There was a time, not so long ago, when ESG appeared to be the reigning orthodoxy of corporate thinking. From multinational boardrooms to investor roadshows to governmental edicts, ESG strategy was put front and centre. Net-zero commitments, stakeholder capitalism, climate disclosures all signalled a paradigm shift in how business defined success from the decades before. A kinder kind of business was put forward. But the confidence that once pushed the relentless ascension of ESG began to slow. Some might argue that it collapsed. The question is no longer whether ESG is troubled, but whether it is being quietly reframed.
The acronym itself has become politically radioactive in parts of the world. In the United States, ESG has been caught in the slipstream of culture wars, repurposed as shorthand for perceived ideological overreach. Corporations, wary of alienating segments of the market or drawing political ire, have responded by muting the label, if not necessarily jettisoning the underlying messaging and meaning of ESG. What was once described proudly as ESG is now being recast in the language of risk management, innovation, energy onshoring, or long-term value creation. The brand may be fading, but the business case endures.
This strategic rebranding is not a retreat, but a recalibration. Companies remain acutely aware of the long-term risks posed by climate change, social fragmentation, and governance failures. However, many are shifting their emphasis away from the external presentation of ESG and toward embedding its principles into core strategy. Rather than talking about ESG as a standalone category, forward-looking firms are reframing sustainability as a driver of competitive advantage through operational efficiency, talent retention, technological innovation, and market differentiation.
As PRs we must understand that people still care about climate change, social fragmentation, and governance failures, but we just have to approach them with a new flair, and with the new terms in mind. We must seek out papers and research and op-eds on topics like risk management, innovation, energy onshoring, and long-term value creation, rather than relying on ESG.
In this sense, the backlash has proven clarifying. It has forced companies to distinguish between performative virtue and strategic foresight. Those still in the game are not pursuing ESG because it is fashionable, but because it is foundational, and future-proofs their businesses. They are asking harder questions: How do environmental risks translate into asset depreciation? How does social capital affect customer loyalty? How can governance structures guard against volatility? In doing so, ESG becomes less about slogans and more about systems and real change, just under a new banner, and perhaps with more muted messaging.
Nevertheless, this reframing comes with risk. The collapse of a shared terminology can create confusion for investors, consumers, and regulators. Multiple overlapping labels, ESG, from sustainability and corporate responsibility to impact investing, obscure more than they clarify. Without clear definitions, measurement becomes difficult. Without measurement, accountability falters. And without accountability, greenwashing proliferates. This drift of meaning threatens to weaken the very coherence that ESG once offered, albeit with its own flaws.
What is required now is greater clarity of intent and language. ESG, properly understood, is not a moral position but a financial framework. It deals with the incorporation of material non-financial risks into investment and strategic decision-making. It is distinct from sustainability, which often implies broader societal ambition, and from impact investing, which seeks measurable social or environmental outcomes alongside financial returns. Blurring these boundaries dilutes focus and invites cynicism.
Investors, too, are navigating this shifting terrain. The recent contraction in flows into sustainability-focused funds has generated headlines, but the headline numbers demand interpretation. Regional divergence is telling: while the US cools, markets in Canada, Australia, South Korea and Taiwan show steady commitment. Europe still dominates the ESG landscape in scale and maturity.
The politics of ESG may be destabilising the narrative, but the structural forces behind it remain. Climate change continues to reshape the world and increase risk. Demographic shifts are refocusing corporate purpose. Regulation, especially in Europe, continues to tighten. The UK is advancing ESG transparency standards, and the EU is set to regulate ESG rating agencies. These interventions reflect not ideological commitment but the pragmatic recognition that long-term value cannot be separated from long-term impact.
Inside corporations, the dynamic is shifting as well. Sustainability is no longer the sole domain of dedicated teams or chief sustainability officers. It is now a contested space, with legal, compliance, finance, strategy and marketing functions all weighing in. The internal conversation has moved from aspiration to execution. The result, paradoxically, is that ESG is becoming less visible, but more real.
For many executives, the dilemma is acute. How to lead amidst this politicised environment? How to commit without overpromising? How to drive change without becoming a lightning rod? The answer lies in operationalising ESG principles, not as a reputational hedge, but as a strategic imperative. This requires investment, alignment, and, above all, courage. Courage to act when incentives are misaligned. Courage to prioritise long-term resilience over short-term optics.
Technology is playing an enabling role here. AI and data tools are helping companies track emissions, measure social impact, and benchmark governance structures in real time. This allows for better oversight, more precise interventions, and credible reporting. But even technology is not a panacea. Leadership remains the differentiator.
We do not need to jettison the thinking behind ESG, just reframe and update it for the world today. Pitches which focus on these topics and chime with contemporary discourse will be positively received by the press.
Messaging should highlight how schools are preparing leaders to navigate complexity, not just champion causes. More than ever, authenticity and clarity will be essential. Schools that rely on ESG as a buzzword may find themselves exposed, but those that demonstrate the much-needed substance behind the terms will be poised to be able to shape narratives into the future.
What comes next is a period of integration, not abandonment. ESG may shed its label, but it is unlikely to shed its influence, in news media as much as in business. Business and education leaders and PRs in this new phase will not perform best in touting ESG credentials, but in internalising and showcasing the important aspects that lay behind ESG as part of their practice and communications. Those who will endure and succeed are those who go on to act with clarity of messaging, one which is matched to the ways in which we speak today and are adaptable into the future. ESG has changed, but a reframed ESG is better than no ESG at all.
Tom has a doctorate in English and Classics from University College London, a master’s in Classical Reception from UCL, and spent a year as a graduate researcher at Yale University. Spending so long in universities, Tom has an in-depth understanding of how they operate, and how they best work, he has developed a deep admiration for research, and wants nothing more than to see academic research read by more and affecting the world in powerful ways.