%20(1)_edited.jpg)
Which Truth: The Battle for Meaning, Propaganda and Capture of ESG
- DDL Ltd
- Nov 13
- 7 min read
Updated: Nov 14
Prologue: Which Truth?
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has become less a framework and more a battlefield. What began as a well-intentioned movement to align capital with sustainability has devolved into a war of narratives, where ideology, lobbying, and regulatory capture threaten to undermine its credibility. The ESG debate is no longer about carbon footprints or board diversity; it’s about who controls the language, the metrics, and ultimately, the money.
In 2021 JB Beckett stood in front of the Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) for their annual Climate Summit. In his keynote talk entitled ‘Which Truth?’ JB forewarned the impact of propaganda on all sides of the ESG and sustainability debate, tracing the use of modern propaganda techniques back to WW1 through to the COVID Pandemic. When it came to ‘greenwashing’, JB addressed the audience and said;
‘So… here is an inconvenient truth. Everyone in this room has at some point either lied or been lied to about climate change and the integration of sustainability and ESG... some lies are small, some less so.” — Beckett
Following JB Beckett’s trailblazing work, we dissect the statements of ESG’s most vocal proponents and critics, exposing the linguistic sleight of hand, the ideological fault lines, and the systemic risks of regulatory capture. Our expert analysts have devised a methodology we call Forensic Statement Linguistic Analysis (FSLA) to detect deception in the written and spoken word. FSLA involves examining specific linguistic markers namely inconsistencies, lack of detail, or unexpected shifts in narrative to assess the credibility and completeness of a statement.
Part I: The Linguistic Battlefield
Desiree Fixler: The Whistleblower’s Lexicon
Fixler’s statements are rich in linguistic cues. Her use of terms like “multi-trillion-dollar marketing scam” and “bedazzled sustainability reports” signal high emotional valence and a deep distrust of corporate ESG narratives. Her speeches often juxtapose corporate euphemism (“carbon intensity”) with plain-spoken indictment (“greenwashing”), creating a linguistic tension that resonates with whistleblower authenticity.
“If I see some bedazzled sustainability report, that is a huge red flag. It should be a very sober report.” — Fixler[1]
Her framing of ESG as a “culture war” aligns with Tariq Fancy’s critique, suggesting a convergence of whistleblower and insider narratives.
Tariq Fancy: ESG as Dangerous Placebo
Fancy’s rhetoric is surgical. He calls ESG a “dangerous placebo,” a metaphor that implies not just ineffectiveness but harm through false reassurance. His critique is not merely semantic—it’s structural. He argues that ESG distracts from real policy reform, and his use of terms like “Tesla capitalism vs tobacco capitalism” reveals a binary worldview where ESG is either transformative or toxic.
“ESG funds are a dangerous placebo that prevents real change.” — Fancy[2]
His linguistic style is academic yet polemical, blending insider knowledge with outsider critique.
Catherine Howarth: Stewardship as Resistance
Howarth’s statements reflect a moral imperative. She speaks of “relational power” and “meeting of minds,” framing ESG as a collective endeavour. Her critique of asset managers who “pay lip service” to sustainability is subtle but pointed.
“After years of picking through greenwash, we can at least now tell who was paying lip service.” — Howarth[3]
Her language is less combative than Fixler or Fancy, but no less forensic. She identifies voting misalignment and fiduciary abdication as systemic failures.
Part II: ESG’s Institutional Fault Lines
PRI and NGO Challenges
The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and allied NGOs face existential threats from both political backlash and industry lobbying. COP29 revealed a fractured consensus, with developing nations accusing wealthier countries of failing to deliver on climate finance promises[4].
NGOs like ShareAction and GEFI are increasingly side-lined by regulatory dilution and industry capture, as seen in the EU’s rollback of ESG related CSRD and CSDDD directives[5].
Regulatory Capture: The Trojan Horse
Regulatory capture in ESG manifests through:
· Revolving doors between regulators and asset managers
· Lobbying for diluted standards (e.g., EU Omnibus packages)
· Greenwashing-friendly taxonomies that allow fossil-heavy portfolios to pass as
“sustainable”
As JB Beckett warned in Bonfire of the Vanities, [6] ESG risks becoming a vanity metric, manipulated by those with the most to gain. “We are witnessing the ESGification of everything, where the label matters more than the substance.” — JB Beckett
Part III: Political Theatre and ESG Cynicism
Mark Carney: From Climate Risk to Political Risk
Carney’s speeches have evolved from technocratic warnings (“tragedy of the horizon”) to political advocacy. As Prime Minister, his rhetoric now blends climate finance with national security, a shift that reflects the politicization of ESG[7].
Rachel Reeves: Green Finance as Growth Strategy
Reeves’ Mansion House speech framed ESG as a growth imperative, not just a climate necessity. Her push for a £200bn green finance unlock is ambitious, but critics warn of regulatory overreach and industry capture[8].
Donald Trump and US Politicians: ESG as Woke Capitalism
Trump’s executive orders and Republican-led bills frame ESG as a threat to energy dominance and economic freedom[9]. The language is combative, framing ESG as “ideologically motivated” and “crippling.” This politicisation has led to fund outflows, anti-ESG legislation, and a chilling effect on disclosure[10].
Part IV: ESG’s Academic and Stewardship Defenders
Alex Edmans: Rational Sustainability
Edmans offers a third way, advocating “rational sustainability” that balances ESG with financial performance. His critique of ESG as “nothing special” is a call to integrate, not isolate[11].
Ashley Hamilton Claxton and Minerva: Stewardship as Data
Claxton and Wilson emphasise proxy voting, data integrity, and governance transparency. Their work reveals the granular mechanics of ESG stewardship, often lost in ideological debates[12].
Part V: DDL and the Path Forward
Forensic Statement Linguistic Analysis (FSLA) offers a way to cut through the ESG fog. By applying forensic linguistics, metadata analysis, and sentiment mapping, the company Deception Detection Lab can:
· Detect greenwashing in corporate reports
· Identify lobbying patterns and regulatory capture
· Benchmark ESG claims against actual impact
DDL and FSLA is not just a tool; it’s a mindset. It aligns with JB Beckett’s New Fund Order ethos: question everything, trust nothing, verify always.
ESG at the Crossroads
ESG is no longer a framework; it’s a contested space. The war of words has become a war of meaning, where language is weaponized, metrics are gamed, and regulation is captured. To navigate this terrain, we need forensic tools, critical thinking, and due diligence.
As JB Beckett wrote in his Investment Week column during the Ukraine crisis [13]:
“ESG is not immune to geopolitical shock. It is a migraine, not a moment.”
The migraine persists. But with the right tools, we can diagnose, dissect, and perhaps heal.
Part VI: The Lobbyists’ Long Game — ESG as a Battlefield for Influence
If ESG is a war of narratives, then industry lobbyists are its shadow generals. Operating behind closed doors, they shape the battlefield not through direct confrontation, but through subtle manipulation of policy, propaganda, disclosure standards, and public perception. Their influence is pervasive, often invisible, and increasingly decisive.
The ESG Endgame Is Lobbying
As Dieter Zinnbauer of The Good Lobby bluntly puts it:
“What companies do in the political realm… is often much more consequential than their efforts to green their operational footprints.”[14]
This insight reframes ESG not as a corporate initiative, but as a political project. The battleground is no longer the boardroom, it’s the legislature, the regulator’s office, and the trade association’s policy committee.
Mechanisms of Influence
Industry lobbyists deploy a range of tactics to shape ESG regulation:
· Revolving doors: Former regulators become industry consultants; former
executives become policy advisors.
· Trade associations: Groups like the Business Roundtable and API (American
Petroleum Institute) push for diluted standards under the guise of “practicality.”
· Campaign contributions: ESG-aligned companies paradoxically fund politicians
who oppose climate legislation, creating a values-vs-actions dissonance.
· Proxy lobbying: ESG reports are used as signalling devices to curry favour with
legislators, as shown in the Cambridge study of U.S. firms[15].
ESG Reports as Political Tools
A 2023 study found that companies increase the quantitative content of ESG reports when lobbying intensifies, suggesting these disclosures are used to signal credibility to policymakers rather than inform stakeholders[16].
This aligns with JB Beckett’s LinkedIn critique Bonfire of the Vanities, that ESG is at risk of becoming a performance, not a practice.
PRI and NGO Resistance
The PRI’s Converging on Climate Lobbying initiative attempts to align corporate lobbying with investor expectations but faces resistance from entrenched industry interests[17]. NGOs like Preventable Surprises and The Good Lobby warn of policy capture, where ESG regulations are shaped by those meant to be regulated[18].
“A company can achieve high ESG scores while simultaneously undermining progress on these issues through legislative lobbying.” — Alberto Alemanno[19]
Regulatory Capture: The Silent Coup
Regulatory capture is not a conspiracy, it’s a system. As the IMF and Oxford studies show, financial lobbying has diluted EU consumer protections and weakened climate disclosure rules in the U.S.[20][21]. The SEC’s climate rule was paused after nine legal challenges, many backed by industry groups[22].
In ESG, capture manifests as:
· Loophole-laden taxonomies
· Voluntary standards with no enforcement teeth
· Diluted directives like the EU’s Omnibus package
As JB Beckett warned in his Opinion piece for Investment Week ‘Critical Mass’: [23]
“We have reached peak cynicism. The City no longer believes in the story it sells.”
The solution for such paralysing cynicism is truth. At Deception Detection Lab [24] our Expert Analysts have devised a methodology called Forensic Statement Linguistic Analysis (FSLA) to detect deception in the written and spoken word. We adhere to industry methodologies to ensure precise and reliable outcomes for every case.
Even in the theatre of doing good; deception becomes a tool and propaganda its playbook.
Contact Deception Detection Lab to find out more: Home | DDL Ltd
References
[3] www.ecgi.global
[4] www.wri.org
[5] www.forbes.com
[8] esgnews.com
[10] www.cnbc.com
[11] www.iese.edu
[12] www.manifest.co.uk
[14] thegoodlobby.eu
[15] [16] www.cambridge.org
[17] www.unpri.org
[19] www.rinnovabili.net
[20] www.imf.org
[21] academic.oup.com
