The state of Iowa is considering a bill that would prohibit financial institutions from using a social credit scoring system based on a person’s “speech, religious exercise, association, expression, or conduct protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, or federal or state law,” the bill states.
HF 922 would prohibit a financial institution from using such as system, commonly known as Environment, Social, and Governance criteria, to penalize a person or business for failing or refusing to “adopt targets or disclosures related to greenhouse gas emissions beyond targets or disclosures required by state and federal law, conduct a racial, diversity, or gender audit or disclosure, or provide a quota, preference, or benefit based on race, diversity, or gender, [or] facilitate or assist an employee in obtaining an abortion or gender reassignment services,” or for “participation in business activities related to a manufacturer or dealer of firearms and ammunition, or business activities with an oil or gas company.”
ESG-driven financial discrimination against industries, companies, and individuals—has been prolific. In 2018, for example, large U.S. banks such as Citibank and Bank of America implemented restrictions on gun manufacturers and retailers. Banks were “restricting their credit card and banking services to gun retailers and halting lending to gun makers that do not comply with age limits and background check rules determined by the banks,” in addition to other companies, The New York Times reported.
By 2021, more than 450 banks, investors, and insurance companies, whose members controlled $130 trillion in assets, were in the United Nations-led Glasgow Financial Alliance for NetZero (GFANZ). GFANZ imposed emission targets through the Net-Zero Asset Managers Initiative and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which controlled 41 percent of global banking assets in 2021.
These powerful investment firms and financial institutions have increasingly used ESG scores as a risk assessment mechanism to force companies, entire industries such as agriculture, and society at large to advance politically motivated, subjective goals. These goals often directly contravene the interests of companies, shareholders, and customers while degrading overall prosperity, markets, social institutions, and individual liberty.
Most major banks screen their lending portfolios in line with ESG plans such as the Due Diligence guidelines of the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, screening potential corporate lending transactions or project finance transactions. These financial institutions use the predetermined ESG criteria to rule companies in or out of contention for financing of potential transactions.
Dozens of the world’s most powerful banks and insurance companies have weaponized ESG to varying degrees to screen out businesses and even some individuals who refuse to comply with those companies’ preferred social justice or environmental policies. Virtually every large bank in the United States has committed to forcing the businesses they work with to phase out their use of fossil fuels even if it causes economic harm to customers and businesses. Financial institutions such as JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and U.S. Bank and credit card processors such as PayPal have discriminated against faith-based organizations.
Discrimination has also been endemic among major insurance companies. Many across the globe refuse to underwrite fossil fuel projects, including Allianz, AXA, Swiss RE, Munich RE, Zurich Insurance Group, The Hartford, Chubb, and AIG. Zurich announced in 2024 it would cease underwriting new oil and gas exploration and development projects, as well as metallurgical coal mining. Zurich requires its highest-emitting corporate clients to adopt measures to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, stating it may terminate relationships with those that fail to show sufficient progress.
Chubb updated its policies in 2025, announcing it may “decline coverage if a potential
policyholder cannot meet our methane performance expectations” of progress toward near-zero emissions. That August, Chubb withdrew its insurance coverage for the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas project in Brownville, Texas, one of the largest proposed fossil fuel infrastructure investments in the state.
Activists and financial institutions are increasingly focusing ESG metrics on agriculture and food production. In the United States, activists are targeting nitrogen-based fertilizer use and trying to force farmers to curtail meat and dairy production and use only electric equipment to lower their carbon-dioxide footprints. Farmers who choose the most efficient production methods risk being frozen out of bank financing. Food supply disruptions related to ESG have occurred throughout Europe (especially in the Netherlands) and in Canada and the United States.
A 2024 report by the Buckeye Institute found an ESG reporting system would increase farmers’ operating expenses for farmers by 34 percent, raising the price of groceries. Consumer prices of items such as American cheese (79 percent), beef (70 percent), strawberries (47 percent), and chicken (39 percent), to name just a few examples, would increase significantly. The report estimates household grocery bills will increase by 15 percent under ESG scoring.
Fortunately, some U.S. firms, such as Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo, are reducing their ESG commitments, having seen their results and reading the tea leaves from the last presidential election. Governments must implement legislation now to prevent future administrations from pushing these financial giants to fall back into ESG schemes. The international NetZero Banking Alliance folded in 2025 “after many big banks left” in a “mass exodus,” Reuters reported.
ESG-driven financial discrimination imposes political orthodoxy at the expense of sound risk assessment, consumer choice, and economic vitality. The commonsense provisions in HF 922 would go far in protecting Iowans from discrimination and denial of basic financial services. It would also ensure that radical activists, many from outside the Hawkeye State and even outside this country, cannot control the means of production and curtail the freedoms of each and every Iowan.
The following documents provide useful information about ESG and its effects on economic activity and individual liberty.
Text of Iowa House Bill 922, 91st General Assembly, 2025-2026
Instances of Viewpoint-Based De-Banking
ViewpointDiversityScore.org provides multiple examples of financial institutions’ viewpoint-based debanking of individuals and organizations in the United States.
Heartland Institute Research Fellow Jack McPherrin provides offers a thorough overview and comprehensive assessment of ESG. McPherrin outlines the movement’s historical roots, documents commonly utilized ESG metrics, identifies the primary architects and overseers of ESG, and analyzes the many deleterious consequences of these mandates. The paper discusses current anti-ESG policy solutions proposed at multiple levels of government, and it proposes policy recommendations for state and federal lawmakers.
ESG: Negative Effects on Food Supply and Agriculture
This Policy Tip Sheet by Heartland Institute Research Fellow Jack McPherrin explains how activists and financial institutions are weaponizing ESG against farmers, food production, and the agricultural industry as a whole.
Net Zero Climate Control Policies Will Fail the Farm
Trevor W. Lewis and M. Ankith Reddy of The Buckeye Institute identify a model farm’s cost of meeting the Biden administration’s net-zero policies and financial institutions’ ESG requirements. Operating costs “rose significantly,” diesel fuel and propane became more expensive, as did nitrogen fertilizer, and “food prices for the American consumer … rose to compensate farmers for the government’s actions,” the study found.
Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the Health Care News website and The Heartland Institute’s website.
The Heartland Institute can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus, host an event in your state, or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Heartland’s government relations team at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.
S. T. Karnick
S. T. Karnick is a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute.
S. T. Karnick is a senior fellow and director of publications for The Heartland Institute.
