ESG: A con by the global elite or a farmer's duty of care?

It's conference, held in Adelaide, was on all things ESG - that is environment, social and corporate governance. Midway through, it hosted a fiery discussion on whether the whole concept was simply an unnecessary burden on farmers.

Some big personalities were invited to debate the issue. The AFI introduced them as 'four feisty raconteurs' and while the anecdotes, accusations and colourful language was plentiful, some very solid arguments were made.

President of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Ian McConnel, central Australian beef farmer and social media identity Gillian Fennell, executive officer of Holbrook Landcare Dr Alison Southwell and Tasmania Ag Co's Sam Trethewey put on one the most entertaining sessions ever recorded at an agriculture industry conference.

ESG is nothing more than a planetary crisis get-out-of-jail free card for the global elite, the affirmative team argued.

It was described as a fantastic carnival ride where big business spins around avoiding pitfalls and challenges all in the name of being responsible corporate citizens.

"When you have all the money, all the power, a few politicians in your back pocket and a strong desire to keep making obscene amounts of money you can basically say you're doing all the right things and still carry on with your corporate puffery," the affirmative team argued.

"They have the power and influence to ensure they don't do a damn thing but can force anyone wanting to sell to them to comply with ESG standards developed by an out-of-touch consultant who has never set foot outside a city.

"And it's all so a rich person, sitting next to their private swimming pool in carefully cultivated garden full of introduced plants kept free of pests and weeds by the generous use of pesticides and herbicides, wearing their designer clothes manufactured in a Bangladeshi sweatshop, eating their out-of-season produce that's been flown across the world, can look at their investment portfolio and think they are a good person saving the environment."

Big business wants to use the farmer's reputation to make itself look better and it did not even have the good grace to pay for it, the argument went.

And our own government is drinking the ESG Kool-aid and is ready to legislate standards into existence.

However, on the other side, the argument was made that farmers have a duty of care; that they are custodians of the land and have an ethical responsibility.

ESG is the best tool available to save the planet and quite frankly, it's a horse that has bolted.

It means nature has a value and environmental vandalism doesn't pay.

"This concept of the global elite is the same modern capitalism that allows farmers to sell into international supply chains so they can pay for their Landcruisers and send their kids to boarding schools," the other side argued.

"We represent the generations to come who want to tell farmers to stop their whining and get on with doing what is expected of them.

"This continuous garble about the poor little guys being the puppets of multinational supply chains is fabricated nonsense to hide farmer laziness.

"This is acting like a chubby kid in an Allen's factory, complaining no one is putting the lolly directly in their hand. Let's stop feeling sorry for whining farmers."

ESG is effectively a mirror on the wall - are farmers worried about how it will show them?

Not at all, said the affirmative team.

Farmers have managed the majority of the landscape and global biodiversity for ever and they will continue to do that because that's what good farming looks like.

The idea that ESG is the only thing that will make farmers do the right thing for the environment is both erroneous and offensive.

"It's illogical that beef is now the new coal because of ESG, when beef production is the only sector of the Australian economy that has shown significant improvement in reducing its carbon footprint - 65 per cent since 2005," the affirmative side argued.

In a rather controversial twist, those for the negative argument said if ESG forced some farmers out, it was a good thing.

"Who cares about the bottom 20pc of producers who will go broke if forced to do this extra work - as an industry we need to get away from lifting up the bottom 20pc," they said.

The anti-ESG talk reeked of 'take me back to deregulation of the dairy industry, back to the single desk'.

ESG was simply the next evolution of the free market.

Delegates at the conference were persuaded that ESG is indeed an unnecessary burden on farmers and voted in favour of the affirmative side of the debate.

However, it was close call - 54 to 46pc and the debate is still raging in the wider agriculture community, including on social media.

ALSO READ: