ESG issues

Subscribe to ESG issues via RSS

A federal district court in Missouri recently enjoined Missouri Securities Division rules that require financial firms and professionals to obtain clients’ signatures on state-prescribed documents before providing advice that “incorporates a social or nonfinancial objective.”  The permanent injunction issued in Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association v. Ashcroft, No. 23-cv-4154 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 14, 2024), vindicates a noteworthy response from the securities industry to the anti-ESG backlash that has emerged in some states in the past few years and has politicized investment decisionmaking.

A federal District Court in Washington recently dismissed a shareholder derivative action by a conservative advocacy group challenging Starbucks’ initiatives relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”). The decision in National Center for Public Policy Research v. Schultz held that the plaintiff did not fairly and adequately represent the interests of Starbucks and its shareholders in launching the challenge and had not pled particularized facts showing that Starbucks’ Board of Directors had wrongfully refused the plaintiff’s demand to dismantle the company’s DEI initiatives.

In an era of politicization of DEI and other ESG-related concerns, the ruling sends a signal that at least some courts will refuse to become “political attachés” in the culture wars and will not involve themselves with partisan attacks on “reasonable and legal decisions made by the board of directors of public corporations.” Decisions of this type should provide some comfort to corporations and boards as they consider how to address those complicated social and workplace issues.

The SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force has been criticized by Republican commissioners who believe enforcement in the area would be premature. But Kelly L. Gibson, acting deputy director of the enforcement and head of the agency-wide ESG Task Force, stated that the task force is necessary to recognize evolving investor priorities and that it will continue to operate. And new SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has echoed her sentiments, telling Congress that investors “measured in the trillions of dollars” seek to better understand climate risk issues.

While the SEC staff tends to be of the broad view that ESG warrants serious consideration, there are a breadth of different opinions regarding what ultimate disclosure requirements should look like.  This discord came to a head during a virtual SEC panel last Friday.

The panelists included both SEC staff and industry leaders.  One-by-one, the panelists provided their views on the SEC’s ESG subcommittee’s December recommendation of new standards for issuers to disclose “material ESG risks.”  In particular, the ESG subcommittee recommended that material ESG risks be disclosed pursuant to “standard setters’ frameworks,” and “in a manner consistent with the presentation of other financial disclosures.”

On February 18, 2021, the Institute of International Finance (“IFF”) hosted the U.S. Climate Finance Summit, at which both John Coates, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, and Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard made statements in favor of companies providing fulsome ESG disclosures.  These pronouncements underscore the Summit’s larger goal of supporting a “pro-growth, pro-markets transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.” 

In 2020, trillions of dollars flooded ESG funds, and many analysts are expecting this trend to continue in 2021. BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, plans to have $1.2 trillion in ESG assets in the next 10 years, and an estimated one-third of all U.S. assets under management are already sustainably invested.  Given the importance of ESG to the securities markets, we herein present an elementary primer, explaining ESG issues and how they are affecting companies and their public disclosures—your ABC’s of ESG, so to speak.