ESG Capitalism from a Law and Religion Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author takes a non-trivial approach to analyzing the ESG trend in law and practice from the perspective of law and religion interaction, s/he does that on basis of solid normative and theoretical basis including the most recent texts, and that is the potential value of the paper. However, the introductory considerations substantially prevail over the specific issue of religious concerns within the ESG framework. This seems to be the major flaw of the article. Whether the author improves this disbalance through developing the 3rd section of the research, the paper would be clearly publishable. In the present form the article is more an invitation to the discussion.

It might also be found reasonable to analyze the ESG implication on the UN itself at the example of the Organization's staff policy covering, since recently, nontraditional couples with family benefits despite the opposition of a number of states. Would that constitute a problem within the "S" part of the ESG concept, bringing religious beliefs and legals rules to a clash?

One minor concern is about the early history of the ESG ideas. While making an overview of the ESG movement, the author underestimates the pioneering efforts by the ILO (lines 170-171), which, in accordance with the author, just followed the UN trend in 2010s whereas it was the first one with its Tripartite Declaration in the 1970s. 

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the time and expertise s/he invested in proofreading this paper.

As suggested, a more in-depth discussion on “the religious concerns within the ESG framework” has been included in Section III (pp 9-11) to provide more balance to the work.

On the suggestion of another reviewer of this article, the author has also further explained how, for some, the same idea of “woke capitalism” represents an ideology, if not even  a “religion”, to prove further evidence of how ESG is in fact an easy manipulable category.

The relationship between ESG and the UN, particularly with the 2022 ILO report “Care at Work” on the issue of extending family benefits to non-traditional couples has been contextualised and explained on p. 10.

Lastly, the chronological mistake on ESG history and the ILO pioneering role has been addressed on page 5.

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the time and expertise s/he invested in proofreading this paper. 

 

As suggested, at the end of the introduction (page 4) the author has clarified the intended goal to explore the connection between FoRB and the “E” part of ESG, to better clarify how faith-based interpretations of the environmental component of this concept do not always harmonise with the “S” and the “G” of ESG.  This should also make the connection with Section III of this article clearer.

 

In so doing, on page 4 the author has also highlighted how the “S” of ESG includes non-discrimination principles that sometimes might clash with the internal religious rules of faith-based organisations.

 

As to the theme of “wokeism”, the author wishes to thank the reviewer for finding the topic interesting and encouraging further elaboration. More details about how “woke capitalism” is viewed by some as an ideology, if not even a religion, have been added on pp 8-9.

 

Lastly, the CJEU case-law indicated as an example of the intersection between ESG and FoRB in the conclusions has been further contextualised with doctrine (including references to Marco Ventura as suggested by the reviewer).

Reviewer 3 Report

Very sorry, I cannot recommend for publication. The paper meanders across a variety of topics, from COVID to antidiscrimination before getting to its point. Even then, it does not always retain coherence.   Dicta about ESG in Hobby Lobby is overstated, and the major point of the case isn't about whether ESG is a good thing, but whether the ethical/religious preferences of the company can somehow override a legal mandate. Nobody in the actual ESG movement thinks the answer to that should be yes.

More broadly, there is no real contribution. Social welfare and even environmentalism are growing concerns for various religious movements.  I think that's known and widely discussed. I don't see what the author has provided (Pope Francis, REMO's) that adds to the conversation.    

A deeper look at what the religious movements offer, and how their voices might shift the discourse if included, might be one way to reshape the paper to make the contribution clearer.  There are other ways. I just think more needs to be done to stake new ground.  

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the time and expertise s/he invested in proofreading this paper. 

The author also apologises if any of his/her arguments have been offensive, as that was not his/her intention. In actual fact, the author believes that faith-based actors do play a positive role in environmental issues and policies, as Section III now should make more clear.

However, as the section also shows, although environmentalism could benefit from the insights of faith-based actors, this does not mean that their contribution cannot be analysed (or even challenged) using scientific methods and impartiality. The same applies to the ESG movement which, contrary to what the reviewer claims, is now going growing scrutiny by both conservative and liberal fringes due to the unfair advantages it could give to certain businesses as compared to their non-ESG secular peers.

This does not mean that ESG is inherently a bad thing; it just depends on the more or less instrumental use that certain actors may choose to make of it. In this perspective, the aim of this paper is to highlight potential misuses of ESG, with a focus on faith-based actors (without necessarily indicating any hostile animus of the author towards religion).

On the contrary, and taking Hobby Lobby as an example, the author believes that this mix of profit and religion can be offensive to both pro-choice humanists and the most genuine believers in Catholic social doctrine.

Lastly, there is a subtle link that ties Hobby Lobby and the ESG movement together: to the extent that faith-based companies can invoke conservative values before the law, similarly ESG promotes the use of progressive values in business. Seen it this way, on page 4, the author already clarified that, from a law and religion perspective, it is interesting to note how ESG is now fostering companies to develop a “social conscience”. From this vantage point, Hobby Lobby and ESG are two specular dimensions of the same phenomenon that, in the author’s view, combine all the ingredients of this paper into a cohesive whole.