How to set sustainability strategy in 2026

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

If there’s anything 2025 made clear and 2026 is already reinforcing in sustainability it’s this: tension and tradeoffs have always been at the heart of managing sustainability — and will be for the foreseeable future.

Sustainability has always ridden up and down cycles. However, the transition from its mainstream arrival in the early 2020s to the current, extreme political backlash has been unmooring.

Last year, we published How to Set Sustainability Strategy in 2025 to understand how companies could be strategic in a time unlike anything the field had experienced. Our research found that what we call sustainability tension management — the ability to make strategic choices regarding how to optimize the balance among profit, the planet and people — is essential. Leaders can follow a five-step process that helps them find sweet spots where profit, planet and people align to create mutually-reinforcing beneficial impact.

Since we debuted the report, we’ve spent a year helping global companies build sustainability strategies based on that strategy. Here’s a sampling of what we’ve learned, and how it can help inform us going forward.

Tensions are here to stay

Tension is an intrinsic part of sustainability for two reasons. First, sustainability is dynamic. New issues emerge and long neglected issues gain prominence. It’s always changing, and this means it’s often competing with a myriad of other new or neglected issues and investments.  

Second, the rationale for sustainability careens back and forth between the requirement for a business case versus justification on moral grounds. The ever-morphing nature of sustainability combined with profitability versus morality imperatives will never go away. Thus, sustainability leaders need to build a foundational core competence as expert tension managers. 

Emotions of sustainability matter

One of the most eye-opening findings of our research is how much emotions shape the sustainability-related decision-making of leaders. Our research identified six common archetypes that shape how enterprises, leaders, sustainability teams and departments logically and emotionally frame the rationale for sustainability.

As we’ve worked with companies to map their archetypes we’ve seen how powerfully these root into corporate cultures and decision-making. We’ve also learned that archetypes follow maturity models. For example, one leader with a brand and reputation archetype may view sustainability as a vital driver of reputation value. Another with a less sophisticated understanding may see sustainability as part of basic public relations.

Notably, we’ve seen how archetypes expose tensions and conflict. For example, one manufacturing company’s dominant archetypes were Innovation driven and Brand and Reputation driven. In a stable, prospering economy this meant the company said yes to almost every sustainability proposal. After all, sustainability supported the company’s vital innovation agenda and positioning with consumers. However, in a volatile and uncertain political and economic climate, the company had cut back on research and development and brand-related communications. Leaders instinctively deprioritized sustainability messaging and took a longer-term approach even though its customers, investors and competitors’ expectations hadn’t changed. Illuminating this tension helped the company reorient its sustainability strategy to keep momentum going.

Making the business case is a core part of the job

Finding “sweet spots” requires an understanding of how sustainability supports the business. So does effectively advocating for people and planet over short-term profit. The good news is findings from Project ROI show the business case for sustainability has never been stronger.

Yet this causes many sustainability professionals angst. In a recent meeting of CSOs, many advocated for the field to strengthen their ability to show financial returns from sustainability. But several admonished their colleagues to maintain focus on the moral imperative of sustainability.

Our findings are best summarized by the comments of two CSOs presented at Trellis Impact. “The field is on defense. We need to play offense,” one said. Another embellished, “It’s time for us to start speaking the language of business.”

CSOs who make progress, scale up commitments and deliver impact tend to be who’ve defined clear value propositions for sustainability and the means to measure them. This makes them trusted partners of the C-suite and business lines, and gets them access to larger budgets and resources. While we’ve found that the business case isn’t a holy grail, it’s absolutely necessary and always will be unless major shifts in laws and regulations occur.

Given these lessons over the last 12 months, we see a few core tensions that will likely become increasingly urgent in 2026:

Fight, flee or play dead

The murder of George Floyd in 2020 created a reckoning for the private sector. Stakeholders implored companies to lead while at the same time admonishing them (whether fairly or not) for perceived negligence that contributed to the conditions that led to Floyd’s death.

We’re seeing this happen again with the rise of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the anxiety of saber-rattling over Greenland. Companies such as Ford, Hilton, McDonalds, Target and a range of small and medium businesses have found themselves in the crosshairs — despite most companies doing everything possible to stay on the sidelines since the 2024 election.

But prominent voices are calling for action and companies will need to dust off and upgrade their decision-trees on when and how to fight, flee or play dead across a wide range of volatile, complex and ambiguous political, economic, environmental and social topics. As one executive told us, “Sitting on the fence will just give you splinters in your ass.”

Climate politics vs. climate economy

Headlines that blare how Wall Street has turned its back on climate change miss the real trend. Financial institutions across the world are doubling down on climate as a material financial risk. But, that’s just half the story. The sustainable energy transition is also seen as a material financial opportunity. Companies will increasingly need to enact strategies that dodge climate politics while leaning into the climate economy. ESG is still material to investors, but they just aren’t talking about it as much. And in this such a fractious climate, who can blame them?

Timing and pace are everything

In the early 2020s, managing sustainability was about everything, everywhere, all at once. Today, sustainability leaders need to make tough choices on when to sprint, go slow and steady, or take baby steps.

Sprint: to make bold commitments tied to aggressive timelines by persuasively aligning sustainability to material business risks and/or opportunities.

Slow down: The CSO of a large brand recently told us that the sustainability team had agreed, begrudgingly, to back off from several 2030 commitments. But by replacing these commitments with more incremental, achievable and near-term targets, the company discovered it was rebuilding the enthusiasm and support of leaders that have now signaled renewed interest in the effort. By going slow, the team may achieve a larger impact than it could have under the previous, big target.

Baby steps: For issues that aren’t ready for substantial attention and resources, the sustainability team can take holding actions such as studies, meetings, feasibility, monitoring and investing in the chronically under-resourced area of data collection.

The lesson from our research and its application shows that a time when anxiety is high, sustainability tension management introduces a sense of rationality that helps turn illogical decisions, disputes and resistance, into sane and prudent business discussions.

The authors will be diving more into these topics at GreenBiz26.