Publication
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs
Volume
9
Page
151
Year
2024
Abstract
There is a growing consensus across the political spectrum that corporations should not just make money for shareholders but also advance the public good. Conservatives and liberals often disagree about what the public good is, or what the priorities of corporate governance should be, but both sides are discontent with corporations focusing only on profits.
This Article discusses reasons why political conservatives should support efforts to include environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in corporate governance. Conservatives do not embrace contemporary ESG rhetoric which they associate with liberal social and economic viewpoints, but conservatives nonetheless oppose corporations maximizing profits at the public expense. For example, conservatives oppose corporations sending American jobs overseas, increasing U.S. economic dependence on China, and pulling back from doing business in Israel. Conservatives support faithbased corporations integrating religious values into their business model, for example by remaining closed on Sundays despite lost revenue. Patriotism is important for most conservatives, and probably much more important than profits. This Article argues that the “corporate purpose” provisions in a bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Accountable Capitalism Act, should gain the support of conservatives in Congress with relatively minor amendments that would emphasize conservative corporate governance priorities without undermining the underlying principles in the bill. Encouraging corporate managers to take the public good into account is important to conservatives as well as liberals and preventing the “profit maximization” norm from overtaking corporate law should be a priority for both.
Recommended Citation
Richard W. Painter, The Conservative Case for ESG, 9 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs 151 (2024)
