By Laura Zizzo, Founder & Chief Sustainability Officer at Manifest Climate
In 2007, when I graduated from law school, sustainability was still a niche pursuit for most of the corporate world. There were a few companies going all-in on corporate social responsibility (Ben & Jerry’s, Patagonia), but it was hardly widespread.
As a new graduate working in environmental law, my work inside companies largely meant advising on environmental regulation. It was a necessary part of business, but often viewed as a peripheral one. I was interested in climate law, which mostly meant advising on voluntary emissions trading agreements. Although some were making the case for climate issues as raising systemic risk, the majority of legal advice we were engaged on related to voluntary agreements to trade emissions credits, or responding to regulatory and policy proposals. Back then, it felt like an uphill battle to get businesses to take climate change and the risks it posed seriously.
Even twenty years ago, I wanted companies to start thinking differently about climate risk. I wanted them to see it for what it really was: business risk – and opportunity. Two decades on, when I look back, although it has still been too slow, I can now acknowledge how much progress has been made. It’s not enough, and still not reflective of the true risk that exists in our system, but business leaders are finally seeing it for what it is: systemic risk.
Where we’ve been: the era of voluntary climate action
In the years leading up to COVID, and in the period immediately after, we saw a surge in corporate climate activity. Companies set net-zero targets, published climate commitments, and rolled out sustainability strategies in a way we hadn’t seen before.
This period fast-tracked attention towards corporate sustainability, bringing many previously reluctant companies into the game. But as these narratives began to face legal challenges through greenwashing claims, and as the political environment around climate grew more adversarial, fear crept in.
The compliance era
After the surge in voluntary commitments came a policy-driven shift. This period ushered in a more careful and quantitative approach to sustainability reporting and raised expectations at both the board and executive levels. It also introduced a new level of discipline in how sustainability is measured, managed, and discussed, shifting the emphasis from communications and storytelling exercises toward business-relevant, decision-useful information, backed by evidence. This was not so much about a shift from qualitative to quantitative disclosure (both are important), but a shift from publicizing ‘good deeds’ to disclosing investor-grade information on sustainability risk management.
As we stand on the edge of the next phase of corporate sustainability, this backdrop matters. The compliance era has laid essential groundwork for what comes next.
Policy uncertainty ≠ climate risk uncertainty
The last two years have seen significant policy confusion in the ESG space, so much so that many believe we are no longer in the compliance era for sustainability. Yet, in the wake of the EU Omnibus proposal and other climate-related regulatory pullbacks, it is a mistake to think that sustainability is now of less importance to businesses, or can be deprioritized.
Policy uncertainty does not reflect the certainty of climate change, or of ESG-related risk to businesses. The realities underlying these issues have not changed, and their impacts on business will continue regardless of political cycles. I have yet to see a serious business conclude that the physical element of climate risk has become less relevant, even if the transition risk around regulation has temporarily receded.
For large organizations, this moment calls for a recalibration, yes, but not a retreat. The period of expansive, voluntary claims is likely behind us, and we cannot rely on strong policy to be the driving factor for risk-management. This shift creates space for more substantive work. Much of that work now happens away from public statements and marketing materials, inside core planning, risk management, and operational decisions. Companies that continue to approach sustainability as a fundamental business risk and opportunity, and that invest in building real resilience and long-term value, will be better positioned in the years ahead.
That has been true throughout my career, but in 2026, the shift from grandstanding to governance is beginning to feel inevitable.
The business era: Sustainability now has a seat at the table
What once felt like an uphill battle (that climate risk is business risk) is now an established fact. Sustainability has moved closer to leadership and governance, boards are genuinely engaged, and senior executives are expected to understand climate and ESG risks. As climate governance structures have matured, responsibility for sustainability has spread far beyond a single specialist role. Early-career Laura would be super happy to see this trend of sustainability questions showing up where they’re supposed to.
While it may look like sustainability is being pared back, I see a silver lining: sustainability achieving deeper integration with core business operations and decisions. Change is afoot, yes, but the change can be good.
There will be a stronger expectation that leaders across the business understand these issues as part of their core responsibilities. Subject matter expertise will remain essential, but sustainability knowledge will no longer be confined to a single function.
And that was always the hope. When we started this work, we talked about a future where sustainability wouldn’t need a special label because it would be embedded throughout the organization. Not a team of specialists working in a silo, but a shared responsibility across leadership and the business.
We’re not all the way there yet, but the direction is clear.
There will always be demand for climate and sustainability expertise, but the role it plays, and the strategic impact it can have, will change too. Internal experts and external consultants will continue to play a role as expectations grow more complex and the landscape continues to evolve. That role will change as artificial intelligence reshapes how analysis, monitoring, and communications are undertaken. Increasingly, ESG experts will be tasked with value creation rather than treating sustainability solely as a risk management or compliance exercise.
Beyond climate
For most companies, climate risk shows up somewhere once you look closely enough. Physical impacts, supply chains, insurance availability, regulatory exposure, workforce considerations, and access to capital are all influenced by a changing climate. Climate is often the entry point, but it rarely stands alone, and I expect we will see a more pronounced shift in the way companies talk about the ‘E’ in their ESG strategies.
We will see companies move beyond carbon emissions and climate risk, beginning to grapple with a broader set of sustainability and ESG issues. Nature, social impacts, governance, and long-term resilience are deeply interconnected, and they increasingly shape business performance.
A more pragmatic era
If there is a reason for cautious optimism as we move further into 2026, it’s that sustainability work is becoming more pragmatic. More attention is being paid to what is actually being done rather than what is being said. Stakeholders want to know how climate and sustainability actions and activities connect to business outcomes, and whether these initiatives can be supported with evidence. The current political and regulatory environment is forcing organizations to prioritize what genuinely matters and to be more precise in how they describe their efforts.
For those of us who have been in this field for a long time, it can be difficult to watch what appears, at first glance, to be a pullback in climate action. Yet at this same time, this feels like a necessary evolution. It creates space for real work, grounded decision-making, and more durable progress.
This is the future many of us hoped for, even when it felt a long way off. (Although I do wish it was coupled with much stronger law and policy, but that’s a topic for another post.)
After years of being sidelined, then exaggerated through broad public commitments, and later complicated by shifting compliance expectations, 2026 may be the year sustainability might earn a consistent seat at the business table where it belongs.
