I've been attending GreenBiz for a while now, and one of the most interesting things about the conference isn't any single session — it's the meta-narrative. Watch the themes evolve year over year and you're watching the sustainability profession process its identity in real time.
For a while, it was all about purpose — companies rushing to signal they were good companies doing good things, with sustainability as a lever for reputation. There was investment, momentum as it seemed the world had caught on that sustainability was good business. Along with it came the regulatory wave — new laws in the EU and California positioned as the next great driver of progress. Then the political headwinds shifted again, budgets tightened, and the conversation pivoted to the business case. Stop leading with morality, start leading with value. Prove the ROI. Speak the CFO's language. Then this focus on business value — justifying the work, proving returns, making the case that sustainability isn't just a nice-to-have — shifted even further to commercialization — not just proving the value of the work, but narrowing focus to the efforts that directly drive revenue, reduce costs, and create competitive advantage. Fewer things, with clear commercial upside.
While no one said it directly, in keynotes and panel discussions with CSOs the underlying message was clear: in this chapter, sustainability needs to drive revenue.
Last year, sustainability leaders were building the case for why the work matters. This year, they're focused on leveraging that work to drive sales, reduce costs, spark innovation, and lead in the market. It's a subtle but meaningful shift — from defense to offense.
The corporate sustainability strategies being discussed are tighter, more focused, and more financially literate. Gone are the sweeping 2030 visions and aspirational moonshots (well, mostly). In their place: short-term actions with clear ROI, "low-regret" and "no-regret" investments, and a demand for a clear value proposition attached to every single focus area. It's less "change the world" and more "show me the business case for changing the world."
And honestly? It's refreshing. We need both ambition and real, achievable action plans that have senior leader buy-in. It’s this level of strategic discipline that will make sustainability programs endure — especially through this challenging political and economic environment.
One of the more resonant themes at GreenBiz 26 was the evolving role of the Chief Sustainability Officer. The new job description? Chief Translation Officer.
CSOs right now aren't just sustainability experts — they're fluent in finance, operations, and boardroom politics. Their most critical skill is translating environmental and social impact into language that makes the CFO lean forward instead of tuning out. If you can't connect your climate strategy to the P&L, you're going to have a hard time keeping your budget (and possibly your job).
The overarching message: build a strategy that endures through changing administrations and market swings, but stay nimble enough to take actions that meet the current moment. Strategy and agility. Long game and short game. It's a both/and era.
An encouraging evolution in conversation is how companies are approaching supplier sustainability — less top-down mandate, more genuine partnership. The leaders in this space aren't just sending questionnaires and setting requirements. They're getting into the weeds with their suppliers, understanding the specific challenges holding them back from reducing emissions, moving away from coal, cutting water use, and/ sourcing more sustainable materials, etc.The companies seeing real progress are the ones investing in open dialogue — providing tools, guidance, and support to help suppliers actually get there.
If there was one topic that had people simultaneously leaning in and breaking out in a cold sweat, it was Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The regulatory landscape is a patchwork of state-level laws that are disparate, disjointed, and moving fast. And many, many companies are completely unprepared.
EPR isn't just a compliance challenge — it's going to require entirely new muscles. It will take cross-functional collaboration across sustainability, finance, regulatory, R&D, and product teams in ways many organizations aren't currently collaborating. It's also fundamentally changing the equation on total cost of ownership, which means materials and packaging decisions that were previously too expensive to consider from a sustainability standpoint may suddenly become the economically smart choice.
That's a big shift, and the companies that figure it out early are going to have a significant competitive edge.
Sustainability reporting is increasingly looking (and functioning) more like financial reporting. And that shift is reshaping teams. We heard many leaders share how their teams have migrated to now report to legal, investor relations, and regulatory affairs. The skillsets, the governance structures, the approval chains now reflect the reality that sustainability disclosures are now compliance documents, not storytelling vehicles.
And as reports become more focused on meeting regulatory requirements, disclosing risks and opportunities, and reporting measurable progress, there's less room for the employee spotlights, community partnerships, and brand narratives.
We're still in a transition moment. But what I think will emerge on the other side is a more stakeholder-centric model: rigorous, defensible disclosures that satisfy regulators and investors on one track, and separate, purpose-built communications for employees, customers, and communities on another. Same data collection process, but two very different outputs—one aimed at compliance and credibility, the other at reputation, pride, and brand-building.
The language we use to talk about this work matters more than ever. Not because we should be hiding what we do, but because the wrong word in the wrong room can shut down a conversation before it starts.
We saw this play out with "ESG"— a term that went from boardroom shorthand to political lightning rod almost overnight, prompting most companies to quietly retire it from their vocabulary. That same recalibration is now expanding to how we communicate about everything. It’s about making the shift from phrases like "climate crisis" to "a changing climate." Same work, different framing.
Is it frustrating? Sure. But this isn't about watering down the message or backing away from the mission. It's about being strategic enough to keep the work moving. If choosing a less polarizing word means your climate strategy gets funded instead of getting flagged as political, that's not a compromise. And right now, it's a survival skill.
AI was everywhere at GreenBiz 26 — in panel descriptions, vendor booths, and hallway conversations. But the conversation is still pretty surface-level. There's enormous interest and openness, but the profession hasn't fully figured out how to harness AI's potential beyond basic data aggregation, research, and writing support.
On the vendor side, the expo floor was overflowing with software providers promising to leverage AI solve the emissions data problem. The market is crowded, the differentiation is thin, and most sustainability teams are still trying to figure out what they actually need.
The overall sentiment at GreenBiz 26 was... tired. Sustainability professionals are overworked, buried in questionnaires and data requests, and running lean. Non-profits in the space are struggling to demonstrate their value and fund their work.
But tired isn't the same as defeated. The word that kept coming up for me was enduring. People aren't quitting. They're narrowing their focus, sharpening their strategies, getting more commercially minded—and pushing forward.
If the arc from 2024 to 2026 tells us anything, it's that this profession is doing what it's always done: adapting. The language has changed, the strategies have tightened, and the business case has gotten sharper. The work endures because the people doing it refuse to let it not.
And if they can keep doing it while also somehow responding to 47 ESG questionnaires a quarter? That's honestly just impressive.