voice for democracy

Democracy Before ESG by Luigi Zingales – Project Syndicate

Institutional investors are increasingly applying environmental, social, and governance criteria in their portfolio decisions. Yet as important as these factors are, they pale in comparison to the question of whether a business is engaged in the dirty business of dark-money political influence.
CHICAGO – Amid growing concerns about climate change and social unrest, institutional investors are increasingly applying environmental, social, and governance criteria in their portfolio decisions. Yet while ESG factors are important for investors to consider, the new focus risks obscuring an even bigger issue: the role that corporations play in the democratic process.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 21, Section 3) stipulates that, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections.” Democracy therefore is a human right, which means the first social responsibility of business – be it a sole proprietorship or a multi-trillion-dollar company – is to refrain from undermining democracy, either at home or abroad.
Many will consider this point obvious or irrelevant. What do corporations have to do with democracy? In fact, many corporations play a leading role in distorting the democratic process, the proper function of which is to transform popular will into legislative action. Let me illustrate the point with examples from the United States, which used to be considered the world’s most advanced democracy.
In 2019, Ohio’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed House Bill 6, which provided $1 billion in subsidies to bail out FirstEnergy Solutions, a nuclear-plant subsidiary of an electric utility. The bill was hardly an expression of the will of the people of Ohio. On the contrary, a dark-money group, Generation Now, has since pleaded guilty to charges of carrying out a massive bribery scheme to secure approval for the bailout. Generation Now backed the campaigns of 21 different state-level candidates, including the Speaker of the House, Larry Householder, who also received more than $400,000 in personal benefits.
And if this was not bad enough, when Ohioans started collecting signatures for a referendum to abolish HB6, Generation Now launched an ad campaign claiming that the Chinese would take over the state’s power grid if the repeal was successful. A local news outlet also found that the group had “hired ‘blockers’ who followed, encircled, harassed, and (in a couple cases) physically hit petition gatherers.” It was later revealed that Generation Now was founded with $56.6 million from FirstEnergy Solutions, but this scandal would never even have been exposed if not for an FBI investigation.
Since this episode seems to belong more in 1950s Guatemala than in twenty-first-century America, can we dismiss it as an isolated case, limited to one bad company, one state, or just the Republican Party? Unfortunately, we cannot. It is a truism in American politics that, “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.” In nearby Illinois, Exelon Corporation agreed to pay a $200 million fine for a long-running bribery scheme in which the utility gave jobs and contracts to associates of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a leader of the state’s Democratic Party.
Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more – for less than $9 a month.
Subscribe Now
Again, the only unusual aspect of this story is that the perpetrators were caught. A recent paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics provides systematic evidence of the many ways that corporate money is routinely funneled through not-for-profit organizations to influence political outcomes behind the scenes. The actions documented in the paper are legal, but that does not make them socially responsible.
Corporate influence on the American political process is not only burdening our public finances and devastating our environment; it is also fundamentally undermining our democracy. Democracy is worth preserving if it performs the function of transforming voter preferences into policy. But if it is failing at that, why keep it? After all, democracy is neither efficient nor cheap to maintain. If voters cannot trust their elected representatives to represent them, they will throw their support behind extremists who are willing to tear down the corrupted system.
Given the stakes, not interfering with the democratic process should be the primary social responsibility of any business. ESG considerations are important; but if a company fails on the D (democracy) criterion, it doesn’t matter how well it appears to perform on ESG metrics. As the FirstEnergy and Exelon scandals show, the risks of playing dirty can easily swamp the benefits of purported ESG alignment. By contrast, if a company fulfills its D requirement but falls short of the ESG ones, political governance can still be counted on to help fix those remaining problems. That is why D must always come before ESG.
The first principle of responsible investing, then, is to ensure that corporations are not violating or rewriting the rules of the democratic game, either at home or abroad. This is perfectly doable, and it starts with requiring full transparency on where corporate money is spent. The US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen United decision may have cleared the way for unfettered corporate money in politics, but it does not protect the right of corporations to make such expenditures without informing their shareholders.
A public initiative to force this kind of transparency is gaining momentum. On average, support for shareholder proposals demanding disclosure of political spending has increased from 36.4% in 2019 to 48.1% in 2021. If the three large institutional investors – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – endorse this principle, it could become the norm for all major companies in America. Would full transparency stop corporations from distorting democracy? It would go a long way, because it would expose their corruption (whether legal or not) not only to their shareholders, but also to their customers, employees, and regulators. The moment to act is now. Tomorrow might be too late.
For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.
But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.
As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world’s most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.
By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.
Subscribe Now
Oct 25, 2021 Robert J. Shiller
Oct 27, 2021 Andrew Sheng & Xiao Geng
Oct 25, 2021 Nina L. Khrushcheva
Oct 25, 2021 Jeffrey Frankel
Oct 26, 2021 Paola Subacchi
Oct 27, 2021 Werner Hoyer
Writing for PS since 2008
27 Commentaries

Luigi Zingales, Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago, is Co-Host of the podcast Capitalisn’t.
Before posting a comment, please confirm your account. To receive another confirmation email, please click here.
It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.
After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.










With the rise of cryptocurrencies, digital payments, and other innovations in “Fintech,” the financial world is undergoing a fundamental transformation. But it remains to be seen whether the revolution will kill cash, devour its own digital children, or do both.
The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) is a crucial credibility test for global governance, but expectations for progress are low. Will world leaders nevertheless rise to the occasion and adopt the ambitious measures needed to avert disaster, or will political short-termism and great-power rivalry condemn the gathering to failure?
Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.
required
required
Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we’ll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can’t find this email, please check your spam folder.


required

By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

 
 
Sign in with
Facebook
Google
Microsoft
Twitter

To receive email updates regarding this {entity_type}, please enter your email below.

If you are not already registered, this will create a PS account for you. You should receive an activation email shortly.

source