The trend of Environmental, Social and, Governance (ESG) investing has recently come under the microscope. When retirees and pensioners see lower returns on investments, they are not keen on prioritizing woke politics over sound financial returns — assuming they ever had a meaningful chance to weigh in. Much of the discussion involving this type of investing focuses on the investor class, but the consequences of ESG are far-reaching.

It’s hard to connect these dots. ESG is designed to confuse and disorient the average American, preventing them from understanding how it works, its impacts, and who is actually calling the shots. This proves convenient for the woke elitists at the top — and even the willing ones in the middle — that such a system helps avoid any direct accountability. But increasingly, public interest groups alongside the Republican majority in Congress are shining some much-needed light.

Bill-payers, mostly women, are at the frontlines of ESG’s high-cost impacts. The E prong — or environmental standards — coerce compliance with “net-zero” policies that aim to phase out fossil energy like coal, oil, and natural gas by 2050. These energy resources currently provide 80% of the energy we need to fuel our economy and maintain our modern way of life. As a result, ESG is a contributing factor to the high gas and electricity prices that hit low-income households the most — forcing many to choose between food or electricity. 

More broadly, one in six American families is currently behind on electricity bills. The cost for an average household has risen approximately $10,000 over the past two years. In addition to inflation, these costs are squeezing regular folks and making it virtually impossible for low-income Americans to ever cross the middle-class threshold. ESG is undoubtedly becoming a barrier to upward mobility. 

The American entrepreneur is also impacted. ESG makes realization of the American Dream contingent on acquiescing to the demands of the woke Left. And it doesn’t just target oil and gas. ESG is used by progressive activists to defund and constrain the growth of politically disfavored companies deemed “bad” by ESG standards — a rubric that is constantly changing. To date, this includes firearms manufacturersanimal agricultureTesla, and even chocolatiers that aren’t woke enough. These misguided efforts create a range of perverse outcomes beyond lost jobs and economic growth for companies. 

ESG is also a tool to advance the Left’s broader cultural agenda. The S prong, or social standards, force acceptance of policies with which many Americans disagree — including the average parent. Running into Target with your children means being bombarded with bizarre and wildly inappropriate “pride” celebrations. As a mother of two young children who are naturally drawn to rainbow or glitter anything, it became necessary to explain why Target attempting to cultivate this niche — a market for troubled youth being groomed by disturbed adults into hating their God-given, sex-defining organs to the point they will hide them, tuck them, and increasingly chop them off — is so upsetting. Given this, my family and I will shop elsewhere.

S-policies also include mandating non-gendered bathrooms at work, meeting race-specific hiring quotas, teaching critical race theory (CRT), and forcing support for a range of liberal campaigns like defunding the police and drag queen story hour. While these ideas are trendy among some progressive corporate leaders, polling reveals the majority of Americans oppose them and would prefer they be kept out of the workplace and marketplace.

A solid 51% of Americans believe bathroom use should match one’s biological sex. 43% of Americans believe CRT will worsen race relations compared to 23% who don’t. Latinos and Asians oppose critical race theory by a two-to-one margin. A whopping 73% of Americans oppose racial quotas in hiring, and 58% of Americans oppose defunding police. 

There are also the numerous workers negatively impacted by ESG. Some analyses have found G, or governance, policies that prioritize checking superficial boxes, results in decreased viewpoint diversity. It also has the effect of suppressing speech for workers who may disagree with G policies but would prefer to avoid the wrath of the woke. Also concerning: some companies prioritize the marketing of diversity language while making a mockery of actual progress. 

As awareness of ESG increases, so too does the opposition. This is why its most ardent defenders are pulling out all the stops to distort the truth about ESG and discredit those willing to point out the numerous, negative impacts. Whether it’s the bill-payer, the entrepreneur, the parent, or the worker, ESG is making life more difficult with policies that cause much more harm than any version of good.