In the last few years, the concept of ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—has faced mounting criticism from all sides. For some, ESG represents a lackluster attempt to address pressing societal issues like climate change. In contrast, others view it as imposing a political agenda that distorts free-market principles. As a result, many executives have started to downplay their companies’ ESG initiatives, a trend now coined as “greenhushing.” Yet, despite the backlash, the need for a framework that links corporate financial performance with environmental and social impact remains more critical than ever.
The challenges facing ESG are not just ideological but technical and multifaceted. One of the central debates is whether to measure ESG performance through the lens of single materiality—focusing solely on factors that affect shareholder value—or double materiality, which also considers a company’s broader societal impact. The former is favored by most U.S. conservatives and corporate leaders, who argue that companies should prioritize shareholder value. The latter is championed by European regulators and U.S. liberals, who believe that businesses must account for their broader influence on society. The tension between these approaches underscores the fundamental question at the heart of the ESG debate: What does it mean to be a responsible business?
To navigate the ESG landscape, companies must clearly define their purpose. A well-defined purpose is not just about lofty mission statements but about identifying the ESG issues that are material to value creation. This requires a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs in pursuing shareholder and stakeholder interests.
Transparency is the bedrock of effective ESG strategy. Despite the proliferation of reporting frameworks, a universal set of sustainability standards is still in development. However, progress is being made. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) focuses on financial materiality, while Europe’s Sustainability Reporting Board (SRB) mandates reporting on economic and societal impacts. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced climate disclosure rules, though these have faced significant legal challenges.
To avoid accusations of greenwashing—or its quieter counterpart, greenhushing—companies must be candid in their sustainability reporting. This means being transparent about positive and negative impacts and articulating how ESG factors contribute to long-term value creation. For instance, Owens Corning, a company with a strong ESG rating, is upfront about its reliance on nonrenewable energy and its contributions to water stress and hazardous waste. The company has set ambitious targets to mitigate these impacts, but it does not shy away from acknowledging the challenges it faces.
This level of transparency is essential for maintaining credibility with investors, regulators, and the public. By clearly communicating the benefits and limitations of their ESG initiatives, companies can build trust and demonstrate their commitment to responsible business practices.
The rise in ESG-related shareholder proposals reflects the growing pressure on companies to address environmental and social issues. However, the quality of these proposals varies, and political ideologies drive many more than economic rationale. This polarization has made it increasingly difficult for companies to navigate the ESG landscape without alienating one group or another.
To manage these conflicting pressures, corporate leaders must engage constructively with all stakeholders, even those with opposing views. This requires a proactive approach, where companies clearly articulate how their ESG strategies contribute to value creation and address material risks. For example, under its new CEO, Hein Schumacher, Unilever has streamlined its sustainability agenda to focus on four key priorities: climate, nature, plastics, and livelihoods. By concentrating on materially essential areas of its business, Unilever can align its sustainability efforts with its financial goals.
Constructive engagement also involves being clear about a company’s limitations in achieving success on its own. While businesses can and should advocate for effective regulations, they must also recognize that public policy can only address some societal challenges. Companies need to be transparent about where they require regulatory support and where they are taking independent action.
The ongoing debate over ESG reflects deeper questions about business’s role in society. As these issues continue to evolve, the term “ESG” itself may fade from the corporate lexicon. What will remain, however, is the need for businesses to demonstrate how they are responsibly addressing the needs of both shareholders and stakeholders.
By clearly defining their purpose, being transparent in their reporting, and engaging constructively with all stakeholders, companies can move beyond the polarized debates and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future. In doing so, they will not only navigate the challenges of today’s ESG landscape but also help shape the corporate sustainability movement of tomorrow.
