The business world has long wrestled with the question of purpose beyond profit. But in the era of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance), this debate has become more than philosophical – it’s a battleground where culture wars, regulatory demands and investor expectations collide.
In today’s polarized and politically charged climate, few topics spark as much debate as ESG. Once a niche concern limited to green investors and idealistic board members, ESG has evolved into a mainstream business priority. It’s now embedded in corporate strategy, operational risk management and shareholder communications worldwide. But as the significance of ESG grows, so too does the backlash. In the U.S., we’re witnessing a cultural and political tug-of-war that forces companies into increasingly precarious positions. The central question, then, becomes: how can businesses stay ahead in this rapidly shifting landscape without getting involved in political battles?
The evolving ESG landscape: From idealism to imperative
To understand how we got here, it helps to look back at the roots of ESG. Initially born out of a broader corporate responsibility movement, ESG gained traction in the 2000s as investors and stakeholders began demanding more from companies than profit alone. The financial crises and growing environmental awareness spurred a mindset shift, culminating in 2019, when the Business Roundtable endorsed stakeholder capitalism, signaling a break from Milton Friedman’s profit-above-all doctrine.
Since then, ESG has taken on a life of its own, increasingly viewed as both an ethical imperative and a pathway to sustainable growth. However, as ESG became a corporate mantra, it also found itself in the crosshairs of political debate. In Texas, for instance, ESG has become so controversial that state laws now blacklist companies with climate or social governance commitments, which some politicians view as left-leaning “woke capitalism.” It’s a stark reminder that in today’s climate, ESG is as much about navigating political landscapes as it is about addressing environmental or social ones.
The challenge of multi-jurisdictional compliance
For multinationals, the fragmentation of ESG regulations across the globe has created an especially daunting landscape. Europe leads the charge with rigorous ESG mandates, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the EU Taxonomy, which require companies to disclose detailed information on their environmental impact and sustainability initiatives.
The U.S., however, is far more divided. On one hand, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced guidelines aimed at standardizing ESG disclosures; on the other, political opposition has stymied efforts to formalize these rules, with some states actively resisting them.
For companies operating on multiple continents, these conflicting regulatory environments create a compliance headache, forcing them to juggle diverse – and sometimes contradictory – ESG expectations. Moreover, as ESG becomes a cultural battleground, corporations risk alienating one group of stakeholders to appease another. The result? An increasingly complex ESG strategy requiring deft navigation and a healthy dose of political acumen.
Balancing profit and purpose in a polarized world
The political volatility surrounding ESG doesn’t just complicate compliance, it also challenges corporate purpose. Executives today must contend with public expectations that corporations do more than make profits – they should stand for something. This is particularly true in the U.S., where, according to Edelman’s Trust Barometer, 53% of Americans trust businesses more than they trust the government to address societal challenges. Consumers increasingly expect companies to engage on issues ranging from climate change to social justice, and many are willing to walk away if a brand’s values don’t align with their own.
The polarization places companies in a tricky position. CEOs and boards now face a delicate balancing act: how to meet the growing demand for ESG transparency without becoming a political target. Some companies have started to avoid using the term “ESG” altogether, hoping to signal their commitment to broader societal goals without attracting unwanted political scrutiny. Yet, as demonstrated by the American Sustainable Business Council’s lawsuit against Texas over anti-ESG legislation, silence is rarely a lasting solution. In many cases, ESG is no longer a matter of optional compliance but a high-stakes arena where corporate values and political agendas intersect.
Strategies for effective ESG management: Building resilience through data
As businesses grapple with these competing pressures, one thing is clear: ESG can no longer be treated as a marketing tool or a box-ticking exercise. Instead, companies must embed ESG into their core strategy, backed by robust data and a proactive approach to risk management. Much like U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo’s efforts to map supply chain vulnerabilities with granular data, ESG efforts need a similar level of precision.
The right technology can help. Advanced analytics and reporting tools can enable companies to monitor ESG risks in real-time, from carbon emissions to supply chain disruptions. This isn’t just about tracking metrics for investor reports, it’s about using data to anticipate and mitigate risks in a world where regulatory demands and consumer expectations are in constant flux. By building a data-driven ESG governance framework, companies can prioritize the issues that matter most and make informed decisions that align with both business objectives and societal expectations.
The future of ESG Disclosure: Global trends and cultural challenges
Looking forward, ESG disclosure is likely to become even more standardized. The push for a global baseline of ESG metrics has gained momentum, with bodies like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) working toward a unified framework that can streamline reporting for multinational companies. However, cultural differences will continue to shape the interpretation and prioritization of ESG. In the U.S., for example, there is a strong emphasis on transparency and shareholder returns, while European stakeholders prioritize environmental impact and worker rights. In emerging markets, ESG priorities may center around issues of economic development and access to resources.
For boards and executive teams, understanding these cultural nuances will be crucial. They will need to develop flexible ESG strategies that can be adapted to different regions, balancing global standards with local expectations. This might mean adopting a tiered approach to ESG disclosure, with core metrics that satisfy global regulations, alongside region-specific reporting that reflects local values.
The role of boards: Redefining corporate purpose in the age of ESG
The implications of ESG go beyond day-to-day operations and touch on the very purpose of the corporation. Today’s boards are increasingly recognizing that their role extends beyond maximizing shareholder value. In a world where social and political risks are growing, the ability to navigate ESG issues has become a strategic imperative. Directors now face questions about their accountability to a broader set of stakeholders, from employees to communities, and even the environment.
For companies committed to long-term success, ESG offers an opportunity to create value that transcends financial metrics. It’s a means of building resilience in a world where the next crisis could come from anywhere: climate, social upheaval, geopolitical shifts, or the next pandemic. As Gillian Tett puts it, stakeholderism is not fading away, but it is evolving – and boards that can balance profits with purpose will be better positioned to thrive.
2025 prediction
ESG will remain a high-stakes arena, but companies will likely approach it with increased caution and discretion.
In the U.S., with the Trump administration poised to roll back environmental regulations and potentially cut support for clean energy, “greenhushing” – quietly implementing ESG strategies without publicizing them – could become widespread among U.S. firms wary of political backlash. Legal concerns around antitrust and fiduciary duties will also make companies cautious in their ESG disclosures. Internationally, the U.S.’s retreat from climate agreements and possible reductions in the Inflation Reduction Act’s funding could influence global climate commitments, with some nations scaling back efforts and others ramping up to fill the void.
ESG may not be “dead,” but its trajectory will likely be more cautious and deeply influenced by regional politics, with successful companies balancing purpose with pragmatism in an increasingly polarized environment. Forward-thinking companies will focus on building resilience and adapting to shifting demands, not because ESG is a quick path to value creation but because it’s a hedge against the rising risks of social and environmental instability.
2025 Top 10 Trends in Risk and Compliance
For deeper insights into the most pressing topics for risk and compliance leaders, download the full eBook and watch the companion webinar on demand.
