ESG is not dead. The acronym might be.
Over the past few weeks I have seen a wave of posts on LinkedIn declaring the death of ESG. Some are celebratory. Some are relieved. Some are dismissive, framing ESG as a fad that had its moment and is now fading away as regulations soften or timelines change.
I will be honest. I find that conclusion surprising. Not because I am blind to what has happened in the regulatory landscape. But there has been a noticeable shift in tone. There is fatigue. There is politicisation. There is frustration with complexity. There is pushback on reporting burden. There is also genuine criticism of poor quality ESG work, inconsistent scoring, and corporate claims that never matched reality.
But saying ESG is dead is like saying risk management is dead because a specific regulation changed. If the last few years have taught us anything, it is this that environmental and social factors do not disappear when the regulatory cycle changes. They do not pause because the conversation becomes inconvenient. They do not stop affecting business performance because the acronym is out of favour.
So here is my view as we move into 2026. ESG is not dead… What is dying is the idea that ESG is only a reporting trend.
Why people are saying ESG is dead
I think it is worth acknowledging the drivers behind the backlash. Some of it is understandable. There are a few common reasons ESG is being written off.
First, some organisations treated ESG primarily as a compliance response. They built reporting output without building management capability underneath it. That approach feels expensive, time consuming, and disconnected from day to day business realities.
Second, ESG became a catch all term. It tried to capture everything from emissions to ethics, diversity, governance, social value, supply chains, lobbying, and data systems. For many leaders it became hard to know what ESG actually meant in practice.
Third, ESG has been damaged by credibility issues. Greenwashing, inconsistent methodologies, weak data, and vague claims created mistrust. In some cases, ESG was used as marketing language rather than management discipline. That undermined the whole space.
And finally, the political narrative has shifted in some places. When ESG becomes a culture war topic, some companies understandably want to keep their heads down.
So yes, I understand why some people are tired of the term. But none of that means the underlying issues went away.
What ESG was always meant to be
At its best, ESG was never supposed to be a trend. It was meant to be a structured way to evaluate how environmental factors, social factors, and governance quality influence a company’s resilience and long term value. In plain language, ESG is just a lens for asking “Are we running a business that can thrive in the world as it is, not the world we wish it still was?” That includes questions like:
• Are we exposed to physical climate disruption?
• Are we reliant on fragile supply chains or scarce resources?
• Do we have strong governance and oversight over critical decisions?
• Are our people safe, supported, and treated fairly?
• Do we have trust with customers, communities, and regulators?
• Are we prepared for rising scrutiny and shifting expectations?
None of these questions are ideological. They are operational and strategic. The companies that treat ESG as real business thinking tend to be the companies that are hardest to disrupt.
The hard reality: sustainability is business reality (it has to be)
You can debate the acronym. You can debate the pace of regulation. You can debate how much reporting is too much. But it is increasingly difficult to debate the underlying reality that environmental and social pressures are reshaping markets. Climate related disruption is affecting logistics, operations and insurance. Energy volatility affects cost bases. Water stress affects production in some regions and sectors. Workforce expectations are evolving quickly. Supply chain transparency demands are increasing. Trust and reputation can be lost quickly, and regained slowly.
This is why the idea that ESG is dead feels so disconnected to me. If anything, what has changed is that we are moving from a phase of awareness to a phase of accountability.
In 2026, the organisations that succeed will not be the ones who say the right things. They will be the ones who can show, with evidence, that they understand their risks, manage their impacts, and are building resilience.
Maybe ESG needs a better name.
Here is a thought I have been sitting with. Perhaps ESG has become unhelpful as a label because it is often interpreted as an external obligation rather than an internal management capability. When people say they hate ESG, I often wonder what they actually hate. Do they hate better governance? Do they hate understanding risk? Do they hate transparency? Do they hate treating people well? Do they hate preparing for disruption?
Usually, no…
What they hate is the feeling that ESG became a box ticking exercise with unclear value. So maybe ESG does not need to disappear. Maybe it needs to be reframed. You can choose your words, but the intent is the same. Build a business that can endure and thrive without offloading harm onto people or the planet.
That is not a fad. That is maturity. That is the kind of world I want to live in.
A practical lens for 2026: shift from reporting to resilience
If you are leading a company in 2026, here is the most useful way I can frame ESG. Stop asking “Do we need to report on this?” and start asking “What would happen if we ignored this for five years?”. Because reporting is only the output. The deeper question is resilience.
In my view, the most credible ESG strategies in 2026 will focus less on glossy narrative and more on foundations.
• Governance that enables action with clear ownership, oversight, and accountability.
• Data that can be trusted with documented assumptions, clear methodologies, evidence trails, and review controls.
• Integration into decision making where ESG issues are assessed through risk management, strategy, procurement, operations, and finance, not in a separate sustainability silo.
• A focus on what is material. Not everything, but the issues that truly shape impact and value for that specific business.
This is also where a lot of organisations can reduce burden. When ESG is integrated, you do less duplication. You stop running parallel processes. You create one coherent way of understanding risk and opportunity.
A note on business reality and progress
I also want to say this clearly. I believe in business. I believe economies need to thrive. I believe we need infrastructure, innovation, and investment. I believe we need progress that improves quality of life.
But progress that ignores long term consequences is not progress. It is short term extraction. A world where companies pursue prosperity while dismissing environmental and social impacts is a world that becomes less stable, less liveable, and ultimately less profitable too. That is not idealism. That is realism. If you remove care for people and planet from business thinking, you do not remove risk. You concentrate it. And eventually it shows up as disruption, cost, reputational damage, regulation, litigation, talent loss, and declining trust.
So when I see “ESG is dead” posts, I often read them as something else. A frustration with the term. A frustration with performative reporting. A frustration with complexity. Those frustrations are valid. But the conclusion that ESG is redundant is not.
How I See It
Here is my view as we enter 2026.
ESG is not dead. The conversation is evolving. The era of ESG as a trend is fading. The era of ESG as resilience and business maturity is accelerating. If we want a better term, I am open to that. If we need to simplify, I agree. If we need to improve quality and credibility, absolutely.
But if the question is whether environmental and social issues still matter to business success, the answer is straightforward. They matter more than ever. And they will keep mattering long after the acronym changes.
