ALFABET bende
Abbreviations Identities Topics About
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
← All topics

ESG Backlash

When corporate activism alienates consumers.

ESG—Environmental, Social, Governance—is a rating system that large institutional investors use to evaluate companies. The social component increasingly includes scores on LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, developed by activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign. Companies seeking high scores have a financial incentive to embrace LGBTQ+ activism—regardless of the views of their customers and employees.

Bud Light (2023)

In April 2023, Anheuser-Busch launched a promotional campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The market’s reaction was immediate and severe: Bud Light’s off-premise sales dropped by 26% within weeks. The stock of parent company AB InBev fell 20% and entered bear territory. It was the largest consumer backlash in response to an LGBTQ+ marketing campaign in U.S. history.

Target (2023)

In May 2023, Target launched a Pride collection, including children’s clothing with LGBTQ+ themes. The public reaction led to a drop in market capitalization of approximately $10 billion within a few days. Target subsequently faced a shareholder lawsuit (ESG backlash litigation) for harming shareholder value through ideologically motivated marketing policies.

Both cases illustrate a structural problem: companies are pressured by institutional investors (BlackRock, ISS) to improve ESG scores, but in doing so become alienated from their own customer base. The gains go to the activist organizations that determine the scores—the losses to shareholders and employees.

Pinkwashing

Critics within the LGBTQ+ community itself point to pinkwashing: companies that display rainbow flags in Western countries but continue to do business as usual in countries where homosexuality is a criminal offense. The activist façade serves the brand image and ESG scores, not the well-being of vulnerable LGBTQ+ individuals elsewhere in the world.

Related topics:

Woke companies, Social pressure, Canceling

What the international reevaluation reveals

The theme of the ESG backlash is not separate from the broader medical reevaluation. The Cass Review (2024) in the United Kingdom led to a de facto halt on puberty blockers within NHS England. SBU and Karolinska in Sweden withdrew their support for medical transition in minors outside of a study context starting in 2022. Finland (COHERE, 2020) and Norway (UKOM, 2023) followed suit. NICE (2020) classified the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as “very low certainty.”

The Netherlands is lagging behind. The Dutch Protocol—once touted as an international model—is being abandoned elsewhere. The data on which it is based do not come from randomized trials, but from observational studies with cohorts that cannot be generalized to the current referral population.

How the discussion is being stifled

Amid the ESG backlash, the gender-affirming model is defended through moral pressure and scientific claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who refers to the Cass Review or the Scandinavian shift is not met with a rebuttal but labeled as transphobic. The WPATH Files (2024) revealed that even within WPATH, there was uncertainty regarding informed consent for minors.

Parents who come forward with concerns are dismissed as troublemakers. Clinicians who advocate for caution face internal complaints and public campaigns. The result: only one side of the story remains audible.

International Reconsideration

In recent years, various national health authorities have distanced themselves from the gender-affirming model for minors. The common denominator: evidence of lasting benefits is lacking, while the risks are real.

  • Cass Review (2024). Review commissioned by NHS England, conducted by Hilary Cass. Conclusion: the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors is weak. NHS England ceased the routine prescribing of puberty blockers outside of clinical trials.

  • SBU — Sweden (2022). The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment (SBU) and Karolinska University Hospital discontinued the use of puberty blockers and hormones for minors outside of clinical trials. Reason: lack of evidence for effectiveness and safety.

  • NICE — United Kingdom (2020). Two NICE evidence reviews (puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) classified the evidence base as very low certainty. None of the studies identified met modern methodological standards.

  • COHERE — Finland (2020). The Finnish Council for Choices in Health Care revised the protocol: psychotherapy as first-line treatment, medical transition for minors only in exceptional cases and within a research setting.

  • UKOM — Norway (2023). The Norwegian UKOM classified transgender care for minors as experimental; existing protocols do not meet the requirements for evidence-based care.

  • WPATH Files (2024). Internal discussions among WPATH clinicians acknowledge that informed consent for minors is problematic and that serious side effects (bone density, fertility, cognitive development) are not adequately explained.