Whether You Like the Name or Not, ESG is Here to Stay

It’s Not What You Call It that Matters; it’s Tracking Global Social Impact that Does

Across the global business landscape, there is a new sensitivity to social impact. While some have debated the connection between climate change and sustainability challenges, more and more C-Suite leaders are considering the clear linkage between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors and business performance. This shift has prompted leaders to reassess operational practices and has led to evolving ESG priorities and terminology to better align with meaningful business outcomes.

Around the nation, there is a partisan swirl around ESG. The concern of being targeted for boycotts or protests has made it more important for organizations to thoughtfully plan and implement a strategy that moves key priorities forward without creating unnecessary churn in public policy, news, and investment communities.

Setting the Baseline

With the substantial debate surrounding ESG priorities, it’s helpful to remind ourselves what ESG priorities actually are and what they seek to achieve. At its core, ESG is a relatively straightforward concept: ESG includes varied criteria companies use to evaluate performance beyond traditional financial metrics. For instance, environmental factors consider a company’s impact on nature, including its carbon footprint, resource usage, and pollution levels. Social factors assess a company’s relationships with its employees, communities, and broader society, covering labor practices, diversity and inclusion, and community engagement. Governance factors focus on a company’s internal governance structures, including its board composition, executive pay, and transparency.

Though it’s evolved into a political hot-button issue in recent years, ESG priorities, though perhaps itemized as separate workflows, have been a consideration in boardrooms and c-suites for decades. There’s nothing particularly new about the individual components, just how they’re grouped and classified.

The Evolution of ESG Priorities

Initially, ESG priorities were driven by compliance and risk management concerns. Companies focused on meeting regulatory requirements and mitigating potential risks, such as environmental fines or reputational damage. However, as the understanding of sustainability deepened and climate concerns became more acute and amplified, ESG priorities shifted toward mindful value creation. Companies started to see ESG as a set of rules to follow and as a way to create long-term value for their stakeholders and society at the same time — a win-win scenario.

Today, regardless of how public-facing their efforts are or aren’t, leading companies consider ESG a priority rather than a compliance checkbox. They recognize the potential for ESG initiatives to encourage innovation, enhance brand reputation, attract talent, and strengthen stakeholder relationships. Consequently, ESG priorities have expanded to include innovation for sustainability, supply chain resilience, human rights protection, and ethical leadership.

While adopting ESG principles gained momentum in the business world, it has not been without strife, especially against political turmoil. The intersection of ESG with politics sparked debates on various fronts, including the role of businesses in social and environmental issues, the impact of government policies on sustainability efforts, and the polarization of ESG discourse.

ESG Nomenclature

Alongside the evolution of ESG priorities, the terminology surrounding ESG has changed. Initially, terms like “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “sustainable development” were commonly used to describe efforts to address social and environmental issues. However, these terms often lacked specificity and failed to capture the holistic nature of ESG.

In recent years, the term “ESG” emerged as a more comprehensive framework for addressing sustainability issues within the business context. Unlike CSR, which often focuses on reputation, philanthropy, and corporate donations, ESG includes broader considerations, including governance practices, diversity of the workforce, and financial performance. This shift in terminology reflects a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between environmental, social, and governance factors and their impact on business outcomes.

Then, ESG became a flashpoint for controversy owing to varied factors, with the term becoming toxic for some organizations. There are many reasons why that toxicity grew pervasive:

1. Political Polarization

Political polarization has entered the discourse surrounding ESG in many parts of the world. Ideological differences often shape perceptions of sustainability initiatives, with some viewing them as essential steps toward addressing pressing global challenges. In contrast, others see them as burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth.

This polarization can manifest in various ways, from debates over climate change policy to disagreements on social justice issues. For example, in the United States, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the rollback of environmental regulations under past administrations fueled tensions between proponents and opponents of sustainability measures, putting corporations in an uncomfortable position straddling public policy on both sides.

2. Regulatory Uncertainty

Political turmoil can also contribute to regulatory uncertainty, complicating business ESG implementation. Shifts in government leadership or policy priorities may lead to changes in regulations and standards, creating challenges for companies trying to navigate complex and evolving compliance landscapes.

Even simple regional variances in regulatory frameworks can pose significant compliance risks and operational challenges for multinational corporations operating in multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, regulatory uncertainty may deter investment in sustainable initiatives as companies weigh long-term sustainability investments’ potential risks and rewards against short-term political uncertainties.

3. Stakeholder Activism

Political turmoil often fuels grassroots activism and social movements, influencing ESG agendas and priorities. Stakeholder activism, ranging from consumer boycotts to shareholder resolutions, has become a powerful force driving corporate action on sustainability issues.

However, the alignment of stakeholder activism with political ideologies can sometimes increase tension within ESG discourse. For example, debates over corporate social responsibility have, at times, become entangled with broader political debates over the role of government in addressing social and environmental issues.

The question then becomes whether businesses should take up leadership positions on these issues and if so, to what extent.

4. Globalization and Geopolitical Risks

In an interconnected world, geopolitical risks and global events can have profound practical implications for ESG priorities and practices. Trade tensions, geopolitical conflicts, and geopolitical instability can disrupt supply chains, exacerbate environmental degradation, and impact social stability, posing challenges for companies seeking to uphold ESG standards.

For example, geopolitical conflicts in regions rich in natural resources may raise concerns about ethical sourcing and human rights violations in supply chains. Similarly, trade disputes between significant economies can disrupt the flow of goods and services, affecting businesses’ ability to meet sustainability commitments and deliver on ESG goals.

5. Ethical Dilemmas

Political turmoil can also give rise to ethical dilemmas for businesses navigating ESG issues. Companies may face pressure to take a stance on politically sensitive issues, such as human rights abuses, corruption, or discrimination, especially in authoritarian regimes or conflict-affected regions.

Balancing business interests with ethical considerations can be challenging, particularly when governments impose conflicting demands or restrictions on companies operating within their jurisdictions. In such cases, companies may find torn between upholding their ESG principles and complying with local laws or regulations, raising questions about the limits of corporate responsibility in politically charged environments.

The Role of Stakeholder Engagement

One key driver behind the evolution of ESG priorities is increased stakeholder engagement. With growing pressure from investors, customers, employees, and communities to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, these stakeholders demand transparency, accountability, and tangible action on ESG issues, pushing companies to elevate their priorities beyond mere rhetoric.

Investors mainly play a crucial role in shaping ESG priorities. The rise of sustainable investing and impact investing has prompted companies to integrate ESG considerations into their financial decision-making processes. As a result, ESG performance has become a significant factor in investment decisions, influencing capital allocation and valuation.

Emerging Trends in ESG

As ESG continues to evolve, several emerging trends are shaping the future of sustainable business. One such trend is the emphasis on impact measurement and reporting. Companies are increasingly adopting standardized frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to assess and communicate their ESG performance. This trend enhances transparency and facilitates comparability and benchmarking across industries.

Another emerging trend is the integration of ESG considerations into corporate strategy and decision-making. Instead of treating ESG as a standalone function, companies embed sustainability principles into their core business operations, from product design to supply chain management. This integrated approach ensures that ESG considerations are aligned with overall business objectives and drive value creation across the organization.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the evolution of ESG priorities and metrics represents a positive step toward sustainable business, several challenges remain. One challenge is the lack of globally standardized metrics and reporting requirements, which can hinder comparability and credibility in ESG disclosure. Addressing this challenge requires collaboration among stakeholders to develop consistent and transparent reporting frameworks.

Another challenge is the need for greater accountability and oversight in ESG practices. As companies increasingly tout their sustainability commitments, there is a risk of greenwashing — the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of products or practices. To combat greenwashing, regulators, investors, and civil society organizations must hold companies accountable for their ESG claims and ensure transparency in reporting.

Despite these and other challenges, the evolving landscape of ESG presents significant opportunities for businesses to drive positive change and create long-term value. By embracing sustainability as a strategic priority, companies can enhance their resilience, competitiveness, and relevance in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

What’s Next?

The evolution of ESG priorities and terminology reflects a broader shift toward sustainable business practices in the global landscape. As companies recognize the importance of addressing environmental, social, and governance factors, ESG is no longer viewed as a peripheral issue but a strategic imperative for long-term success. By aligning ESG priorities with meaningful outcomes and embracing transparency and accountability, businesses can contribute to a more sustainable — and potentially lucrative — future for all stakeholders.

However, the controversy surrounding ESG amid political turmoil underscores the complexity of sustainability challenges in a rapidly changing world. While ESG offers a framework for addressing environmental, social, and governance issues, it is only that — a framework. Its implementation is often intertwined with political dynamics that shape regulatory environments, stakeholder expectations, and business strategies, all of which can be open to interpretation on a national or regional level.

Yes, ESG is often a minefield for business leaders. Yet regulatory realities and the pressure from a public with increasing levels of climate anxiety require the conversation to take center stage — an uncomfortable position for C-Suite leaders to find themselves in.

Navigating these complexities calls upon companies to remain vigilant, adaptable, and conscientious in their approach to ESG. Businesses can navigate social turbulence by engaging with stakeholders, advocating for supportive policies, and upholding ethical standards while advancing meaningful progress toward sustainability goals. Ultimately, regardless of what the process is called, ESG remains a powerful tool for driving positive change in the face of political uncertainty, reinforcing the importance of sustainability as a shared global priority.

Finding a reasonable and impactful path forward is not easy, but not finding any path at all is no longer an option.


Medika Life has provided this material for your information. It is not intended to substitute for the medical expertise and advice of your health care provider(s). We encourage you to discuss any decisions about treatment or care with your health care provider. The mention of any product, service, or therapy is not an endorsement by Medika Life

Cullen Burnell
Cullen Burnellhttps://www.finnpartners.com/bio/cullen-burnell/
Cullen Burnell is Vice President and Chief of Staff to the Chair, Global Health and Purpose at FINN Partners. His previous professional experience includes stints in media, government, and BigLaw. He resides in Connecticut with his wife and two daughters.
More from this author