No, corporate sustainability is not dying

With all due respect to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the death of corporate sustainability has been wildly exaggerated.

In recent months, a steady stream of essays and hot takes have trumpeted a downward spiral of the sustainability era in business. Bloomberg declared, “Big Business Is Abandoning Its Climate Goals” while the Harvard Business Review offered that “Corporate Sustainability Is in Crisis.” A venture capital blog asked, “Is Corporate Sustainability Dead?”

Meanwhile, self-appointed watchdogs and critics on social media weigh in daily with their own bill of particulars: stalled progress, lowered ambition, missed targets, greenwashing, greenhushing, hypocrisy. Pushback and constructive criticism are welcome, of course, but these pundits seem almost giddy and gloating in pointing out the shortcomings they see.

Together, they make a compelling case that corporate sustainability is circling the drain.

Except, it isn’t.

Against the tide

To be sure, there’s a kernel of truth in the headlines. Walmart and Coca-Cola are among several big companies acknowledging they’ll miss key climate emissions targets, while some other firms’ goals have simply “lost their meaning.” Banking giants such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have exited international net-zero finance groups. Anti-ESG backlash, especially in the U.S., remains real and ferocious. Several of the world’s most powerful companies, including some sustainability leaders, are pumping millions into trade associations actively obstructing climate policy.

But to declare corporate sustainability dead — or even dying — is to fundamentally misunderstand both the movement and the moment.

What we’re witnessing is a recalibration — an evolution of terminology, tone and tactics in response to a complex and pugnacious political and economic environment. Sustainability isn’t fading away. It’s simply gotten smarter, quieter, more embedded and, in many respects, more effective.

“There’s more rigor, more skepticism, much better data and a sharper focus on results than there was five or 10 years ago,” noted Jeffrey Hogue, CSO at Levi Strauss & Co, in a recent LinkedIn post. “It’s become clear that real progress requires committed, consistent work that prioritizes impact, addresses the real-world implications of our operations and aligns with long-term business strategies.”

Even so-called “greenhushing” — companies keeping mum about their sustainability efforts to thwart criticism — misses the point. As another chief sustainability officer told me, “We’re talking less, but we’re doing more.” The real work is happening away from the klieg lights of public scrutiny: integrating sustainability into core strategy and focusing on risk management, supply-chain resilience and operational excellence.

A hero’s journey

Why is the doom-loop meme so compelling? As the cognitive linguist George Lakoff tells us, our perspectives are shaped by mental structures — frames — that help us make sense of complexity. The idea that big business is fundamentally about greed, and that sustainability initiatives are essentially a fig leaf, is a comfortable frame that fits with public skepticism about capitalism itself. It’s a deep story, to borrow sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s phrase, about what’s gone wrong in society and who’s to blame.

It’s also a story that’s easy to tell from the cheap seats. Critics from across the political spectrum seem to love tossing brickbats at companies for perceived sustainability missteps, often without acknowledging the sheer scale and difficulty of what’s being attempted: Decarbonize and detoxify supply chains, eliminate plastic waste, create circular material flows — all without affecting profits? That’s a hero’s journey, replete with the requisite dragons: shrinking budgets, shifting regulations, sclerotic bureaucracies and the ever-present specter of blowback.

Doing the hard work has never been harder.

What the data show

Here’s what the headlines don’t say: Most companies are not abandoning climate action. According to PwC’s 2025 State of Decarbonization report, while 16 percent are reducing their commitments, 37 percent are strengthening them. The number of firms setting climate targets is nine times higher than five years ago.

Moreover, the doom-loop meme represents a largely U.S.-centric view. A growing number of Asian businesses are embedding sustainability into core operations, driven by stricter regulations and investor expectations, according to India-based credibl. China plans to introduce carbon footprint accounting rules and standards for key industrial products, according to Reuters. Similarly, Latin American companies are increasingly integrating sustainability into their strategies and operations. 

While the U.S. obsesses over the perceived horror of “woke” corporations, the rest of the world is quietly getting on with the work of building a low-carbon economy. Outside the U.S., ESG might as well stand for Economics, Security and Geopolitics.

Resting in peace

In recent months, some longtime observers have been asking: What parts of the corporate sustainability agenda should we be hospicing?

Yes, hospicing — that’s their word.

The notion that parts of a CSO’s remit should be laid to rest may be unsettling, but it’s worth pondering, Justin Adams, co-founder of the Ostara Collective, a multidisciplinary group seeking to “build a holistic vision for our evolving economies,” told me recently.

“One of the mistakes we have made in the sustainability world is believing either that the system is naturally going to change or that people are motivated to want the type of change that is needed,” said Adams, whose résumé includes stints at BP, the World Economic Forum and The Nature Conservancy. “We’re just doing what we’ve always done for 30 or 40 years, which clearly is not working.”

Voluntary certifications and reporting frameworks that don’t drive real change? Let them go, says Adams. So should anything else that doesn’t contribute to a positive impact.

“What matters now is materiality — focusing on the issues that truly move the needle for both business and society,” he said. What stands to emerge is a more mature, honest and impactful approach.

Progress, not perfection

To Adams’ point, the pace of change is way too slow. Several sectors — chemicals, food and ag, and apparel, among others — seem unwilling or unable to embrace sustainability beyond pilot projects and small-ball initiatives. The systemic conventions undergirding all companies — quarterly reporting, the short shelf life of CEOs, investor expectations of never-ending growth — aren’t exactly going away. 

So, let’s not confuse recalibration with retreat. The forces that sparked corporate sustainability are here to stay and becoming ever more urgent. The real story isn’t about the demise of sustainability but about its messy, necessary evolution. The work is hard, the journey long and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

But the direction of travel is clear — and it isn’t backwards.