By Sandra Seru, Sustainable Brands
For a field built around the long-term view, it’s up to us to do the uncomfortable work and reach across party lines. If we don’t make addressing polarization a priority, will the rest of our work be worth it?
Like most US voters, I’m holding a lot of anxiety going into this election week. According to multiple studies, about 74 percent of US adults fear extremists could commit acts of violence following this week’s Presidential election if they are unhappy with the results and 55 percent think the country is on a path to another civil war.
This escalating polarization in the United States — more so than in any other western democracy — is not new; however, we’ve entered a dark time when the only thing we can agree on is that our safety could be in jeopardy from our own partisan divisions.
Tomorrow, when US voters go to the polls, they will be choosing between candidates who disagree intensely on every topic in their platforms. These are complicated, systemic challenges including public safety, economic development and healthcare; yet, we continue to show little nuance in our voting — with most Americans continuing to stand by their red or blue allegiance in an almost 50/50 split. What ensues are tight races and the doing and undoing of efforts that make it extremely challenging for either party to realize its campaign promises.
Even worse, most of us seem resigned to the idea that there is little we can do to bring empathy and bipartisan understanding to our politics and public discourse. Despite the tradeoffs, which include our own safety, we think our best bet is to fight the other party harder and make the most out of however many years we can score in office until the next party undoes our efforts.
Climate and ESG are casualties of partisan politics
Climate and ESG are no exceptions to this zero-sum partisan game. Studies suggest the majority of US adults believe unchecked global warming will hurt future generations and that DEI efforts “are a good thing;” but this doesn’t seem reflected in voting patterns or legislation records, which fall down party lines.
Interestingly, in a year of historic fires and unprecedented hurricane damage across many swing states, candidates up and down the ticket aren’t speaking much about sustainability. This silence may represent voter priorities — other issues have inched above ESG concerns — but the quiet shouldn’t be confused with a lack of dangerous conflict under the waterline.
The past few years has seen a loud storm of ‘anti-woke’ advocacy and legislation in Republican-led states, mostly aimed at penalizing investments in ESG. On the other hand, roughly 10 Democratic-led states have passed ‘pro-ESG’ legislation to mandate climate-risk disclosures, sustainable investment practices, or divestment from industries contrary to ESG values.
This turn to legislative battles has not been good news for the sustainability field — no matter in which state a company is based. While many sustainability professionals say their company’s commitment is unwavering in the face of political debate, many other companies have gotten quieter in their sustainability advocacy; the surge of ambitious sustainability commitments that we saw in 2019-2021 has undeniably slowed. It’s not all bad news, though: The ‘pro-ESG’ legislation seems to have lifted the baseline for companies who hadn’t considered ESG in their strategies. But in the face of such urgent need — to limit temperature increases below 1.5°C and to meaningfully address rising inequality — we need more brave, transformative action rather than quieter compliance and risk mitigation. It’s worth noting that the partisan division we see in politics also matches the boardroom; so the same partisan mindset curbing lasting progress in Washington may also be responsible for the quieter, incremental action in the private sector.
ESG wasn’t always partisan*
We seem resigned to such partisan divides on sustainability matters — but not long ago, climate change and DEI were unifying issues in the US. As recently as 1997, a poll showed Republicans (47 percent) and Democrats (46 percent) agreed that they believed that “the effects of global warming … have already begun to happen.” Bipartisan efforts in the early 2000s, such as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act — aimed at creating emissions-trading systems — exemplified this collaboration. Similarly, key legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title IX illustrate moments when parties united to advance equal rights and reduce discrimination.
However, events such as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 — which allowed one-sided media coverage — and the 2010 Citizens United decision enabling vast corporate political funding drove a wedge into climate discourse. Gerrymandering and creating one-sided districts fanned polarization by making primaries, where fringe candidates thrived, the key race in most districts. Social media further fragmented public opinion by amplifying partisan content, and misinformation began spreading rapidly (Some, including Facebook, have tested changes to their algorithms to reduce inflammatory content, especially around elections; but these adjustments are often temporary — reverting back after peak moments to maintain user engagement and ad revenue). All of these forces together have created today’s partisan reality — and when climate and other ESG legislation such as the IRA do get passed, it’s done without support from the other party and risks being rolled back eventually.
Good news: We can (and must) depolarize ESG**
While these concerning polarization trends are widely acknowledged, there is insufficient response coming from the sustainability field. The good news is, we know how we’ve gotten here and can make progress on undoing these trends if we work together.
- Get out of our own information cocoons, starting now. We are all victims of confirmation bias and we must spot signs of misinformation and start diversifying what we read. While listening to hyper-partisan news is likely to be counter-productive, there are bipartisan or moderate groups in both parties advocating for climate and other sustainability and social justice solutions. Through listening and considering divergent views, we can find solutions that resonate across party lines.
- Advocate for political, financial and media reform. We must come together as a field to agree on, and advocate for, policies that could reverse the rise of polarization. These might range from a Fairness Doctrine-type bill that addresses both broadcast and cable TV news, addressing the campaign-finance issues fueled by decisions such as Citizens United, reversing destructive gerrymandering, enforcing effective standards for the social media industry, and considering accounting and accountability frameworks for media at large.
- Influence changes in social media. Social media platforms must evolve their business models and adjust algorithms to depolarize platforms, and they need significantly more resource-monitoring content to mitigate disinformation. How can the rest of the private sector funding ads on those platforms support, advocate for and otherwise influence those changes?
- Invest in new partnerships and solutions. Many organizations working to mitigate polarization, bridge divides and build social cohesion — including through a climate and ESG lens — could benefit from support and partnership. Additionally, we should accelerate investigative research and solution development coming out of university centers — such as the Cambridge Disinformation Summit and NYU’s Center for Business and Human Rights.
- Work harder to diversify our coalitions, collaboratives and conferences. We need to strengthen social capital from within our sustainability platforms — bringing people together across lived experience, party lines, geography, economic background, and racial and ethnic identity. How can we build shared empathy and co-design solutions from within our coalitions and programs? I’ve heard from so many sustainability professionals that they crave a safe space for like-minded individuals to discuss ESG issues with — but if we remain in our own echo chamber, how effective can we be?
If your candidate wins this week, your fear and anxiety might be washed away in a refreshing cleanse — but please don’t forget how you felt leading up to the election. No matter who wins the Presidency or other open seats, our country will remain deeply and dangerously divided — and things could reverse in no time.
For a field built around the long-term view, it’s up to us to do the uncomfortable work and reach across party lines. If we don’t make addressing polarization a priority, will the rest of our work be worth it?
* To dive more deeply into the history and drivers of polarization in ESG, check out the 2022 article I wrote on this topic.
** These recommendations closely mirror what I wrote about in 2022, mostly because we haven’t attempted them yet and I still stand by them. I would love to build on this list — please share further ideas in the comments section!