religions

Article
The Far Right Culture War on ESG
Chris Crews

International Studies, Denison University, Granville, OH 43023, USA; crewsc@denison.edu

Abstract: This article examines connections between religious nationalism, extremist movements,
and environmental politics, with a focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks
and debates in the United States since 2020. It begins with a brief history of ESG, then examines
responses from mainstream conservatives and far-right groups to the growth of ESG. It argues that
the current backlash against the use of ESG is part of a larger conservative culture war against “woke”
politics. The article offers a detailed look at the role of the conservative advocacy group Heritage
Action and its “ESG Hurts” campaign, and shows how climate denial, conspiracy theories, and
hostility to race and gender politics are interconnected parts of a growing ideological movement
rooted in Christian Nationalism and climate denial.

Keywords: ESG; far-right extremism; culture war; Christian nationalism; social movements; climate
change

1. Introduction
For the last few years, my research has explored the growing political impacts of
religious nationalism and extremist movements on democratic politics. In this article, I
focus on how these dynamics intersect with environmental and climate issues by using
debates over environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks in the United
States. An ESG framework typically focuses on what is known as the triple bottom
line—environmental, social, and governance issues—in relation to how businesses op-
erate, invest money, and make governance decisions. While there are many debates over
how exactly to define and measure what is or is not ESG, for the purposes of this paper I
Citation: Crews, Chris. 2023. The Far understand ESG as a “broad term that refers to the inclusion of environmental (E), social (S)
Right Culture War on ESG. Religions and governance (G) criteria into investment decisions taken by companies as a manifesta-
14: 1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ tion of responsible or sustainable investment practices” (Câmara 2022, p. 4). Related terms
rel14101257 include corporate social responsibility (CSR) and socially responsible investing (SRI), and
both terms address “a business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsi-
Academic Editor: Todd Jared
LeVasseur
bility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes
as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships” (Wood 1991, p. 693). ESG frameworks use
Received: 27 August 2023 certain criteria or “screens” to evaluate the role of social policies, environmental impacts,
Revised: 26 September 2023 and governance decisions in a given business. Examples of ESG investment screens include
Accepted: 27 September 2023 avoiding human rights violations in supply chains and incorporating climate reduction
Published: 4 October 2023
policies into business decisions.
The use of ESG investment frameworks has grown significantly in recent decades.
This growth is fueled in part by the ongoing role of extractive capitalism in causing our
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
planetary climate crisis, as well as growing calls among social advocates for more holistic
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. corporate practices. Speaking to this shift, Paulo Câmara and Filipe Morais note in a recent
This article is an open access article handbook on ESG that “Sustainability is quickly becoming the Holy Grail for governments,
distributed under the terms and businesses, and society. It represents a fundamental shift in human development arguably
conditions of the Creative Commons more significant than the industrial revolution” (Câmara and Morais 2022, p. ix). In
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// this context, ESG frameworks are seen as one key mechanism to help push business
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ practices towards more responsible and ethical directions, often with climate issues in
4.0/). mind. For example, one major ESG effort in recent years has been the campus fossil fuel

Religions 2023, 14, 1257. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14101257 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2023, 14, 1257 2 of 14

divestment movement, led by groups such as 350.org. This movement calls on universities
to divest from fossil fuel industries and their funders and instead invest in climate-friendly
companies and practices (Maxim 2013).
In response to the growth of ESG frameworks, mainstream conservatives and far-right
groups have increasingly framed ESG as part of a larger culture war that is forcing “woke”
politics onto an unwilling public. Seen through this lens, ESG is simply the latest radical
left issue that must be opposed, alongside police reform, social justice, and climate change
(e.g., Levin 2021, 2023; Ramaswamy 2021). As Republican presidential hopeful Vivek
Ramaswamy argued, “This new trend [of woke capitalism] has created a major cultural
shift in America . . . It’s polarizing our politics. It’s dividing our country to the breaking
point . . . Wokeness has remade American capitalism in its own image” (Ramaswamy 2021,
p. 4).
Like most conservative Republicans opposed to ESG, both Levin and Ramaswamy
are climate change deniers. “So this is actually, I think one of the grave threats to liberty
today, you know, wherever you stand on climate change, I think most of the climate change
agenda, I’m just going to say it is a hoax. I’m going to call that for what it is” (Ramaswamy
2023b). Ramaswamy later doubled down on his denial in response to a prerecorded
audience question on youth support for climate change at the August 2023 GOP presidential
candidate debate. “The climate change agenda is a hoax” (David Pakman Show 2023). This
bold rejection of the scientific consensus isn’t a surprise given Ramaswamy’s stated politics.
For example, in responding to another question about how the candidates would address
US economic growth, Ramaswamy responded: “This isn’t that complicated guys. Unlock
American energy. Drill, frack, burn coal, and embrace nuclear” (David Pakman Show 2023).
In a similar vein, Mark Levin argues in his latest book that “There is no better subject
to illustrate such a colossal deception [of the public by Democrats] in today’s world
than ‘climate change,’ which is central to the Democrat Party’s growing authoritarianism
over all aspects of American life” (Levin 2023, p. 116). He later complains about Chuck
Todd rejecting the call to provide equal airtime to question the validity of climate change.
“Despite the fact that there are countless scientific experts throughout academia and think
tanks who know far more than Todd, his producers, and NBC’s executives, and who have
written extensively in scholarly books and papers questioning climate change, man-made
climate change, the extent of climate change, the dangers of climate change, natural global
and atmospheric changes, and on and on . . . they will not permit legitimate, substantive,
intelligent, contrary views to meddle in their ideological agenda” (Levin 2023, p. 148).
The silencing of legitimate and substantive doubts about climate change due to main-
stream media’s leftist bias is a common talking point on the right. But in truth, the reason
climate denialism receives no serious consideration by mainstream media is because of the
overwhelming international scientific consensus about the reality of climate change. As
the UN’s latest AR6 Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report makes clear, and with a “high
confidence” assessment, “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse
gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reach-
ing 1.1 ◦ C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020” (IPCC 2023, p. 4). It is scientific research, rather
than ideological bias, that is the primary driver of mainstream media coverage of climate
change as a serious (and real) political issue, but this fact is ignored by most right-wing
media commentators.
Despite the growth of scholarship on conservative and right-wing politics in the social
sciences, there remains a wide range of labels used to describe the movements I explore
here. As Kathleen Blee and Kimberly Creasap note, “movements are difficult to label as
either right-wing or conservative. A single movement is likely to have conservative and
right-wing aspects . . . Many right-wing and conservative movements use similar strategies
and rhetoric of vulnerability, fear, and threat” (Blee and Creasap 2017, p. 201). In his
study of the populist radical right, Cas Mudde argues these movements “shares a core
ideology that combines (at least) three features: nativism, authoritarianism, and populism”
(Mudde 2017, p. 5). My own analysis uses a similar approach in defining these movements.
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 3 of 14

Attacks on ESG often draw on one or more of these features, particularly when ESG is
described as promoting a radical Marxist agenda that is hostile to the nation and its core
beliefs and values. As I will show, the narrative framing of ESG as anti-American is deeply
entangled with both nativist and populist political claims about “we the people” as defined
by far-right figures like Levin.
To help tell this story of how and why ESG has become a target of the far right, I
begin with a brief history of how ESG and socially responsible investing emerged in the
1970s alongside modern environmentalism. As I discuss, social investing quickly became
entangled with anti-apartheid politics and corporate investments in South Africa in the
1980s, and religious leaders like Leon Sullivan intentionally used corporate investments
as a political tool to leverage social change. After briefly tracing how ESG evolved during
and after this period, I turn to a case study of Heritage Action, one of the central advocacy
groups behind the anti-ESG movement today, and their “ESG Hurts” campaign. I argue
that this anti-ESG narrative needs to be understood as part of the resurgence of Christian
nationalism and right-wing authoritarianism in the US, both of which view social justice
and civil rights gains made since the 1960s as a threat to their idealized vision of the US.
I develop this argument further by showing how far-right political figures such as Mark
Levin and Vivek Ramaswamy have used their political platforms to spread an anti-ESG,
pro-fossil fuel gospel. This extractivist gospel includes promoting a counter-narrative of
climate denialism and greater fossil fuel expansion while simultaneously arguing the real
threat is the radical left’s “woke” political agenda and its attack on free market capitalism
and conservative Christian family values.

2. Discussion
2.1. The Rise of Social Investing
Why do people like Levin and Ramaswamy see ESG as a threat to religion, personal
liberties, and American capitalism? Part of what makes this question so interesting is
that, despite the generally strong opposition to ESG today from political and religious
conservatives and the far-right, religious conservatives were not always hostile to social
change campaigns that targeted corporations. In fact, religious groups were sometimes at
the forefront of these early movements. To better understand these shifting alliances, we
need to look at how ESG first rose to prominence.
Following the birth of modern environmental politics in the late 1960s, activists began
to call on investors to stop supporting companies that polluted the environment for profit.
Although no organized movement around what is today called ESG existed at that time,
efforts to address social and governance issues go back to the early 20th century on issues
such as labor rights, workplace safety, and business ethics (Bowen 1953).
Momentum picked up in the early 1970s after The Conference Board, a US-based
non-profit business advocacy group, released its landmark Social Responsibilities of Business
Corporations report in 1971. As the report argued, “There is now a pervasive feeling in
the country that the social order somehow has gotten out of balance, and that greater
affluence amid a deteriorating environment and community life does not make much
sense . . . There is widespread complaint that corporations have become cavalier about
consumer interests, have been largely indifferent to social deterioration around them, and
are dangerous polluters of the environment” (CED 1971, p. 14). These trends opened
a wider discussion about corporate social responsibility in business that would expand
significantly in the years ahead (Frederick 1994).
Another important milestone was the creation in 1977 of the “Sullivan Principles”, a
set of ethical business guidelines drafted by Reverend Leon Sullivan. At that time, Sullivan
was a board member at General Motors, in addition to being a long-time civil rights
activist and Baptist minister in Philadelphia. The Principles were a response to Sullivan’s
concerns over human rights violations and apartheid in South Africa. “The Principles
must serve as a catalyst, not only in the business community, but in all sectors of South
African society,” he argued. “The signatories to the Principles must act as models for other
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 4 of 14

multinational companies, along with world religious bodies, colleges, financial institutions,
governments, unions, and others, in regards to their dealings with South Africa” (Sullivan
1983, pp. 427, 430).
Drawing on his religious networks, Sullivan also mobilized faith groups to act, includ-
ing forging a partnership with the National Council of Churches and holding meetings
with the Church Commissioners of the Church of England. Sullivan hoped to encourage
banks and institutional investors, including churches, to suspend investments and loans
to the South African government until apartheid was abolished. This approach can still
be seen today in the boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) movement (e.g., Palestine
BDS movements and fossil fuel divestments). Sullivan wanted to create a “worldwide cam-
paign of ‘moral aggression’ by churches” to put pressure on the South African apartheid
government, arguing that if companies “neglect to respond satisfactorily, they should face
divestment of church funds” (pp. 437–8). As a newsletter from the Coalition for Illinois’
Divestment from South Africa (CIDSA) noted about their recent state-wide organizing
drive, “During the week of April 14–19, speakers addressed over 50 groups throughout
Illinois including churches, community, student and union organizations” (CIDSA 1985,
p. 4). Historian Zeb Larson also pointed out that “Divestment created tangible targets
for people to organize around and against that were also specific to where they lived:
university pension boards, church investment boards, and local governments” (Larson
2022).
Although it is beyond the scope of this article, there is a long and rich history of
interfaith and religious-based activism against apartheid in South Africa, included the
divestment and boycott efforts led by the global Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) and
its Inter-Faith Colloquium on Apartheid, which was created in 1984 (AAM 2000; Hudson-
Allison 2000; Presbyterian Historical Society 2013). As I noted before, there is also a rich
history of what is commonly referred to as faith-based investing, which tended to focus on
negative investment screening, such as avoiding investing in adult entertainment, alcohol,
tobacco, gambling, and abortion. As InvestmentNews reporter Jeff Benjamin noted about
links between ESG and earlier religious investing, “In many respects, faith-based investing
is the original impact investing, so it’s only natural that the rapidly expanding appeal of
ESG and sustainable investing is also raising awareness of faith-based strategies” (Benjamin
2020).
Seen in this light, the current anti-ESG rhetoric coming from conservative religious
circles appears to be a more recent trend and reflects the deeper shift of religious activism
towards ultra-conservative politics that began in the 1980s with the rise of the Moral
Majority and Christian Right (Schnabel 2013). However, as I briefly discuss below in
relation to Bud Light and Target, another possible interpretation is that what has changed
is not so much the religious activism focused on corporations, but rather the progressive
orientation of these religious pressure campaigns. Social justice issues drove many religious
actors to oppose apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s. Today, however, the most
vocal religious voices are coming from conservatives on the right who are opposed to social
and environmental justice issues, as well as reproductive and gender rights.
These trends continued to grow throughout the 1970s and 1980s, pushed along by
additional books, such as R. Edward Freeman’s book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach. Freeman opened his book by noting that both “business and service organizations
are experiencing turbulence” and argued in response that “a new conceptual framework is
needed” to address the growing social calls for businesses to change their ways (Freeman
1984, pp. 4–5). The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984 and the 1998 Exxon
Valdez oil spill in Alaska both spurred consumer advocacy, environmental, and other civic
groups to increase their use of shareholder activism to address such problems.
By the early 1990s, a small but important set of actors began to emerge focused on
these new social investment strategies, such as the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)
company, which was founded by long-time shareholder activist Robert Monks in 1985. ISS
was one of the first companies to provide ESG-related services to institutional investors
Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

By the early 1990s, a small but important set of actors began to emerge focused on
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 these new social investment strategies, such as the Institutional Shareholder Services5 (ISS) of 14
company, which was founded by long-time shareholder activist Robert Monks in 1985.
ISS was one of the first companies to provide ESG-related services to institutional inves-
tors (Minow 2011). By the early 2000s, a variety of institutional structures began to emerge,
(Minow 2011). By the early 2000s, a variety of institutional structures began to emerge,
includingthe
including theDow DowJones JonesSustainability
SustainabilityIndex,Index,which
whichhelped
helpedbring
bringwiderwiderattention
attentionto toESGESG
issues in the corporate sector. During this same period of the
issues in the corporate sector. During this same period of the late 1990s and early 2000s, late 1990s and early 2000s,
therewas
there was also
also aa growing
growing alter-globalization
alter-globalizationmovementmovementfocused focusedon onthe theemerging
emerging nexus
nexus of
ESG issues, especially in the fair trade and anti-sweatshop
of ESG issues, especially in the fair trade and anti-sweatshop movements on university movements on university cam-
puses, which
campuses, which helped
helped givegivesuch
suchissues
issuesbothbotha awider
widerappeal
appeal andand great political attention
great political attention
(Armbruster-Sandoval2005;
(Armbruster-Sandoval 2005;Bartley
BartleyandandChild
Child2014).
2014).
Today, there are thousands of companies
Today, there are thousands of companies that focus that focuson onsome
someform formof ofESG
ESGinvesting,
investing,
as well as numerous indexed investment funds that use
as well as numerous indexed investment funds that use ESG screens to help select and ESG screens to help select and
direct investments. Legal scholar Quinn Curtis and co-authors
direct investments. Legal scholar Quinn Curtis and co-authors noted that “ESG investing noted that “ESG investing
.…
. . isisgrowing
growingexplosively”
explosively”(Curtis (Curtisetetal.al.2021,
2021,p. p.1),
1),while
whileanother
anotherlegal legalscholar,
scholar,Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Pollman, argued
Pollman, argued that that “ESG
“ESG is is one
one ofof the
the most
most notable
notable trends
trends in in corporate
corporate governance,
governance,
management,and
management, andinvestment
investment of of the
the past
pasttwotwodecades.”
decades.” However,
However,this thisgrowth
growthof ofinterest
interest
and support for ESG in business has also led to a growing
and support for ESG in business has also led to a growing body of criticism from those body of criticism from those
opposed to these trends. As Pollman argues, ESG policies are
opposed to these trends. As Pollman argues, ESG policies are “at the center of the largest “at the center of the largest
and most
and mostcontentious
contentious debates debates in incontemporary
contemporary corporatecorporate and andsecurities
securitieslaw” law”(Pollman
(Pollman
2022,p.
2022, p.1).
1).
As an
As an active
active participant
participant in in campus
campus ESG ESG movements
movements since since the the late
late 1990s,
1990s, II havehave
watched ititgrow
watched growfrom fromaarelatively
relativelyarcane
arcaneand andspecialist
specialisttopic
topicto toaaprimetime
primetimebuzz buzzword word
usedby
used bymainstream
mainstreamconservative
conservativeand andfar-right
far-rightgroups
groupsas aspart
partof oftheir
theirculture
culturewarwartalking
talking
points. Following
points. Following the thenationwide
nationwideBlack BlackLivesLivesMatter
Matter uprisings
uprisings in the
in thesummer
summer of 2020, ESG
of 2020,
ESG
rapidly rapidly
found found
itselfitself lumped
lumped alongsideCritical
alongside CriticalRaceRace Theory
Theory (CRT), Social-Emotional
Social-Emotional
Learning
Learning (SEL), (SEL), action
action civics,
civics, and
and LGBTQ+
LGBTQ+ politics
politics by by those
thoseon onthetheright.
right.According
According to to
their
theirnarrative
narrativeframing,
framing,ESG ESGandandthese
theseother
othersocial
socialissues
issuesareareall
allpart
partof ofaanefarious
nefariousplot plotto to
destroy
destroyAmerican
Americanfamiliesfamiliesand andundermine
underminecapitalism.
capitalism.
This
This recent
recentspikespike in inattention
attention isis clear
clear ifif we
we look
look at at the
theUSUSGoogle
Google searchsearchtrends
trendsfor for
“ESG”
“ESG” over a ten-year period from 15 September 2013 to 15 September 2023 (Figure 1).
over a ten-year period from 15 September 2013 to 15 September 2023 (Figure 1).
What
Whatwe weseeseein inthose
thosesearch
searchresults
resultsisisaaclear
clearuptick
uptickin ininterest
interestin inESGESGaround
aroundthe thefall
fallofof
2020.
2020. ThisThis trend
trend of ofinterest
interestin inESG
ESGhas hasgrown
grownmore morepronounced
pronouncedsince since2020.2020.AsAsIIdiscuss
discuss
in
inmore
moredetail
detailbelow,
below,this thisgrowth
growthof ofinterest
interestoverlaps
overlapswith withthethelaunch
launchin in2022
2022of ofthe
the“ESG
“ESG
Hurts” campaign by Heritage Action and an increased push
Hurts” campaign by Heritage Action and an increased push by far-right groups and me- by far-right groups and media
figures
dia figures to paint ESG ESG
to paint as theaslatest and greatest
the latest and greatestthreat to conservative
threat to conservative values.
values.

Figure1.1.ESG
Figure ESGGoogle
Googlesearch
searchtrends
trends(2013–2023).
(2013–2023).

As a 2023 report from The Conference Board noted, this “ESG backlash is gaining
momentum, and many companies expect it to further increase in the immediate future
. . . The increase in backlash will likely be driven by emotionally charged topics, such as
Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

As a 2023 report from The Conference Board noted, this “ESG backlash is gaining
Religions 2023, 14, 1257
momentum, and many companies expect it to further increase in the immediate future …
6 of 14
The increase in backlash will likely be driven by emotionally charged topics, such as hot-
button social issues and the transition to more sustainable forms of energy that raises fear
of job losses” (Johnson 2023, p. 1).
hot-button social
To better issues and
understand theistransition
who to more
behind this sustainable
anti-ESG movementforms
andofhow
energy
theythat
are raises
fram-
fear of job losses” (Johnson 2023, p. 1).
ing their opposition to ESG policies, we need to look closer at one of the central institu-
To better understand who is behind this anti-ESG movement and how they are framing
tional players, Heritage Action.
their opposition to ESG policies, we need to look closer at one of the central institutional
players, Heritage Action.
2.2. Heritage Action & Anti-ESG Politics
HeritageAction
2.2. Heritage Action &isAnti-ESG
a 501(c)4Politics
PAC created by the Heritage Foundation, which is a lead-
ing ultra-conservative,
Heritage Action isUS-based a 501(c)4think
PAC tank.
createdThebyHeritage Foundation
the Heritage is at the
Foundation, centerisofa
which
most of the recent attacks on social justice issues, and because of this,
leading ultra-conservative, US-based think tank. The Heritage Foundation is at the center understanding their
role can help us better understand organized efforts to oppose ESG.
of most of the recent attacks on social justice issues, and because of this, understanding This paper focuses
specifically
their role canonhelptheir
us“ESG
betterHurts” digital
understand campaign,
organized howtoitoppose
efforts has evolved sincepaper
ESG. This its launch
focusesin
August of 2022,
specifically and “ESG
on their how itHurts”
is communicating
digital campaign,with its supporters
how and allies.
it has evolved since its launch in
AugustIt isofimportant
2022, andto note
how it that along with ESG
is communicating withHurts, the Heritage
its supporters andFoundation
allies. also cre-
ated Ita is
handful of related front groups and affiliated websites, including
important to note that along with ESG Hurts, the Heritage Foundation also created Save our Elec-
tions, Save Our Schools, and the “Back the Blue” Police Pledge campaign.
a handful of related front groups and affiliated websites, including Save our Elections, Each of these
websites
Save OurservesSchools,as and
a hubthein“Back
a larger
theconservative
Blue” Police network of politicalEach
Pledge campaign. action groups
of these work-
websites
ing
servesagainst
as a hub “woke”
in a larger politics.
conservative Figure
network 2 ofshows
politicalthe ESG
action groupsHurts
workinghomepage
against
(www.esghurts.com),
“woke” politics. Figure which Heritage
2 shows Action
the ESG created
Hurts as a digital
homepage resource portal forwhich
(www.esghurts.com), those
opposed
Heritage to ESG. created
Action The siteas includes
a digital a mix of vague
resource portal information about ESG.
for those opposed MostThe
to ESG. of their
site
information
includes a mix is factually
of vague inaccurate
information or relies
about onESG.
selective
Mostdetails to give
of their a one-sided
information picture,
is factually
but the average
inaccurate reader
or relies would likely
on selective detailsnottobegive
ablea to tell. The picture,
one-sided site alsobut
links
thetoaverage
variousreader
right-
wing news
would likelyarticles and to
not be able tv tell.
programs
The site featuring
also linksHeritage
to variousFoundation
right-wingand news Heritage
articlesAction
and tv
staff and allies
programs expounding
featuring Heritageon the dangers
Foundation and posed
Heritageby the “woke
Action ESG
staff andagenda”. It also in-
allies expounding
cludes
on the examples
dangers posedof model anti-ESG
by the “wokelegislation
ESG agenda”. that policymakers
It also includes canexamples
adapt for of local use
model
anti-ESG
and offerslegislation
action stepsthatthat
policymakers
conservative can adapt for
activists canlocal
takeuse and offers
to engage withaction
ESG steps
issuesthat
lo-
conservative activists can take to engage with ESG issues locally.
cally.

Figure 2. ESG
Figure 2. ESG Hurts
Hurts website.
website.

During the spring and summer of 2023, the “Take Action” tab was focused on efforts
efforts
to support S.J. Res. 8 and H.J. Res. 30, which were both related to the 2023 Congressional
Actthen
Review Act thenunder
underdebate.
debate.That
That legislation,
legislation, which
which waswas ultimately
ultimately vetoed
vetoed by Pres-
by President
ident Biden, sought to overturn a 2022 Department of Labor rule which allowed 401(k)
investment fund managers to “consider climate change and other environmental, social,
and governance factors when they make investment decisions and when they exercise
shareholder rights, including voting on shareholder resolutions and board nominations”
(Congress.gov 2023).
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 7 of 14

A press release announcing the launch of the ESG Hurts campaign in the summer
of 2022 included quotes from two Heritage Foundation staff. The first, from a Heritage
Foundation visiting fellow named Andy Puzder, claimed that ESG is “socialism in sheep’s
clothing” and suggested the real goal of ESG supporters is to “avoid the inconvenience
and messiness they see in our representative democracy and our free-market economy.”
Puder ended by arguing that “Most Americans are unaware of what’s happening or how
to fight back. That must end. We must fight back against this Marxist ‘woke’ ideology that
would turn our economy into a battlefield in the culture war” (Heritage Foundation 2022).
I highlight this quote as it provides supporting evidence that groups like Heritage Action
view ESG as part of the broader culture war they are waging against the political left and
“woke” politics generally.
A second quote from Jessica Anderson, who was Heritage Action’s Executive Director
at the time, similarly warned that “American families and workers should not be forced
to abide by the left’s radical opinions on gender ideology, climate change, and abortion
to make a living” (Heritage Foundation 2022). The framing here of climate change as the
“left’s radical opinions,” rather than an empirically established scientific fact, is important
to note, and echoes claims by Levin, Ramaswamy, and many other conservatives. This
sort of framing underlies environmental skepticism in general, and climate denialism in
particular, and shapes much of the far right and conservative opposition to environmental
issues, including ESG.
After noting three common groups who promote ESG policies–left activists, financial
firms, and government bodies–the ESH Hurts website offer this definition of ESG:
ESG is a political tool used by progressives to advance Leftist ideology in busi-
nesses and financial institutions. From requiring NASDAQ-listed companies
to appoint board members based on race and sex, to requiring greenhouse gas
emissions to be reported, ESG is destroying our free market and threatens both
American interests and our cultural fabric of freedom, choice, and liberty.
ESG policies are a thinly veiled attempt to radically transform corporations into
social justice warriors. Pro-ESG businesses support the Left’s “woke” culture war
to redefine gender, promote critical race theory, and cancel conservatives . . . But
companies that adopt ESG policies risk failing Americans who have invested
their savings in the company and hurting Americans by moving our society
into dangerous dependence on foreign oil, creating social credit scores, and
demanding investment decisions based on pro-abortion policies. (Heritage Action
2023)
To further reinforce these associative claims, the website includes a visual graphic
depicting how a range of issues opposed by many conservatives fit under a broad ESG
umbrella (Figure 3).
As this visual suggests, a cornucopia of issues have all been lumped under the ESG
umbrella, from climate change and CRT to transgender politics, affirmative action, and
anti-Chinese social credit score paranoia.
It is important to note that most of these issues have little to do with ESG frameworks
and how they are used for investing. In the case of China specifically, this framing relies on
inaccurate but common claims regarding how Chinese social credit initiatives supposedly
work. These claims assume that any association with Chinese communism is enough to
taint ESG as un-American, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist, and that the average person
does not know enough about China and their social credit initiatives to evaluate such claims
(Horsley 2018). It is enough to simply state that ESG is “destroying our free market and
threatens both American interests and our cultural fabric of freedom, choice and liberty”
(Heritage Action 2023).
Attempts to lump everything conservatives dislike under this “woke” umbrella is most
evident with the three issues highlighted under the “Social” category–Critical Race Theory,
Pro-Abortion Policies, and Transgender Activism. Despite what conservatives often claim,
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 8 of 14

ESG frameworks have absolutely no relation to CRT, which is a high-level academic legal
framework for analyzing the interconnections of race and law and their impacts on society
(Delgado and Stefancic 2023). However, such framing works for conservative audiences
because CRT and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have successfully been
Religions 2023, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
conflated as the same thing. This helps explain why, in political discourse on the 8right,
of 14
anything they oppose can easily be labeled as part of a radical Democrat or socialist
agenda, or increasingly since 2020, as part of a new and dangerous wave of Cultural
Marxism supposedly
market and threatensthreatening to destroy
both American Christianity
interests and thefabric
and our cultural nationof(e.g., Levinchoice
freedom, 2021;
Ramaswamy 2021; Wolfe
and liberty” (Heritage 2022;2023).
Action Rufo 2023; Torba and Isker 2023).

Figure3.3.Heritage
Figure HeritageAction
ActionESG
ESGinfographic.
infographic.

Similarly,
Attempts the connections
to lump between
everything ESG, gender,
conservatives and
dislike abortion
under this are tenuous,
“woke” but atis
umbrella
least
most evident with the three issues highlighted under the “Social” category–Criticalshare-
here there is some basis for ESG criticisms. For instance, it can be argued that Race
holder
Theory, activism and ESG-informed
Pro-Abortion Policies, andinvestment
Transgender strategies
Activism. which
Despiteencourage the cultivation
what conservatives of-
of
tengender-inclusive
claim, ESG frameworks workplaceshaveor promote no
absolutely employer
relationinsurance
to CRT, whichcoverage for women’s
is a high-level aca-
access
demicto reproductive
legal framework healthcare, to pick
for analyzing thetwo common examples,
interconnections of race areand
promoting
law andatheir
“leftist”
im-
ideology through an ESG frameworks. However, for such arguments
pacts on society (Delgado and Stefancic 2023). However, such framing works for conserva-to make logical sense,
we
tivemust first accept
audiences becausetwoCRT
implicit
and conservative religious
diversity, equity, claims advanced
and inclusion by these anti-ESG
(DEI) programs have suc-
proponents.
cessfully been conflated as the same thing. This helps explain why, in political discourse
Theright,
on the first conservative
anything theyclaim is that
oppose cangender-inclusive
easily be labeledpolicies
as part for
of aLGBTQ+ individuals
radical Democrat or
and access to reproductive choice for women are things we should
socialist agenda, or increasingly since 2020, as part of a new and dangerous wave oppose on religious
of Cul-
grounds as immoral
tural Marxism or sinful.
supposedly The second
threatening to conservative claim is and
destroy Christianity that the
LGBTQ+nationindividuals’
(e.g., Levin
very existence, and a woman’s right to make her own
2021; Ramaswamy 2021; Wolfe 2022; Rufo 2023; Torba and Isker 2023). private reproductive health choices,
are harmful to society
Similarly, and something
the connections that businesses
between ESG, gender, shouldandnot be involved
abortion with. Similarly
are tenuous, but at
unquestioned normative assumptions were evident in a recent Heritage
least here there is some basis for ESG criticisms. For instance, it can be argued Action email
thatcalling
share-
out the “subversion” of conservative values by woke corporations that have embraced the
holder activism and ESG-informed investment strategies which encourage the cultivation
“absurd” position of supporting the LGBTQ+ community, supposedly due to ESG:
of gender-inclusive workplaces or promote employer insurance coverage for women’s ac-
cess The conservativehealthcare,
to reproductive grassrootsto have
pickbeen
two fighting
commonback hard against
examples, the Environ-
are promoting a “leftist”
mental, Social, and Governance (ESG) agenda which
ideology through an ESG frameworks. However, for such arguments to make sees large corporations andlogical
asset managers use the money of their investors i.e., you, to reinvest
sense, we must first accept two implicit conservative religious claims advanced by these that money
against
anti-ESG your values.
proponents.
The first
Recent conservative
examples claim
of such is that gender-inclusive
subversion come from Budpolicies for LGBTQ+
Light when individuals
they featured
and activist
access to reproductive
Dylan Mulvaney,choice for women are
who self-identifies as athings
woman, weonshould opposematerial
promotional on religious
grounds as immoral
as well as Target’sorpromotion
sinful. Theof
second
absurd conservative claim is
LGBTQ+ “Pride” that LGBTQ+
merchandise individuals’
targeting
verychildren.
existence,The
andpredictable
a woman’s backlash
right to make her own
resulted private
in the reproductive
loss of health choices,
dozens of billions of
are harmful
dollars for both companies. (“Saturday Summary” (Heritage Action Email 2023))Simi-
to society and something that businesses should not be involved with.
larly unquestioned normative assumptions were evident in a recent Heritage Action email
calling out the “subversion” of conservative values by woke corporations that have em-
braced the “absurd” position of supporting the LGBTQ+ community, supposedly due to
ESG:
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 9 of 14

It seems obvious, but Bud Light hiring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney to create an
Instagram video promoting March Madness, or Target selling LGBTQ+ themed Pride Month
merchandise in their stores, are not examples of a nefarious ESG agenda. Rather, those
are examples of everyday business decisions, not the magical result of woke shareholder
activism or ESG. Conservative activists were quick to point out that their boycott was
having a major impact on these companies, pointing to reports that Bud Light stock prices
fell as much as 26 percent following the boycott (Bary 2023). However, as many people
pointed out, Bud Light stock prices had been in decline since at least 2015, and the overall
financial impact of these boycotts was limited. However, as I noted earlier, such efforts
suggest we may be seeing a renewal of religious-based corporate pressure campaigns like
those during the 1980s, but this time in favor of more regressive social policies aligned with
Christian nationalists and conservative social values. Rather than calling for more inclusive
policies, religious boycotts target businesses who host drag queen story hours or promote
gender-inclusive business practices or merchandise.
As the ESG Hurts campaign declared, “ESG is destroying our free market and threatens
both American interests and our cultural fabric of freedom, choice and liberty” (Heritage
Action 2023). In other words, radical leftists are using ESG to force corporations to ad-
dress social issues, when they really have no role. They are simply market distortions
that artificially drive up the price of doing business and lead to reduced dividends for
shareholders–or as is commonly claimed by opponents, it goes against the “fiduciary
responsibility” of investment managers to maximize returns for their clients–hence the
mention of the loss of billions of dollars for both Bud Light and Target.

2.3. Disentangling Religion and Politics

As I noted earlier, what Heritage Action and many other anti-ESG critics typically leave
unsaid is that these supposed “American interests” and the “cultural fabric of freedom,
choice and liberty” are rooted in support for a patriarchal and heterosexual society where
abortion and queerness are seen as socially deviant and sinful. Neither the Heritage
Foundation nor Heritage Action appear to rely on explicit references to religious ideas such
as sin, as least that I have seen. However, their claims about what is or is not a threat to
the fabric of American culture are clearly rooted in conservative Evangelical and Catholic
religious cosmologies in which the conflation of democracy, capitalism, and Christian
nationalism is unquestioned. For anyone familiar with the growing body of scholarship
on White Christian nationalism in the US, such claims are increasingly commonplace, and
Heritage Action (as well as the Heritage Foundation) falls squarely within this sphere of
conservative White ethno-religious identity politics (Whitehead and Perry 2020; Butler
2021; Posner 2021; Gorski and Perry 2022; Stewart 2022; Onishi 2023; Whitehead 2023;
Crews Forthcoming).
However, individual opponents of ESG and the radical left agenda have no issues
with using the language of religion in their criticism or defense of what they imagine is
under threat by ESG policies. As one anti-ESG pundit, Peter Kalis, claimed, ESG is “an
emergent faith as zealously embraced by some as Christianity is by others.” He goes on to
argue that “It is central to this curious religion that the climate is changing in a way that
will destroy humanity. It’s this fear above all that gives the movement its religious urgency.
In theological terms, it’s an eschatology, a view of the end of the world—but crucially, one
humanity can determine” (Kalis 2023).
In a similar vein, Vivek Ramaswamy stated in an August 2023 op-ed in the New York
Post that “One of my favorite scientists, Blaise Pascal, said it best: If you have a hole the
size of God in your heart and God doesn’t fill it, something else will. That’s how you get
climatism, COVIDism and transgenderism. We all bend the knee—if not to God, to false
idols instead. We must restore what is real over what is artificial to revive this nation”
(Ramaswamy 2023a). These underlying conservative religious logics, and their associated
transphobia and hostility to the LGBTQ+ community (among other issues), was evident in
conservative efforts to boycott both Bud Light and Target in the summer of 2023. As another
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 10 of 14

example, during a June 2023 Pride Month protest organized by conservatives outside a
Target store in Miami, Florida, two female protestors were photographed holding signs
that read, respectively, “Keep Satan Away from !Our Kids!” and “Boycott Target Save Our
Kid’s” [sic] (Sladky 2023).
Here, the use of religious language is explicit–it is Satan threatening children through
the promotion of queer visibility, such as Target’s Pride Month displays. These are the same
arguments advanced by the extremist conspiracy movement QAnon, the Save Our Kids
campaign run by Heritage Action, and even Donald Trump. Heritage action has strong
overlaps with extremist groups like Moms for Liberty, who are best known for their attacks
on the teaching of CRT in primary school—a common yet false claim—as well as efforts
to impose book bans in schools related to the topics of race and gender. This influence
of Christian nationalism and extremist politics can be seen in remarks made by former
President Trump at the September 2023 Pray, Vote, Stand Summit organized by the Family
Research Council, a leading far-right political action group run by Tony Perkins that is well
known for its militant pro-life Christian political agenda.
For four magnificent years, I was proud to be your relentless champion for
freedom, for life, for liberty, and for the great biblical traditions of Western
civilization, and that’s what it is . . . I was honored to get up every single day and
do battle on your behalf. Oh, I did battle . . . I’m still doing battles, doing more
battle than anybody even understands. But I wanted to and had to stand up to
the communists, the Marxists, the atheists, and the evil and demonic forces that
want to destroy our country. They’re destroying our country. (Trump 2023)
As such expressions of right-wing authoritarianism in the US suggest, many far-right
partisans no longer view democratic politics as involving legitimate political disagreements.
Rather, politics is a story of good versus evil in which political opponents are depicted
as “evil and demonic forces.” The discursive framing offered in remarks like those from
Trump further reinforces a Christian nationalist narrative of spiritual warfare in defense of
capitalism, Western civilization, and the Judeo–Christian nation. One brief note of caution
is warranted here regarding such language. I agree with Giovanni Maltese, who argues that
“Scholars of religious studies should refrain from lumping Christians who seem to draw on
spiritual warfare in with authoritarianism, fundamentalist militant Christianity or with the
far-right, tout court” (Maltese 2021, p. 6). As Maltese clearly shows in relation to spiritual
warfare discourse in the Philippines, such language can also advance anti-capitalism and
social justice frames. However, as I have tried to show, this is not the case for how the US
Christian right uses the language of spiritual warfare, which is far more rooted in notions
of religious warfare and secular conspiracies.
It is this same conspiracy mindset that was behind the controversial Christian film
Sound of Freedom, which is about child sex-trafficking. The film was a conservative block-
buster in the summer of 2023 as drag show protests and bills popped up across the US
and spread false associations between drag shows, transgender individuals, and child
sex-trafficking. As Chris Lehman argued about the Sound of Freedom in his review for The
Nation, “It’s easy to see how this didactic vision of a demonic global network of powerful
child predators keys directly into QAnon folklore—and how the ironclad moral certainty of
Ballard and his allies reflects back the deliriums of apocalyptic redemption now convulsing
the conspiracy-minded American right” (Lehman 2023).
This link was made even more explicit when Jim Caviezel, who played the lead char-
acter of Tim Ballard in the film, went on to promote QAnon lies about a secret underground
cabal of Satan-worshiping globalists killing children and harvesting their adrenochrome–
a long-standing antisemitic trope at the heart of the QAnon child sex-trafficking craze
(Murray 2023). The irony for many outside observers was the fact that Christianity has a
sordid history of complicity in child sex abuse cases (Craissati and Beech 2003; John Jay
Report 2004; Eshuys and Smallbone 2006; Kewley et al. 2015). Thus, it was little surprise to
many critics when news broke that Fabian Marta, a notorious host of “Sugar Daddy/Sugar
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 11 of 14

Baby” parties and an “Angel investor” for Sound of Freedom, had just been arrested for child
kidnapping in Missouri (Phillips 2023).
At first glance, this seems unrelated to the ESG issues we have been discussing, but in
conservative media circles they are part of the same narrative. There is a common claim
that Sound of Freedom, which was completed in 2018 under license to 20th Century Fox, but
which was then shelved after Walt Disney took over Fox in 2019, was shut down because
of Disney’s woke ESG policies, its pro-LGBTQ+ stance, or maybe, some suggested, because
Disney was part of these child sex-trafficking rings. As one conservative commentator on
Twitter asked: “DISNEY bought & SHELVED #SoundOfFreedom refusing to release it. Why
wouldn’t Disney want us to see human trafficked children saved? . . . GOD’S CHILDREN
ARE NOT FOR SALE” (Reborn 2023).

3. Conclusions
So, what we have seen is that over the past decade, and especially following the
summer of 2020, conservative and far-right activists are collapsing distinction between their
opposition to ESG, their belief that CRT is pushed in schools, worries about transgender
issues, and their advocacy of climate denialism. These issues are described as part of
a vast and evil (even demonic) left-wing conspiracy to destroy freedom and liberty in
the US, undermine conservative Christian values, and call into question the merits and
sustainability of continued extractive global capitalism. From borders and policing to
crime and social policy, everything is part of a “woke” political conspiracy that now
includes the entire Democratic party, the majority of mainstream media, and most political
institutions. As Levin argues in his latest book, whose premise is that Democrats are the
real authoritarian threat, “America is unraveling. Our founding and history are under
assault. Our families and faiths are being degraded . . . Capitalism and prosperity are being
devoured by economic socialism and climate-change fanaticism” (Levin 2023, p. 2).
ESG is now squarely in the crosshairs of most conservatives, thanks in part to the
efforts of a well-funded dark money political campaign led by groups such as Heritage
Action, and regularly boosted by right-wing political figures such as Levin and Ramaswamy.
It does not matter that most of what is blamed on ESG—such as the Dylan Mulvaney or
Target examples discussed earlier—have nothing to do with ESG investing. Much as we
saw with CRT in 2020, and then DEI in 2022, these terms are used as empty signifiers and
have become catch-all terms for conservatives in their culture war narrative. “Reverse
racism is racism. It’s wrong now just as it was in 1964. The ‘anti-racist’ movement actually
creates more racism” (Ramaswamy 2023a).
Given the evolution of such rhetorical attacks on ESG and related climate issues, it
should not be surprising that calling attention to our planetary climate emergency leads
figures like Ramaswamy to claim our best solution is “abandoning the climate cult” and
embracing even more fossil fuels. As Levin argues in his latest book, “For the Democrat
Party, ‘climate change’ is not about science. It is the most lucrative, limitless, and successful
source of power and control over the individual, the economy, and, consequently, the
American lifestyle” (Levin 2023, p. 140). It is not hard to understand why organized
opposition to ESG appears to be growing amongst some people when this is the dominant
narrative being offered to conservative voters in the US in 2023.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 12 of 14

References
AAM. 2000. Multi-Faith Action. Anti-Apartheid Movement Archives. Available online: https://www.aamarchives.org/who-was-
involved/faith-organisations.html (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Armbruster-Sandoval, Ralph. 2005. Globalization and Cross-Border Labor Solidarity in the Americas: The Anti-Sweatshop Movement and the
Struggle for Social Justice. New York: Routledge.
Bartley, Tim, and Curtis Child. 2014. Shaming the Corporation: The Social Production of Targets and the Anti-Sweatshop Movement.
American Sociological Review 79: 653–79. [CrossRef]
Bary, Andrew. 2023. Bud Light Sales Fall 26% as Transgender Backlash Worsens. Barron’s. May 1. Available online: https://www.
barrons.com/articles/bud-light-sales-dylan-mulvaney-transgender-backlash-9d426f09 (accessed on 19 August 2023).
Benjamin, Jeff. 2020. Faith-based investing catches a ride on the ESG wave. InvestmentNews. October 1. Available online: https:
//www.investmentnews.com/faith-based-investing-rides-esg-wave-197660 (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Blee, Kathleen, and Kimberly Creasap. 2017. Conservative and right-wing movements. In The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. Edited
by Cas Mudde. New York: Routledge.
Bowen, Howard. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Butler, Anthea. 2021. White Evangelical Racism: The Politics of Morality in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Câmara, Paulo. 2022. The Systemic Interaction Between Corporate Governance and ESG. In The Palgrave Handbook of ESG and Corporate
Governance. Edited by Paulo Câmara and Filipe Morais. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Câmara, Paulo, and Filipe Morais, eds. 2022. The Palgrave Handbook of ESG and Corporate Governance. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillan.
CED. 1971. Social Responsibility of Business Corporations. Committee for Economic Development. Available online: https://www.
ced.org/pdf/Social_Responsibilities_of_Business_Corporations.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2023).
CIDSA. 1985. CIDSA Update #9. Coalition for Illinois’ Divestment from South Africa. June 9. Available online: https://projects.kora.
matrix.msu.edu/files/210-808-3816/CIDSAUpdate6-85opt.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Congress.gov. 2023. H.J.Res.30—118th Congress (2023–2024): Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5,
United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan
Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights”. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-
resolution/30 (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Craissati, Jackie, and Anthony Beech. 2003. A review of dynamic variables and their relationship to risk prediction in sex offenders.
Journal of Sexual Aggression 9: 41–55. [CrossRef]
Crews, Chris. Forthcoming. ‘Anti-Woke’ Culture War: Exploring the Impacts of White Christian Nationalism and Far-Right Extremism
on Education. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture.
Curtis, Quinn, Jill Fisch, and Adriana Robertson. 2021. Do ESG Funds Deliver on Their Promise? Michigan Law Review 120: 393.
[CrossRef]
David Pakman Show. 2023. Live: 2024 Republican Presidential Debate on Fox News. YouTube Video. August 23. Available online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2023. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 4th ed. New York: New York University Press.
Eshuys, Donna, and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse 18: 279–88.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Frederick, William. 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business-and-Society Thought. Business & Society 33: 150–64. [CrossRef]
Freeman, Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing.
Gorski, Paul, and Samuel Perry. 2022. The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage Action. 2023. ESG Hurts. Available online: https://www.esghurts.com (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Heritage Action Email. 2023. Exclusive for you, Fellow Conservative! Heritage Action, August 25.
Heritage Foundation. 2022. Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action Launch ‘ESG Hurts’ National Campaign. August 31. Avail-
able online: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-and-heritage-action-launch-esg-hurts-national-campaign
(accessed on 5 September 2023).
Horsley, Jamie. 2018. China’s Orwellian Social Credit Score Isn’t Real. Brookings Institute. Available online: https://www.brookings.
edu/articles/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).
Hudson-Allison, Derrick. 2000. The Role of Non-Violent Resistance in South Africa: Black Labour Movements and the Prophetic
Church in the Spiral of the Apartheid State, 1980–1989. Journal of Public and International Affairs 11: 185–205.
IPCC. 2023. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Core Writing Team, Hoesung Lee and José Romero.
Geneva: IPCC. [CrossRef]
John Jay Report. 2004. The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950–2002.
Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available online: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/
reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2023).
Johnson, Andrew. 2023. How Companies Can Address ESG Backlash. The Conference Board. Available online: https://www.
conference-board.org/pdfdownload.cfm?masterProductID=47725 (accessed on 10 August 2023).
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 13 of 14

Kalis, Peter. 2023. The ESG religion. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. March 13. Available online: https://www.post-gazette.com/uncategorized/20
23/03/13/environmental-social-governance-climate-change-eschatology/stories/202303130004 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
Kewley, Stephanie, Anthony Beech, and Leigh Harkins. 2015. Examining the role of faith community groups with sexual offenders: A
systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 25: 142–49. [CrossRef]
Larson, Zeb. 2022. Why Divestment Defeated Apartheid and How it Might Help Beat Climate Change. Zócalo Public Square. February
17. Available online: https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2022/02/17/divestment-defeated-apartheid-climate-change/ideas/
essay/ (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Lehman, Chris. 2023. Sound of Freedom is a QAnon Fever Dream. The Nation. August 7. Available online: https://www.thenation.
com/article/culture/sound-of-freedom-movie/ (accessed on 18 August 2023).
Levin, Mark. 2021. American Marxism. New York: Threshold Editions.
Levin, Mark. 2023. The Democrat Party Hates America. New York: Threshold Editions.
Maltese, Giovanni. 2021. Spiritual Warfare and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Implicit Religion 24: 1–33. [CrossRef]
Maxim, Chloe. 2013. Why Divestment is Changing the Climate Movement. The Nation. January 24. Available online: https:
//www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-divestment-changing-climate-movement/ (accessed on 20 August 2023).
Minow, Nell. 2011. 25 for 25: Observations on the Past, Present, and Future of Corporate Governance. Institutional Shareholder
Services. Available online: https://www.issgovernance.com/file/files/ISS_25for25.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Mudde, Cas. 2017. The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. Edited by Cas Mudde. New York: Routledge.
Murray, Conor. 2023. The Adrenochrome Conspiracy Theory–Pushed by ‘Sound of Freedom’ Star–Explained. Forbes. July 15. Available
online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/15/the-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-pushed-by-sound-
of-freedom-star-explained/ (accessed on 12 August 2023).
Onishi, Brad. 2023. Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism–and What Comes Next. Minneapolis: Broadleaf
Press.
Phillips, Aleks. 2023. ‘Sound of Freedom’ Funder Fabian Marta Arrested for Child Kidnapping. Newsweek. August 4. Available online:
https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-funder-fabian-marta-arrest-child-kidnapping-1817498 (accessed on 30 August
2023).
Pollman, Elizabeth. 2022. The Making and Meaning of ESG. European Corporate Governance Institute. Available online: http:
//ssrn.com/abstract_id=4219857 (accessed on 24 September 2023).
Posner, Sarah. 2021. Unholy: How White Christian Nationalists Powered the Trump Presidency, and the Devastating Legacy They Left Behind.
New York: Random House.
Presbyterian Historical Society. 2013. Presbyterians, Apartheid, and Divestment. National Archives of the Presbyterian Church.
Available online: https://history.pcusa.org/blog/presbyterians-apartheid-and-divestment (accessed on 30 August 2023).
Ramaswamy, Vivek. 2021. Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam. New York: Center Street.
Ramaswamy, Vivek. 2023a. My 10 Truths for the 2024 Campaign. New York Post. August 21. Available online: https://nypost.com/20
23/08/21/vivek-ramaswamy-my-10-truths-for-the-2024-campaign/ (accessed on 12 September 2023).
Ramaswamy, Vivek. 2023b. Vivek Ramaswamy at “Fire-Side Chat” in Iowa. C-SPAN. August 12. Available online: https://www.c-
span.org/video/?529712-2/vivek-ramaswamy-fair-side-chat-iowa (accessed on 12 September 2023).
Reborn, Joy. 2023. Sound of Freedom was originally produced in 2018. Twitter. July 2. Available online: https://twitter.com/
RedRising11/status/1675486007070797824 (accessed on 15 September 2023).
Rufo, Christopher. 2023. America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything. New York: Broadside Books.
Schnabel, Landon Paul. 2013. When Fringe Goes Mainstream: A Sociohistorical Content Analysis of the Christian Coalition’s Contract
with The American Family and the Republican Party Platform. Politics, Religion & Ideology 14: 94–113. [CrossRef]
Sladky, Lynne. 2023. Retailers Pride Month. AP Newsroom. June 1. Available online: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-
videos/detail?itemid=59f8b210eb5d42bbae3d371fd95bf24f (accessed on 15 September 2023).
Stewart, Katherine. 2022. The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sullivan, Leon. 1983. Agents for change: The mobilization of multinational companies in South Africa. Law and Policy in International
Business 15: 427–44.
Torba, Andrew, and Andrew Isker. 2023. Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion & Disciplining Nations. Monee: Gab
AI Inc.
Trump, Donald. 2023. Full Speech: President J. Donald Trump Speaks to the Pray, Vote, Stand Summit—9/15/23. YouTube Video.
September 15. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikQJ_c9fi0 (accessed on 20 September 2023).
Whitehead, Andrew. 2023. American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church. Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press.
Whitehead, Andrew, and Samuel Perry. 2020. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Religions 2023, 14, 1257 14 of 14

Wolfe, Stephen. 2022. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Moscow: Canon Press.
Wood, Donna. 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718. Available online:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258977 (accessed on 15 May 2023). [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.