Written by Richard D. Kocur |
Monday, October 17, 2022
Disney faced pressure from gender equity activists and employees for not doing enough to oppose the bill. Then, after coming out in opposition, Disney faced blowback from parents who believed the company should simply focus on providing family entertainment. On that issue, Disney management spun around more than a rider on the theme park’s iconic Teacup ride. And why? Because of ill-conceived social activism on an issue that was irrelevant to the primary role of the business. Now Blackrock finds itself in a comparable position as a result of a similar activist pursuit.

With the stock market down nearly 20% year-to-date in 2022, investors are paying close attention to the financial performance of their portfolios: seeking to protect 401Ks, looking for safe havens, and trusting that their fiduciary asset managers are making the right decisions with ever-shrinking nest eggs. The last thing any investor would want now is for asset managers to be investing in companies for any reason other than to maximize financial return.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the world’s largest asset manager, Blackrock Inc., is doing through an emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing. This mode of corporate social activism has placed Blackrock in a difficult position, however, as pressure from both sides of the ESG issue close in on the company. Blackrock has become the latest example of a company experiencing the consequences of corporate social activism.
The movement to emphasize ESG within corporate structures and as corporate objectives first emerged in the early 2000s. ESG-focused investing directs capital to companies with stated goals on issues like climate change and social justice. Financial returns are a secondary concern to those who want to support or pressure companies to commit to ESG standards and enact policies to reach those standards.
With approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, Blackrock wields substantial power over where their assets, and by extension the assets of anyone invested in Blackrock, are placed. An August 16 editorial in the Wall Street Journal noted how Blackrock pressured companies to “avoid investing in fossil-fuel assets … and reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050.” In essence, putting pressure on the companies in which Blackrock invests to adopt ESG standards. If Blackrock’s blackmail is resisted, proxy shares are voted against management. This approach puts activism above shareholders’ returns. But Blackrock is beginning to see a backlash.
In late summer 2022, attorneys general from 19 Republican states sent a letter to Blackrock CEO Larry Fink seeking answers about potential conflicts between the firm’s ESG investing practices and his company’s fiduciary duty. In addition, states such as Texas and Louisiana have begun to bar state investment in any Blackrock fund that pushes ESG standards. With billions in state pension dollars and the investments of individual citizens at stake, the AGs and state comptrollers are calling Blackrock on the carpet.
In addition to this political reaction, market forces have also stepped into the ESG fight. A new investment alternative to ESG funds was recently launched by Strive Asset Management. Strive created a fund that mirrors Blackrock’s U.S. Energy Index Fund (IYE) but with a commitment to pursue non-ESG policies.
If pressure from those in opposition to ESG was not enough, Blackrock is also facing pushback from ESG advocates. In late September 2022, officials responsible for the public pension funds in New York City sent a letter to Fink pressing Blackrock to recommit to achieving net-zero emissions across its investment portfolio and to vote more in line with climate-related shareholder initiatives. Blackrock manages approximately $43 billion in investments for three New York City pension funds, according to a September 2022 article in the Wall Street Journal.
Blackrock could take a lesson from the investment adage, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” In the case of corporate social activism, past performance is a guarantee of future results. One only needs to look back to the mess in which the Walt Disney Corporation found itself because of its stance on Florida’s Parental Rights bill.
First, Disney faced pressure from gender equity activists and employees for not doing enough to oppose the bill. Then, after coming out in opposition, Disney faced blowback from parents who believed the company should simply focus on providing family entertainment. On that issue, Disney management spun around more than a rider on the theme park’s iconic Teacup ride. And why? Because of ill-conceived social activism on an issue that was irrelevant to the primary role of the business. Now Blackrock finds itself in a comparable position as a result of a similar activist pursuit.
Pressured from both sides of the ESG issue, they have now put themselves between a Blackrock and a hard place.
The author thanks Alex Heisey for his help in gathering research for this article.
Dr. Richard D. Kocur is an assistant professor of business at Grove City College. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:

Written by Guy M. Richard |
Sunday, August 28, 2022
Sorrow is restorative. It not only prompts us to meditate on the circumstances of our lives and our faith in Christ, but it is also the means whereby we experience restoration and healing. That seems to be the point of Ecclesiastes 7:3, which says: “for by sadness of face the heart is made glad.” Sadness, in other words, is the means by which the heart is made glad or, we could put it this way, sadness is unto gladness. Sorrow is never an end in itself for God’s people but always a means to an end. In this case, we need to be reminded that it is a means to the end of restoration and healing.

Have you ever been to the beach on a day when the red flags were flying and tried to swim in the surf only to be knocked down by the first wave that came along and, before you could get up, adjust your swimsuit, and wipe the salt water from your eyes, you were knocked down again by the next wave? If so, then you will know what the Christian life can so often feel like for many of God’s people. Wave after wave of disappointment, failure, and hardship can so frequently overwhelm us and knock us to the ground. And before we have time to get up and reorient ourselves the next wave is bearing down upon us.
I can’t think about this idea without thinking about a couple in my congregation who lost both of their sons and one of their daughters-in-law within a span of a few short years. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for them to deal with losing one child, let alone three in such a short period of time. How does anyone continue to stand in the midst of this kind of devastation as wave after wave after wave knocks us to the ground? How does anyone even put one foot in front of the other much less “rejoice always” and “give thanks in all circumstances,” as Paul calls us to do in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-17?
These are questions we will all wrestle with at some point in our lives. We know this is true because the Bible explicitly states that hardship and difficulty are unavoidable for everyone who takes up their cross and follows after Christ. Not only is the Christian life one of incessant cross-bearing, but it is also one in which trials and tribulations are a necessary part of the world in which we live, as Jesus Himself promises in John 16:33: “In the world you will have tribulation.” We are not, therefore, to “take heart” in the absence of trials and tribulations but in the fact that Jesus has already “overcome the world.”
Peter, echoing the words of Jesus, warns us that we ought never to be surprised when the “fiery trial…comes upon” us “as though something strange were happening” to us (1 Pet. 4:12). Hardship and difficulty and grief and pain are exactly what we should expect to experience because we live in a world that has been infected and affected by sin and which is inhabited by people who have themselves been infected and affected by sin. The apostle John, moreover, associates weeping and mourning with death in Revelation 21:4, which clearly implies that until Jesus returns sorrow, grief, and pain will be as unavoidable as death. Not only will we all die; but we will also all experience the death of friends and family members as well. This fact ensures that we will all necessarily go through seasons of sorrow and mourning, sometimes to greater degrees and sometimes to lesser degrees. We will all face heartbreaking disappointments, debilitating setbacks, and demoralizing defeats. Thankfully, we won’t all have to deal with the loss of three children one right after the other; but we will most definitely experience some amount of disappointment, pain, and loss. We will know what it’s like to walk through “the valley of the shadow of death” (Ps. 23:4), and sometimes for extended seasons too. And that is something that applies to everyone across the board.
The Bible has a great deal to say about sorrow and pain, besides the fact that they are inevitable. In what remains of this article, therefore, I’d like to look at some of the things that the Bible teaches about sorrow. I will explore the first three ideas in this article and the last two in my next post. My hope is that whenever you may find yourself walking through the valley of the shadow of death you will be helped by these reminders. So, strap in; we are hitting the ground running.
Read More
Related Posts:

State of Theology: Christian Societal Responsibility
23. Christians should be silent on issues of politics.
This question deals with the Christian’s responsibility regarding society, which is clearly implied in Scripture.  While Scripture does not direct or imply any particular level or nature of political involvement, it is clear that Christians should be deeply concerned about the society in which they live, seeking to improve it in ways that glorify God (Jeremiah 29:7).  Israelites were commanded to care for widows, orphans, and sojourners (Deuteronomy 14:29 and 24:17) as well as to relentlessly pursue justice and mercy (Exodus 23:6, Zechariah 7:9).  While these commands could be considered part of the civil law, they are undergirded by the moral law that is still just as binding today as it was then.  They are part of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:8) and not neglecting the weighty matters of justice (Matthew 23:23) as clearly taught by Jesus.  Many political issues are issues of justice, so to be silent about them is to disobey these commands.  Scripture is equally clear that silence in the face of injustice and oppression are just as sinful as the injustice and oppression themselves (Job 31:16-23, Isaiah 1:16, Ezekiel 22:6-12).  This means it is incompatible with Scripture to say that Christians should be silent on political issues in general.  Over half of respondents across all categories affirmed that silence about politics is not commanded in Scripture, ranging from 56% of regularly attending Northeasterners to 76% of Midwest evangelicals.  These results are mixed, but generally positive.  While there is certainly room for debate as to how much political involvement is prudent and appropriate, it would be improper to say that silence is required.  However, it is equally important to stress that while individual Christians can be involved in the political process, it is not the place of churches to be officially involved in politics.  We do not wage war using the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4), including politics.  The Gospel is what truly transforms society, and history teaches that such transformations are often slow.  Churches must focus on the Gospel, which then compels individual believers to act in ways that advance the Kingdom of God much as it compelled people like William Wilberforce to fight against slavery over two centuries ago.
State of Theology: Extramarital Sex
25. Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin.
This question is explicitly addressed in Scripture by the Seventh Commandment as interpreted by Jesus (Matthew 7:27-32).  Scripture therefore defines “traditional marriage” as the covenantal union between one man and one woman as established by God to reflect the diversity and unity of the Trinity as well as the union between Christ and the Church (Genesis 1:28, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1 Peter 1:7).  Throughout Scripture, sex outside of this union is prohibited (Leviticus 15 and 20, Proverbs 5-7, Mark 10:1-12, 1 Corinthians 5-6).  This is further echoed by Paul with his use of the generic term “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside of God’s definition of marriage (Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 4:3).  Thus, Scripture is clear that sex outside of traditional marriage (as defined by God) is sinful.  While over half of respondents across all categories except the Northeast (at 39%) affirmed this, it is concerning that results both overall (53%) and for the Midwest (54%) were also relatively low for something so clearly taught by Scripture.  Only with regularly attending evangelicals nationwide and in the Midwest were results better than 80%, showing that in certain regions and denominations the sin of extramarital sex has either been denied or neglected.  This is especially concerning when we consider that this question only deals with the act of sex and not with lust, which Jesus equates with adultery (Matthew 5:27-28).  Had the question included lustful thoughts, pornography, and other forms of sexual immorality outside of sex itself, I fear the results would have been much more negative.  Still, it is slightly encouraging to see that in our hypersexualized society, the majority in most categories did affirm the sinfulness of extramarital sex, even if it was only a slight majority.
State of Theology: Abortion
26. Abortion is a sin.
The question of abortion is not clearly addressed in any passage of Scripture but is clearly implied by Scripture overall.  Since the term “abortion” does not appear in Scripture, it must be defined first.  For our purposes, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the willful killing of the baby in the womb. Thus abortion is a premediated act and not the death of the child during an act of medical necessity to save the mother’s life.  Being the killing of a baby, abortion is sinful if it falls outside of the limitations for killing in Scripture.  The command against killing in Scripture rooted in the Sixth Commandment forbidding murder, which is reiterated by Jesus, proving that it is part of the moral law and thus still applicable today (Matthew 5:21, 15:19, and 19:18, Mark 7:21 and 10:19, Luke 18:20).  While speaking His covenant to Noah, God says “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).  This comes just before God reiterates the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply (verse 7), so it refers to all mankind (men and women of all ages).  This establishes that since people are made in the image of God, killing them is a grave sin apart from specific circumstances explicitly set out by God.  The first of these caveats is seen in this passage: punishment for murder or other serious crimes, which must only come after a just conviction (Numbers 35:30, see also Exodus 21:12-14. Leviticus 24:17-18, Numbers 35:31).  The second is the killing of enemy combatants in battle (which is allowed in certain circumstances throughout Scripture) and when the death of a perpetrator happens due to self-defense that was not premeditated (Exodus 22:2-3).  Scripturally, the killing of a person outside of these caveats is murder and thus sinful.
Scripture is equally clear that a baby in the womb is a person with equal worth to any other person.