During the last couple of years, an increasing number of companies have subscribed to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework, promising to adhere to, and promote, the goals of corporate social responsibility and sustainable business strategies.
These ESG-oriented companies embrace non-financial accountability indicators to assess the implementation of systems and processes that manage their carbon footprint and treatment of employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders.
The ESG criteria include a commitment to lower “greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 footprint” to support “LGBTQ+ rights and … all forms of diversity.”
The success of the implementation of ESG depends on whether its criteria “encourage companies to drive real change for the common good, or merely check boxes and publish reports.”
The growing list of companies that have committed themselves to ESG reveals that most of these embrace the official narrative on climate change and demonise coal and gas even though these are reliable and clean resources, the use of which would lower electricity prices.
Some obligations imposed by ESG on companies are already legislatively mandated. For example, section 134(3)(m) of the Companies Act 2013 requires the inclusion of a report by companies” Board of Directors on the conservation of energy and a listing of the equipment used to achieve that result.
The ESG Framework received a boost from the adoption in 2015 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a plan of action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all people around the world.
The U.N. Agenda contains 17 integrated sustainable development goals and 169 associated specific measurable targets. A prominent feature of the agenda is the emphasis on the role of the private sector in advancing and achieving sustainable development initiatives, working in partnership with governments, civil society, and other stakeholders.
Foray Into Politics
Of course, companies’ interest in social responsibility and sustainability is commendable. However, this interest has sometimes been used as an excuse to enter the political arena.
Specifically, several companies have declared their support for social engineering programmes and unrealistic sustainable development goals. Sporting and religious organisations have also often joined the world of politics.
For example, readers would recall that Qantas relentlessly supported the same-sex marriage campaign, which resulted in the adoption by the Turnbull government of marriage equality in 2017.
With regards to race relations, several Australian churches and religious leaders have backed the Voice proposal and encouraged their members to vote “Yes” because they perceive this as the right thing to do.
Very recently, Tennis Australia has called on the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to adopt rules regarding the participation of transgender athletes in women’s competitions.
In this context, the CEO of Tennis Australia, Craig Tiley, told the Sydney Morning Herald that “We are an organisation that believes absolutely in inclusivity, in diversity, in equality—so any decision made will need to be aligned with our core values.”
The Transgender Inclusion Guidelines for Community Tennis specifically state, “Players who identify as women should be allowed to play as women; players identifying as men should be allowed to play as men.”
Most of the time, these actions are not based on or supported by rigid analysis but rely merely on “feelings” and vague ideas of “compassion” and “justice.”
But more importantly, in participating in politics, these institutions radically change the purposes for which they were established.
In the case of companies, their function is to make money for their shareholders and to provide quality service to their customers.
While businesses and corporations will want to keep abreast of the financial and economic management of the nation, their forays into the world of social engineering politics surely divert from their real function and are incompatible with their declared mission.
Driving Away the Traditional Base
Big business and sporting organisations also seem to tolerate the imposition of political correctness codes on people, promote the “cancel culture” movement, and condone the teaching of critical race theory in schools and universities, all of which adversely affect people’s right to freely express their opinion.
In addition, the relentless pursuit by the government of its Voice referendum, aimed at entrenching this body into the Constitution, has divided Australia based on race.
There is no doubt that these developments have alienated stakeholders and members of these companies and institutions.
For example, many members of the Liberal Party believe that their views are routinely disregarded and even ridiculed by the party in the pursuit of nebulous and untested notions of “diversity” and “inclusiveness.”
The Moira Deeming affair, which involved her expulsion from the Liberal Party for attending a pro-women rally, the rejection of membership applications based on perceived Christian views in South Australia, and the support of Queensland’s Path to Treaty Act—which provides for truth-telling and the conclusion of treaties with Aboriginal people—surely have driven away scores of once-committed members of the Liberal Party.
Similarly, it is difficult for a Christian to stay as a practising member of his or her church if it embraces secular practices and ideas that are antithetical to its core teachings and even allows the incorporation of pagan practices in its rituals.
In this context, writer Joel Agius has argued that Catholics “are fed up with the Catholic Church being pushed towards something that is more of the world than of God.”
Where can these people who are no longer comfortable in their natural homes go? Are they the unfortunate victims of the implementation of ESG by Australian organisations?
Whichever way these questions are answered, there is a discernible need to ensure that the implementation of the ESG Framework does not affect the true function of organisations in Australia.
Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.