It’s just a jump to the left … and then a step to the right.

Even before Donald Trump’s inauguration, some of America’s biggest corporations had decided to get in line with the new administration’s version of the Rocky Horror Picture Show’s Time Warp, a dance now playing out across the globe.

The new president’s views on everything from diversity and workplace inclusion to his opposition to policies on climate change not long ago would have sparked a backlash from many in corporate America.

Instead, there’s been an about face from major American companies, a shift that already has filtered through to Australia.

Donald Trump’s inauguration live updates: Follow our blog for the latest developments

Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg may be the poster child for the sudden U-turn. He’s rid Facebook of fact checkers because of bias, an argument that instead suggests he needs better fact checkers. More recently, he’s complained that workplaces need more “masculine energy”.

But Trump’s resounding win in the US election has emboldened politicians elsewhere, including Australia, to step back on “progressive” policies and boardrooms across the developed world are taking pre-emptive action.

How far leaders, both political and corporate, can afford to switch stance has its limits.

Politicians need to win elections so winding back the gains women and minority groups have made in the workplace could quickly backfire at the polling booth down the track.

Similarly, corporate leaders need to maximise profits if they want to keep their jobs. Most have embraced strategies around climate change not simply because the science is undeniable but because there’s money to be made.

Even worse, ignoring it comes at significant long-term cost, particularly if you’re in an industry like insurance.

Even at this early stage, there are jarring inconsistencies in the new approach. For the moment, though, almost any criticism can be dismissed by simply declaring it as “woke”.

Where’s that Net Zero pledge?

For the past few years each December, Macquarie Bank published its achievements in winding back its exposures to carbon intensive industries. 

That was until last month, when the annual update failed to materialise and financiers globally sniffed the wind and opted to quietly pull back.

Spooked by threats of legal action because the environmental aims put them at risk of ignoring their responsibility to maximise investor returns, some of the globe’s biggest money managers have quietly pulled back on pledges made in the wake of the Glasgow COP21 meeting.

A little over a fortnight ago, BlackRock — a titan of global finance and investment — pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, a collection of more than 300 major investment groups managing assets worth almost $US60 trillion ($97 trillion).

That sent shivers through the industry and put money managers into a mild state of panic. Three days later, the organisation suddenly suspended itself and its activities and solemnly pledged that, rather than toiling to reduce emissions, it would keep its remaining members’ identities secret. 

The reason? The incoming Trump administration.

“Recent developments in the US and different regulatory and client expectations in investors’ respective jurisdictions have led to NZAM launching a review of the initiative to ensure NZAM remains fit for purpose in the new global context,” it said.

Among the members were a tribe of Australian outfits, including IFM Investors — the Industry Super collective that now ranks as one of the world’s biggest infrastructure investors — Macquarie and Magellan.

Until now, financiers have argued that climate change is an investment issue and that they don’t want to be caught lending to or investing in stranded assets and that it is prudent to wind back exposure.

Latching on to the new mood, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently lashed out at “woke bankers” and threatened to impose a new regime that would pressure banks to lend to creditworthy companies extracting fossil fuels or forestry.

Fear and loathing in the corporate world

The evolution of ESG, environment, social and governance, has been long and slow and taken place under governments of all persuasions.

Since the turn of the century, investors have demanded public companies that are accountable, open to scrutiny and conform to the tighter regulation around environmental controls and labour laws.

Similarly, the push towards Diversity, Equity and Inclusion within corporations has grown as laws have tightened to stamp out discrimination on gender, race and sexuality.

That’s emboldened senior executives of public companies to make statements that have been construed as meddling in politics.

Debate over The Voice referendum and the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite, when high profile executives from Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank weighed in, enraged some Coalition politicians including Mr Dutton who made it plain that he believed company executives should stick to providing better customer service. 

Having spent so much time and energy improving their workplace cultures, and with bonuses tied to implementing these programs, the bosses of our biggest companies have been actively spruiking their progress as a means of attracting top staff.

Harassment within firms, sexual or otherwise, comes with a hefty price tag, with lawyers, penalties and smeared reputations.

Winding back the diversity programs would need to first involve softening the law, a prospect that could backfire politically down the track.

Not so Greenland

Donald Trump’s message to corporate America left no margin for misunderstanding.

In addition to targeting any firm with offshore plants, from now on the focus would be on hiring the best instead of trying to elevate workers on factors like diversity, equity and inclusion.

America is to return to a meritocracy with gender or race playing no part.

That philosophy, however, seems to jar with the ideals laid out under Project 2025 where the clear goal is only to hire Trump loyalists into the administration and much of the public service, a policy that takes “political correctness” into a new realm.

Loading

There are similar contradictions on climate policy as well.

During his last stint in the White House, the president withdrew America from the Paris climate commitments, and he has since championed the cause for fossil fuels with his “Drill Baby Drill” catchcry.

But his seemingly outlandish plan to buy Greenland heavily revolves around climate change.

From a security and strategic viewpoint, the strip of ocean between Greenland and the UK has become a less hostile route for shipping as the polar cap melts, allowing Russian and Chinese ships easier access to North America.

Then there are the economic attractions. The island has extraordinary amounts of natural resources.

Not only is Greenland rich in oil, it also has boundless quantities of critical minerals, particularly rare earths which are vital for not only weapons production but for the technology required to produce renewable energy and electric vehicles.

With a terrain once considered too harsh for wide-scale exploitation, climate change has made these minerals more accessible as the ice covering 80 per cent of the island thins. It also makes them more valuable.

Donald Trump and consistency rarely appear in the same sentence, but his push to unwind diversity provisions in the workplace and environmental rules has struck a powerful chord amongst those who believe they have been left behind or unfairly overlooked.

Corporate America appears to be falling in behind Trump for now. Scaling back workplace legal protections and environmental laws may prove to be a tougher task.