New research from Griffith University has found fossil fuel companies played a significant role in shaping the United States state of Florida’s campaign against environmental and social governance (ESG) investing. The study, conducted by Associate Professor Erin O’Brien, examined the political strategies of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the broader anti-ESG movement emerging across the United States. The research revealed that Florida’s efforts to prevent banks and pension funds from investing in companies prioritising ESG principles reflected a wider national trend, with at least 18 US states introducing similar policies designed to restrict the use of ESG considerations in public investment decisions.

Associate Professor O’Brien found that the backlash against what critics labelled “woke capitalism” intensified as corporations increasingly integrated ESG principles into business operations and investment frameworks. Rather than remaining symbolic commitments, ESG initiatives began influencing corporate behaviour in areas such as climate action, labour standards, diversity, and ethical governance. According to the research, this growing corporate engagement with social and environmental issues triggered strong resistance from conservative political leaders and industry groups. The study argued that opposition to ESG investing was presented publicly as a defence of financial performance and shareholder interests, despite political leaders simultaneously framing ESG as a broader cultural and ideological threat.

The research highlighted how Governor DeSantis positioned anti-ESG policies within his larger “war on woke” political campaign. Through speeches, media appearances, and policy initiatives, ESG investing was portrayed as a dangerous form of political activism that threatened the interests of “everyday people”. Associate Professor O’Brien found that militarised and confrontational language was frequently used to elevate ESG investing into a high-stakes political conflict, justifying increased state intervention in financial markets. The rhetoric constructed a divide between ordinary citizens and so-called “corporate elites”, framing socially responsible investment as evidence that powerful financial institutions were imposing values on the public without democratic consent.

The study also examined how political figures, including Donald Trump, increasingly reframed responsible investment as a challenge to democratic legitimacy. Corporate actors promoting ESG principles were depicted as disconnected elites attempting to reshape society through economic influence rather than public debate or electoral processes. Associate Professor O’Brien argued that the political campaign against ESG investing was ultimately less about financial strategy and more about contesting who has the authority to shape the future direction and values of capitalist markets. The research suggested that these debates reflected broader struggles over political power, corporate responsibility, and the role of government in regulating economic activity.

The findings further identified the role of fossil fuel companies and aligned political organisations in promoting anti-ESG legislation across the United States. According to the research, these actors sought to prevent banks, pension funds, and investment managers from considering issues such as climate change, environmental risk, and modern slavery in their investment decisions. The study specifically pointed to the influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which was described as helping draft and distribute anti-ESG laws adopted by multiple states. Associate Professor O’Brien argued that the coordinated spread of anti-ESG legislation demonstrated how industry interests and political movements increasingly worked together to challenge responsible investment frameworks.

The research concluded that the growing political movement against ESG investing could have significant international consequences. By condemning values-based capitalism and portraying socially responsible investment as politically dangerous, governments may create an environment in which corporations feel encouraged to weaken or abandon environmental and social commitments. Associate Professor O’Brien noted that such developments could undermine global efforts to address climate change and corporate accountability. The study cited recent decisions by major resource companies, including BHP, to reconsider or delay emissions reduction strategies as evidence of a broader shift in the corporate landscape. The findings suggested that while anti-ESG campaigns present themselves as defending economic freedom, they may also reinforce ideological control over markets through the use of state power.

More information: Erin O’Brien, The war on woke capitalism: State deployment of discursive power in the backlash to responsible investment, Business and Politics. DOI: 10.1017/bap.2026.10022

Journal information: Business and Politics Provided by Griffith University