Every corporation’s ESG report should address depopulation risk
Timothy P. Carney
Video Embed
Climate change is a real problem. So is depopulation. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat makes the case in the New York Times that one is worse than the other.
“There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who believe the defining challenge of the 21st century will be climate change, and those who know that it will be the birth dearth, the population bust, the old age of the world.”
IS INFLATION OVER? KINDA BUT NOT REALLY.
America has had fewer and fewer babies nearly every year since 2008, and in 2019 — from 4.3 million down to 3.8 million just before the pandemic. Our “total fertility rate” (roughly, births per woman) has dropped to 1.7, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. America in the 2020 Census had fewer children than we did in the 2010 Census. The working-age population has peaked.
This is happening worldwide. China lost a million people on net last year. The world’s baby-making peaked in 2012.
The median American was 28 in 1970 and 39 in 2022.
Douthat runs through the challenges and changes that an aging and more childless world will pose — his “Five Rules for an Aging World.”
There’s a lot more to say about the causes, effects, and solutions to our baby bust and aging society. I side with Douthat in believing this is a greater problem than climate change, but I can’t prove that. I can say the corporations that are currently putting climate action front and center should do the same for our baby bust.
Major companies today issue “climate risk” and “climate impact” statements as part of their “environmental and social governance.” On the same score, companies ought to include statements in their annual reports on depopulation risk and family impact.
Obviously, an aging population and an ever-shrinking crop of babies and children will have a big effect on companies that sell goods and services to children and parents. Companies need to disclose these risks.
Also, companies need to disclose what they are doing to battle the baby bust. Do they have any corporate practices that discourage employees from getting married and starting families? Do they give generous maternity leave and paternity leave? Do they try to pay a family wage? Do they try to cultivate part-time, from-home jobs for parents who want to be home and off the clock by 3 p.m.?
What about the effect of the company on the broader culture? What if tech companies studied the impact of their products on dating, marriage, and family formation? Does Twitter reduce family size? What about iPhones? What do they do to offset their antinatal effects?
The baby bust is the biggest story of the next 30 years. What are our corporate citizens doing about it?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER