’s employees—including its management. It is also true that corporate executives properly have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise profits for their shareholders.

But that does not mean that shareholders reign supreme under capitalism. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises explained in his book Human Action:

The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs [which, according to Mises’s technical definition includes shareholding investors]. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer.

The “sovereign consumers,” as Mises calls them, issue their orders through “their buying and their abstention from buying.” Those orders are transmitted throughout the entire economy via the price system. Entrepreneurs and investors who correctly anticipate those orders and direct production accordingly are rewarded with profits. But if one, as Mises says, “does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.”

Under laissez-faire capitalism therefore, the principal "stakeholders" whose preferences reign supreme are not not shareholders, but consumers. And (as Mises wrote in his paper “Profit and Loss”) shareholder profit is a measure of—and motivating reward for—success “in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers.” 

What this means for the “stakeholder capitalism” discussion is that, to the extent that the profit-and-loss metric is discounted for the sake of competing objectives (like serving other “stakeholders”), the sovereign consumers are dethroned, disregarded, and relatively impoverished.

Now it’s at least conceivable that ESG standards are not competing, but rather complementary to the profit-and-loss metric and thus serving consumers. In fact, that’s a big part of the ESG sales pitch: that corporations who adopt and adhere to ESG standards will enjoy higher long-term profits, because breaking free of their fixation on short-term shareholder returns will enable them to embrace more “sustainable” business practices.

In a free unhampered market, whether that promise would be fulfilled or not would be for the sovereign consumers to decide, and ESG would rise or fall on its own merits.

Who Complies Wins

Unfortunately, our market economy is far from free or unhampered. The State has instead rigged capital markets for the benefit of its elite lackeys in the financial industry: like those “Who Cares Wins” fat cats who started the ESG ball rolling in 2004 under the auspices of the United Nations.

One of the prime ways the State rigs markets is through central bank policy.

The prodigious amount of newly created money that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have pumped into financial institutions in recent years has transferred vast amounts of real wealth to those institutions from the general public. As a result, those institutions—big banks and investment companies—are now much more beholden to the State and much less beholden to consumers for their wealth.

As they say, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” So it’s no surprise that these institutions are stumbling over themselves to get on board the State’s ESG bandwagon. 

And that means that if non-financial corporations want access to the Fed’s money tap, and thus to the stream of counterfeit capital gushing out, they too have to get with the ESG program. Especially as the average consumer becomes increasingly impoverished by disastrous economic policies, the incentive for corporations to earn market profit by pleasing consumers is being progressively superseded by the incentive to gain access to the Fed’s flow of loot by meeting the State’s “social” standards.

By increasingly controlling capital flows, the State is gaining ever more control over the entire economy.

This may explain the recent willingness of so many corporations to alienate customers and sacrifice profits on the altar of “green” and “woke” politics. It's not necessarily that they embrace the nonsense themselves (though many do); it's that the governments and their well-rewarded agents have rigged businesses' financial incentives that way.

It is no coincidence that Klaus Schaub, the preeminent champion of the “Great Reset” also co-authored a book titled Stakeholder Capitalism. The upshot of "stakeholder capitalism" is that consumer is supplanted as the economy's supreme stakeholder by The State. The sick joke of stakeholder capitalism therefore is that it “reforms” capitalism by transforming it into a form of socialism. Lenin would be laughing up his sleeve.

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), editor-in-chief of FEE.org, and writer for (among others) The Mission, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, David Stockman’s Contra Corner, and many other popular web sites. He wrote a weekly column for Antiwar.com.
At the Mises Institute, Dan was editor of Mises.org and launched the Mises Academy, the first ever free-market economics online learning platform.
Dan has delivered speeches for FEE, Praxis, the Mises Institute, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, and more.

A version of his post first appeared at FEE.Org.

"Elizabeth Warren’s 'accountable capitalism' would not empower stakeholders. It would strip the stakeholders of their power and transfer that power to the state." #QotD

"[Elizabeth] Warren’s 'accountable capitalism' would not empower stakeholders. It would strip the stakeholders of their power and transfer that power to the state. All these interests will be 'brought within the orbit of the State [and] coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.' That is what it means to have government gun its way into private corporation boardrooms, whether in the name of 'stakeholders' or 'divergent interests'...
    "What Warren actually proposes is a reprise of Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, a form of guild socialism expanded to encompass 'all stakeholders' ... [putting] us on the way to 'a full-blown Corporative state'.”

~ Mike LaFerrara, from his post, 'Elizabeth Warren’s "Accountable Capitalism Act" Reprises Benito Mussolini'
.

"Stakeholder theory violates private property rights and freedom of association. It makes of people in business involuntary servants of 'society, mainly of self-appointed moralists." #QotD

"Stakeholder theory is now nearly mainstream among business ethics and business and society scholars but it has serious problems. One is well communicated by a quote from W. H. Auden: 'We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here for, I don't know'." More to the point, stakeholder theory violates private property rights and freedom of association. It makes of people in business involuntary servants of 'society, mainly of self-appointed moralists."

~ Tibor Machan, abstract of his paper 'Altruism (Stakeholder Theory) Versus Business Ethics'
.