Lipton writes:
... the complex stakeholder issues that companies face today are integral to corporate sustainability, responsible risk management and value creation; indeed, addressing these risks is consistent with directors’ fiduciary duty of care and the board’s legal obligation under Caremark to implement and monitor systems to identify material risks and to address risks once identified.
Personally, I think that is a serious misstatement of the law and a fundamentally misguided policy recommendation. See my article Don’t Compound the Caremark Mistake by Extending It to ESG Oversight, 77 The Business Lawyer 651 (2022). The published version is behind the ABA's paywall, but a working draft is available at SSRN. There's also a summary at the CLS Blue Sky blog, from which the following excerpt is taken:
First, Caremark was wrong from the outset. Caremark’s unique procedural posture, which precluded any appeal, gave Chancellor Allen an opportunity to write “an opinion filled almost entirely with dicta” that “drastically expanded directors’ oversight liability.”[8] In doing so, Allen misinterpreted binding Delaware Supreme Court precedent and ignored the important policy justifications underlying that precedent.
Second, Caremark was further mangled by subsequent decisions. The underlying fiduciary duty was changed from care to loyalty, with multiple adverse effects. In recent years, moreover, there has been a steady expansion of Caremark liability. Even though the risk of actual liability probably remains low,[9]there is substantial risk that changing perceptions of that risk induces directors to take excessive precautions.[10]
Finally, applying Caremark to ESG issues will undermine Delaware’s clear law of corporate purpose by extending director oversight duties to areas of social responsibility unrelated to corporate profit. Caremark can be justified as ensuring that a corporation complies with applicable laws, but ESG compliance remains voluntary. Advocates of extending Caremark to encompass ESG compliance thus likely hope doing so will push companies to adopt what they regard as socially responsible policies but which they have not been able to mandate through the political process.[11] Asking corporate executives to take on governmental functions not only asks them to undertake tasks for which they are untrained and for which their enterprise is unsuited, it also subverts the basis of a liberal democracy. Government efforts to solve social problems are inherently limited by the checks and balances baked into the American political system. Mandated board attention to ESG risks would erode those checks and balances by asking unelected executives to undertake solving social ills.
