Beyond Incrementalism: Why Sustainability Needs A Reset, Not A PR Fix

The signals are everywhere: climate disruption is accelerating, ESG is under political fire, and in too many boardrooms sustainability is being downgraded to a compliance exercise. A recent global survey Sustainability at a Crossroads by ERM, GlobeScan, and Volans confirms the depth of the problem: 93% of sustainability experts say the current agenda is no longer fit for purpose, and more than half call for a radical overhaul.

This is more than a policy or branding challenge. It’s a convergence of environmental breakdown, social regression, and governance backlash – an interlinked crisis with direct consequences for stability, markets, and public trust. As Kingsmill Bond, energy strategist at Ember Futures noted in an Oxford debate in July 2025, the backlash against ESG is “not justice but power”, a calculated strategy to defend entrenched interests. The real question now is whether business leaders retreat into defensive PR, or reimagine their role in shaping resilient, regenerative systems that can withstand and adapt to accelerating shocks

Crossroads Or Breaking Point

The phrase “at a crossroads” can be overused but here it feels accurate. Sustainability is not broken beyond repair but strategies have often failed to keep pace with today’s shifting political landscape, short-term financial incentives, and the escalating speed of climate and social disruptions.

Drawing on insights from more than 500 experts across business, government, civil society, and academia, the survey shows a profession that knows it is running out of road. Such consensus, 93% agreeing the agenda is no longer fit for purpose, is rare in a field where experts often disagree on the best path forward.

This is not opposition from outside critics. It’s the view of those working inside the system – advising boards, setting climate targets, and tracking ESG metrics – who now see that strategies have failed to keep pace with shifting political dynamics, short-term financial incentives, and the accelerating speed of climate and social disruptions who now see that current strategies lag dangerously behind political and economic realities.

Part of that failure lies in the way ESG has become both too broad and too prescriptive – a label so loose that anyone can claim it, yet dense with rules that often smother practical judgment. As John Elkington, chair of Volans and one of the founding voices of the modern sustainability movement, put it at the launch of the survey, “This is not the end of sustainability. It’s a mandate for change, and a sign that there’s a real appetite for radical thinking.”

The Illusion Of Progress

To understand what’s breaking down, we need to look at what sustainability has become: a sprawling, catch-all domain tasked with solving everything from climate change and biodiversity loss to racial justice, labor ethics, and anti-corruption. Somewhere along the way, progress became synonymous with process, and ESG became the dominant framework.

But ESG, for all its utility, was never designed to deliver systemic transformation. Its purpose was to assess how environmental and social risks might affect a company’s financial performance, not how a company impacts the world. Over time, ESG reporting grew more sophisticated but much of corporate sustainability became what Elkington describes as ‘mired in reporting’.

This can lead to outcomes that make no sense to the general public. In some ESG rankings, oil majors like ExxonMobil score higher than renewable energy companies, largely because of detailed governance disclosures and strong anti-bribery policies, despite business models that rely on expanding fossil fuel extraction. The metrics reward process over purpose, giving companies credit for paperwork while leaving their core impacts largely untouched.

“We’ve spent decades measuring and disclosing,” Elkington says. “Now we need to shift from disclosure to design.” The survey findings suggest many professionals agree. While there’s appreciation for transparency, there’s growing frustration that disclosure has not led to meaningful change. At a time when planetary boundaries are being crossed and social cohesion is fraying, the credibility of incrementalism is fading fast.

A Three-Way Split In The Boardroom

According to Louise Kjellerup Roper, chief executive of Volans, the growing complexity of the sustainability agenda, and the backlash surrounding it, has led to fragmentation at the highest levels of leadership into three broad camps.

Roughly a third appear paralyzed, unsure how to respond as ESG becomes a political flashpoint and global regulations tighten. Another third continues with a familiar playbook: annual reporting, compliance-focused governance, and reputational risk management. But the final third (perhaps the most interesting group) has accelerated their sustainability efforts, with one major shift: they’ve reframed sustainability not as a set of obligations, but as a lens on resilience and business continuity.

This reframing is quietly transformative. It takes sustainability out of the realm of “nice-to-have” and into the core of business strategy. It positions climate risk, supply chain fragility, social license, and institutional trust as interdependent threats – and invites companies to build toward stability and adaptation rather than chasing perfection or PR wins. Crucially, it turns challenge into opportunity. “This might be the moment that takes us from threat to transformation,” says Roper.

The Limits Of Techno-Optimism

One of the survey’s most revealing tensions lies in its findings on innovation. When asked which approaches were both feasible and impactful, respondents pointed to research and development, circular economy models, and carbon pricing. Technology, it seems, still carries the promise of salvation.

But Roper cautions against leaning too heavily on what she calls the “Horizon 2 mindset”, those who believe we can use technology to solve our way out of the climate and sustainability crisis through incremental innovations. “I was surprised by how many people still believe in a purely technological fix,” she said. “But these solutions tend to operate within the current system, and that system is part of the problem. They won’t get us to where we need to go.”

The survey supports that view. While technological R&D ranks high in desirability, there’s a clear divide between those who see it as sufficient and those who argue that innovation without systemic change is a dead end. Without confronting deeper structural dynamics, like fossil fuel dependency, extractive financial models, and short-termism, even the best technologies may simply extend the life of an unsustainable status quo.

ESG Vs. Sustainability: The Rebrand We Didn’t Ask For

Part of the challenge lies in confusion over language. ESG and sustainability are often used interchangeably, but they serve different purposes. ESG was never meant to define sustainability. It is a financial risk framework, not a blueprint for societal transformation and the conflation of the two has both inflated expectations and diluted outcomes. At its heart ESG is about protecting the company from the world while sustainability, at its best, is about aligning the company with the world’s long-term needs.

And while ESG has helped bring environmental and social issues into mainstream finance, it has also narrowed the focus – often excluding resilience, adaptive governance, or long-range societal transformation from its scope. That may need to change. Elkington argues that the future of sustainability may well be grounded in designing for resilience, long-term coherence and real-world impact, not just disclosures and defensive positioning. In a world defined by disruption, whether that’s cyberattacks, extreme weather or political volatility, sustainability must expand to include risk, resilience, and regeneration.

Four Mindsets At The Crossroads

The survey’s framework points to four mindsets emerging among sustainability professionals: the traditionalists, who seek improvement within existing models; the institutionalists, who believe in coordinated reform; the pathfinders, who look for innovation within market systems; and the radicals, who advocate for transformational change across the board.

Perhaps the most powerful insight is that the future won’t belong to any single mindset but instead to those willing and able to bridge them.

A Crisis Worth Seizing

Churchill is often quoted as having said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” In sustainability, this may be that crisis.

The erosion of trust in institutions, the politicization of ESG, the mounting pressure on climate and social systems – these aren’t necessarily signs of failure but rather of limits. And limits, as any innovator knows, can be the birthplace of breakthroughs.

The good news? The appetite for change is real and a mandate is emerging. And for those willing to engage with complexity, embrace risk, and design for the future, we may look back on this moment not as the collapse of sustainability, but as its reinvention.