Sustainability in the Divided States: Depolarization Is the First Order of Business | Sustainable Brands

The following is a continuation and update of an article published in
November
2022,
ahead of the US Midterm elections.

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!

Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.

---

---

Published Nov 4, 2024 7am EST / 4am PST / 12pm GMT / 1pm CET