I never set out to be a sustainability professional. I trained as an agricultural economist focused on domestic policy and international trade, always with a focus on moving food across borders to address one of society’s greatest, most life-giving challenges: feeding people. Yet here I am, running a global strategy and advisory firm founded on “sustainable” outcomes. Square that circle!
How did other corporate executives and I get so caught up in sustainability when we were simply focused on getting our license to operate in markets? That’s it! That’s why. We needed our license to operate, and sustainability became the overarching license. By working to map the issues in the supply chain, we became well aware that doing our business created not only positive externalities for society, but also negative conditions such as pollution, product side effects, labor implications like repetitive motion injuries, devastation of natural landscapes and critical ecosystems like forests, negative health implications such as obesity and diabetes, and many others.
In the early 2000s, customers increasingly wanted to know more than what they were buying. They wanted assurance about where products came from, how they were sourced and produced, and their effects on people and nature. Sustainability became a way to provide greater transparency and confidence in supply chains. The sustainability movement started as a way to impact business conduct and soon became a notable condition of competition. Some companies embraced sustainability, while others were pulled, kicking and screaming, into the fold.
In my opinion, the single most notable action in the marketplace that shifted the sustainability balance for business across the globe was when Walmart entered the sustainability game. Many were skeptical and irritated that Walmart could use its market power to shift the dynamic in its favor, but activists realized it changed things faster than government policy ever could. The company rightly concluded it could meet both consumer demand and pressure suppliers to “cut the fat” simultaneously, rewarding Walmart with enhanced brand equity and higher margins. Their impact was global. I saw it when they held a China-wide conference and set expectations for quality, safety, and sustainability for suppliers there. It was a game changer.
So given the headlines of companies pulling back, are we to conclude that sustainability is no longer a business advantage? Some business leaders have determined that it depends on where the company sits in the supply chain. If suppliers feel they have no market power or it doesn't affect their sales, they often resist. When I hear a leader gripe that they won’t get the benefit of investing in more sustainable practices, I breathe in and then reply, “Why would you not want to be in the driver’s seat of your own business? By not scrutinizing your supply chain, you are leaving money on the table. Not only for today, but also for the future.”
In the present political climate, while sustainability is experiencing backlash and as some companies fold Chief Sustainability Officer roles into other functions while others maintain dedicated leadership, ’t whether sustainability survives. It is where it lives and who owns it. Some companies are stepping back. Others are integrating it into the way they do business.
Why Integration Is the Answer.
When I founded my company, I stayed true to a simple conviction: sustainability cannot sit off to the side. That is why we built our work around an Integrated Sustainability Framework®: Anticipate. Build. Communicate. Lead. With truth at its center.
As companies reconsider where sustainability belongs, the answer is neither solely in marketing or brand, nor in a standalone sustainability department, nor embedded in the supply chain function. It should reside with executives who can connect material environmental, social, and governance risks to strategy, performance, and the balance sheet, and by extension, to brand.
That’s why a global corporate affairs leader who oversees government, public policy, communications, impact, brand, and marketing is such an attractive role. These leaders can bring sustainability all together across business platforms, geographies, and functions.
And sustainability is not simply a functional question. It is an executive responsibility. Companies need leadership with the authority to connect technical expertise to commercial, operational, and financial decisions across the enterprise.
Corporate Sustainability in Upheaval: Retreat or Reinvention?
On the surface, the market looks unsettled for Chief Sustainability Officers. Starbucks, Unilever, HSBC, Southwest Airlines, and S&P Global have recently made headlines for reshaping sustainability leadership, staffing, or organizational structures. The changes are not identical, and they shouldn’t be treated as proof of the same outcome.
Research from the Weinreb Group, reported by Trellis in July 2026, found that the number of Chief Sustainability Officers at publicly traded U.S. companies declined by about 10%, from 216 in 2025 to 193 in 2026. That is a striking signal of organizational change, but it’s not definitive proof that sustainability has lost its mandate.
Organizational and cultural nuance matters. Sustainability was never intended to sit on the sidelines. Companies that treated it as a separate initiative or reporting exercise missed its greater value. It is about efficiency, profitability, resilience, and the long-term brand contract with customers, employees, suppliers, and communities.
Reducing energy use can improve margins. Responsible sourcing can strengthen supply chain resilience. Investing in people can build organizational capability. Understanding environmental and social risks can protect enterprise value. These are business decisions, not peripheral sustainability activities.
The real question isn't whether titles survive, but whether their responsibilities are diluted or pushed deeper into decisions that shape competitiveness. There is a profound difference between abandoning sustainability and no longer needing to call it sustainability.
In our company, we have shifted from calling it sustainability to stewardship. Shifting the language also shifts the focus from outcome to leadership action. If every leader accepts the charge to be a safekeeper of not only profitability but also people and nature, they make business decisions through that lens. What does it mean to be a steward leader vs. a sustainability leader?
I am not splitting hairs on language. This simple and meaningful shift in language transfers accountability to every leader in the organization. Is your CEO a steward leader? If so, she/he will ensure that there is organizational capacity and resources devoted to integrated sustainability outcomes.
When Public Policy Becomes a Business Crutch.
Corporate leaders should ask another question as they reassess their sustainability investments: Was the business case built on market demand and competitive advantage, or on the expectation of government financial support?
Consider sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Public policy, tax incentives, and government efforts to accelerate investment in lower-carbon aviation have supported its development. These policies can help emerging technologies scale, build infrastructure, and address gaps in capital allocation. But a fundamental distinction exists between public policy that facilitates a market and government funding that becomes the foundation of a company's business model.
When a company becomes dependent on government incentives to sustain its operations, it exposes itself to political and financial risks beyond its control. When those incentives disappear, what remains? Is there sufficient customer demand? Can the company compete? Does the investment deliver measurable value?
Public policy should help markets function, encourage innovation, and address societal costs not otherwise reflected in prices. It should not become a permanent substitute for commercial discipline.
Some may call that an idealistic view. I call it an essential test of executive leadership. Leaders must build businesses that can compete under changing market and policy conditions, not simply succeed while public funding remains available.
The question is not whether companies should use government incentives. They should, when those incentives support sound investments. The question is whether the underlying business can ultimately stand on its own. Sustainability built on enduring market value is a competitive advantage. Sustainability built primarily on public funding is a vulnerability.
A Word of Advice to Executive Leadership.
Corporate reorganizations are inevitable. As executive teams consider the next great reorganization, I offer four pieces of advice.
First, preserve technical competence. Environmental, social, and governance expertise remains essential to understanding material risks, regulatory requirements, operational performance, and market expectations. Eliminating a title should not mean eliminating the expertise.
Second, integrate that expertise into executive leadership. A global corporate affairs function can be a strong home when it connects sustainability with public policy, government relations, community relations, communications, and brand. The objective is not to move a box on the organization chart, but to connect external expectations with internal decisions.
Third, keep technical competence linked across business platforms and geographies. Specialists must remain connected to commercial, operational, and financial leaders in every market. Integration should strengthen accountability, not dilute it.
Fourth, devote financial resources to sustainability. Don’t greenwash, greendo! Everything a company does shapes its brand. Brand and business practice hold each other accountable. When practice drifts from the brand promise, trust breaks. When the promise outruns practice, the company is exposed. When promise and practice align, stewardship becomes a license to operate, compete, and win. People and nature remain the resources every enterprise depends on, so protect, curate, restore, and honor these two inputs as core corporate values.
Stewardship Is the Leadership Test.
So, is corporate sustainability crumbling? I don't believe so. What may be crumbling is the notion that sustainability can operate as a separate corporate undertaking, detached from commercial strategy, operational performance and executive accountability.
Companies will continue to reorganize. Titles will change. Political priorities will shift. Government incentives will come and go. None of these developments changes the fundamental responsibility of business leadership to manage resources wisely, create enduring value and maintain the trust of the people and communities upon which enterprise depends.
That is why I believe the future belongs to steward leaders. Leaders who understand that profitability, people and nature are not competing interests to be managed in isolation, but essential conditions for enduring enterprise success.
Sustainability may be changing its organizational home, its language and even its place in the executive hierarchy. But its underlying business imperative remains.
Bottom line: Corporate sustainability is not crumbling. It is being tested. And the measure of its future will not be the number of Chief Sustainability Officers, but the number of executives prepared to lead as stewards.