Six months into 2026, the loudest story in corporate sustainability is the one nobody is telling out loud. Across seven major reports published this year — from BSI, ERM, EY, GlobeScan/BSR, PwC, the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, and Trellis — a consistent picture emerges: commitments are holding, investment is continuing (if unevenly), and companies are still taking action. But how they talk about that action, what they fund versus what they merely assess, and who inside the organization owns the work are all shifting fast.
This roundup distills the mid-2026 sustainability landscape into eight cross-cutting industry trends.
1. The great quieting: Commitment holds, but companies are talking about it less
What the data shows
Sustainability communication is contracting even as underlying activity continues. Trellis reports that 63% of companies have scaled back their sustainability communications or rethought how they talk about it, while 58% now put a higher priority on compliance and 53% say social issues matter less than before. BSI found that 53% of UK businesses have changed how they promote climate action specifically because of rising climate scepticism.
GlobeScan/BSR’s survey of BSR member companies found more than 60% of sustainability professionals say their companies take more sustainability action than they communicate and 27% report their companies are actively reducing sustainability investment even as 90% maintain or increase implementation.
This is not the retreat the headlines describe. Public commitments are largely holding: Trellis found 57% of companies with sustainability targets have maintained them and 24% have actually strengthened them, versus 16% that weakened or abandoned targets. The change is in volume and tone of communication, not in the work itself.
Source: Trellis, State of the Sustainability Profession 2026 (pp. 2, 17–18); BSI, Net Zero Barometer Report 2026 (Key Finding 6, p. 6); GlobeScan/BSR, State of Sustainable Business 2026 (Executive Summary, p. 7; Implementation, Ambition, Investment section, pp. 19–26)
Our take
Greenhushing carries its own risk. When companies do less talking but the same (or more) doing, they lose the trust dividend and the recruiting, investor, and customer benefits that visible commitment used to buy. It also creates an internal information gap: employees, sales teams, and even leadership can lose track of programs that are quietly continuing. The smarter move is recalibration, not silence: keep disclosing to the audiences (investors, regulators, customers who ask) that need proof, and be more deliberate about which channels and how much volume is appropriate for a politically charged moment.
Follow-up reading:
- We had a great sustainability program. Nobody inside knew about it.
- Why your team won’t talk about sustainability (and what to do about it)
- Companies are retreating from sustainability. Consumers aren’t.
2. Sustainability has to show its Math: ROI becomes the new ambition
What the data shows
The business case for decarbonization hardened instead of breaking, according to PwC’s Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report. Eight in ten companies (82%) held steady or accelerated their sustainability timelines this year, and more companies increased their ambition (23%) than decreased it (18%). PwC also finds products with sustainability attributes can command a 6% to 25%+ revenue premium over comparable products without that positioning. BSI’s data tells a similar story from a different angle: cost savings and operational efficiency (37%) are now the single largest driver of net zero action in the UK, ahead of policy, market competitiveness, or customer demand.
ERM frames this as its top trend for 2026: “Sustainability that pays,” with companies proactively shifting their focus toward actions that demonstrably contribute to the bottom line rather than standing alone as a values statement.
Source: PwC, Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report (Introduction, pp. 2–3; Product sustainability section); BSI, Net Zero Barometer Report 2026 (Key Finding 3, pp. 5, 7–8); ERM, 2026 Annual Trends Report (Trend One, pp. 4–5, 7–21)
Our take
The framing has flipped. A few years ago, sustainability teams had to defend spending against a backdrop of skepticism; now they’re being asked to prove the return the same way any other capital allocation would be evaluated. That’s a healthy forcing function for prioritization, but it also means initiatives that can’t articulate a financial or risk-reduction case will lose funding first, regardless of their social or environmental merit. Sustainability and finance teams need a shared, credible way to quantify value, not just report emissions.
Follow-up reading:
- Why scope 3 emissions are a $500 billion risk
- GreenBiz 26: From business case to business model
- The cost of doing nothing on sustainability
3. CSRD in 2026: Reporting matures, but scope narrows
What the data shows
EY’s CSRD Barometer 2026 analyzed 196 second-year sustainability statements from companies subject to the CSRD and found real progress: reports are more readable and concise, double materiality assessments are more focused, and nearly all reports were externally assured (only three of 196 were not). ESRS S1 Own Workforce (100%), ESRS E1 Climate Change (99.5%), and ESRS G1 Business Conduct (97.4%) remain the most commonly material topics, while entity-specific disclosures dropped slightly to 24.5% of companies and the total number of reported impacts, risks, and opportunities declined overall, reflecting more refined materiality assessments rather than less scrutiny.
At the same time, EY notes that widespread use of ESRS phase-in reliefs is limiting comparability and transparency, particularly around value chain information and anticipated financial effects — a trade-off between reporting burden and disclosure completeness.
Source: EY, CSRD Barometer 2026 (Executive Summary, pp. 4–5; Key Observations, pp. 8–13)
Our take
Maturing reporting practice is good news, but “fewer topics reported” and “better materiality process” can look identical from the outside unless companies explain their reasoning. The temptation industry-wide is to quietly trim disclosures that feel risky rather than explain why they no longer apply, which is precisely the kind of omission that regulators and ESG analysts read as a red flag rather than progress.
Follow-up reading:
- CSRD is now final — here’s what that means for your company
- 9 in 10 companies kept reporting after CSRD exempted them — here’s why you should too
- Don’t delete the row
4. AI adoption is outrunning AI governance
What the data shows
Every corporate-facing survey in this roundup independently surfaced the same gap. GlobeScan/BSR found 50% of sustainability professionals say their companies use AI for ESG reporting and disclosures, and 31% for emissions estimation or tracking, but only one in three companies have formal governance in place to manage AI’s environmental and social impacts. Morgan Stanley’s Sustainable Signals survey of 300 corporates found only 15% of sustainability decision-makers are the main decision-maker or contributor for AI governance strategy, with a further 18% claiming only “some knowledge” and 12% none at all. PwC found 60% of companies are starting to use AI for decarbonization specifically, yet fewer than 1% report measurable emissions results from it so far.
Source: GlobeScan/BSR, State of Sustainable Business 2026 (Sustainability & AI, pp. 31–33); Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, Sustainable Signals: Corporates 2026 (Sustainability Roles & Oversight, p. 15); PwC, Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report (AI in decarbonization, p. 3)
Our take
Adoption is running well ahead of the guardrails, which is exactly the moment when governance gets built after something goes wrong rather than before. Sustainability and communications teams have a narrow window to get ahead of this: establishing disclosure standards for AI-assisted claims and clear internal policy for how AI-generated content, data, and analysis get reviewed before they reach a stakeholder-facing report or drive company strategy.
Follow-up reading: Your voice is everything — don’t let AI kill it
5. Climate risk is assessed. Adaptation isn't funded.
What the data shows
Physical climate risk has become a standard line item in enterprise risk management, but the response stops there for most companies. GlobeScan/BSR found nearly 60% of companies have integrated physical climate risk into risk management processes, yet only 30% have adaptation plans for their own operations and just 15% have adaptation plans covering their supply chain. Morgan Stanley’s survey found more than three-quarters of respondents now rate physical and transition climate risks as very or somewhat likely to affect their business in the next five years, up ten-plus points from 2025, and 63% now see increased operational costs from extreme weather events as very likely. BSI found 52% of UK businesses have taken or are taking climate adaptation planning steps, alongside 80% who recognize failing to prepare carries real financial and operational consequences.
Source: GlobeScan/BSR, State of Sustainable Business 2026 (Executive Summary, p. 7; Climate Change section, p. 8); Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, Sustainable Signals: Corporates 2026 (Key takeaways, p. 2); BSI, Net Zero Barometer Report 2026 (p. 7)
Our take
This is the gap between risk identification and risk management. Companies have gotten much better at naming physical climate risk in a filing; they have not gotten much better at funding the response. As extreme weather events become more frequent, the distance between “we assessed this risk” and “we are protected against this risk” is exactly what investors, insurers, and regulators are starting to interrogate.
Follow-up reading:
- California’s climate laws remain in limbo — but preparation shouldn’t
- Refreshing your double materiality assessment: Time to be brave and agile
- Aligning your climate reporting strategy with TCFD and global frameworks
6. The supply chain blind spot: Scope 3 ambition meets tier 1 reality
What the data shows
Supply chain oversight is narrowing toward what companies directly control, even as the biggest risks and emissions typically sit further upstream. GlobeScan/BSR found management of Tier 2+ supply chain human rights impacts fell 13 percentage points, to 33%, since 2017, while attention to companies’ own operations remained high and widespread at 79%. PwC found just 18% of companies are consistently tracking supplier activities and emissions beyond Tier 1 — despite Scope 3 typically representing the largest share of a company’s footprint. PwC also found that companies on track with Scope 3 targets are nearly twice as likely (31% vs. 19%) to have integrated sustainability practices across the full product life cycle as companies that are off track.
Source: GlobeScan/BSR, State of Sustainable Business 2026 (Human Rights, pp. 30–31); PwC, Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report (Supply chain and Product sustainability sections, p. 3)
Our take
Everyone agrees Scope 3 and extended supply chain risk matter; almost nobody has full visibility into it, and the visibility gap is quietly widening rather than closing. That’s a hard problem to solve with a survey question or a policy statement — it requires supplier engagement infrastructure that most companies still don’t have, which is exactly why the companies who invest in it now are pulling ahead on both risk management and product-level competitive advantage.
Follow-up reading: Why scope 3 emissions are a $500 billion risk
7. The sustainability career crossroads
What the data shows
The people doing this work are under real strain, even as most keep showing up for it. Trellis’s survey of over 500 sustainability professionals found 44% say their jobs are less fulfilling than two years ago, and only 47% still believe corporate sustainability offers the most attractive career path over the next five to ten years. Organizationally, the function’s influence is shifting: the share of sustainability teams reporting directly to the CEO dropped from 30% in 2024 to 18% in 2026, while reporting lines into finance doubled, from 7% to 14%, and into legal grew to 20%. Despite all of this, optimists still outnumbered pessimists about the field’s future by roughly two to one.
Source: Trellis, State of the Sustainability Profession 2026 (Executive Summary, pp. 2–3; Reporting lines, pp. 21–22; How Professionals See the Profession, pp. 42–45)
Our take
A profession can be simultaneously exhausted and hopeful, and that’s exactly the state Trellis is describing. The shift from CEO-office proximity toward legal and finance reporting lines is not neutral: it tends to narrow sustainability’s mandate toward compliance and away from strategic, growth-oriented work, which may compound the fulfillment problem over time. Retaining good people in this function means giving them a strategic mandate and not just a compliance checklist.
Follow-up reading:
- The cost of corporate tone-deafness
- Why your team won’t talk about sustainability (and what to do about it)
8. Energy becomes the board-level strategic lever
What the data shows
Energy strategy has moved from an operational detail to a board-level competitiveness issue. ERM’s 2026 Annual Trends Report names this its second major trend, noting that companies are shifting toward diversified energy strategies spanning renewables, fossil fuels, nuclear, and other sources to manage reliability, affordability, and sustainability simultaneously, while grid investment struggles to keep pace with demand growth from AI and electrification. PwC found geopolitical energy shocks and surging AI-driven demand pushed electricity prices up 7% to 25% in some markets, prompting companies to reduce energy demand and prioritize high-return efficiency initiatives over new supply investment, even as they spend less overall on decarbonization while getting more from it.
Source: ERM, 2026 Annual Trends Report (Trend Two, pp. 5, 22–33); PwC, Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report (Energy and capital section, pp. 2–3, 15)
Our take
AI is creating a direct collision between two priorities companies used to be able to pursue separately: aggressive technology adoption and energy cost control. Expect “energy strategy” to keep migrating out of facilities and procurement teams and into enterprise risk and capital allocation conversations, especially for any company running its own data infrastructure or with energy-intensive operations.
The Throughline
Taken together, these eight trends describe a sustainability function that is more disciplined, more financially literate, and more institutionally embedded than it was a year or two ago, and also quieter, more compliance-driven, and under more internal strain. None of the seven reports behind this roundup describe a retreat from sustainability. They describe a recalibration: narrower public messaging, harder ROI scrutiny, maturing but tighter-scoped disclosure, fast-moving AI adoption without matching governance, risk assessments that haven’t yet become resilience plans, supply chain visibility that hasn’t kept pace with Scope 3 ambition, a workforce that is strained but not giving up, and energy strategy graduating to the boardroom.
For any company setting priorities for the second half of 2026, the throughline is the same one BSI’s Director-General put on record: sustainability is becoming embedded in core business strategy rather than treated as a stand-alone commitment, which means it now has to meet the same bar for evidence, discipline, and return as everything else on the board’s agenda.
Sources reviewed
• BSI, “Net Zero Barometer Report 2026: From sustainability ambition to commercial necessity” (2026)
• ERM Sustainability Institute, “2026 Annual Trends Report: Competing Pressures, New Approaches” (January 2026)
• EY, “CSRD Barometer 2026: Sustainability transformation — reporting the progress in second year sustainability statements” (April 2026)
• GlobeScan / BSR, “State of Sustainable Business 2026” (June 2026)
• PwC, “Third Annual State of Decarbonization Report” (2026)
• Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, “Sustainable Signals: Corporates 2026” (2026)
• Trellis, “State of the Sustainability Profession 2026: Saying Less But Doing More” (2026)
