April 28, 2026
It is no secret that the world of sustainability reporting has been turned upside down in the past couple of years. The complexities, pressures and evolving nature of regulation and the geopolitical environment, combined with shifts in stakeholder sentiment, have changed how companies approach reporting.
What’s Changed
Out of strategy, fear or a combination of both, companies are focused on every word and inference in their messaging, ensuring every claim is supported by data and a paper trail. Every image, graphic and data point is scrutinized. Some organizations are moving reporting ownership from their sustainability teams to others, including Legal and Finance, feeling they are better suited to handle the requirements of reporting directives and manage the upside vs. downside of every disclosure.
Last year, thousands of companies delayed their sustainability reports to try to gain more clarity and confidence about the macroenvironment around sustainability. Eventually, many of them published more modest and muted reports, while others skipped reporting altogether, according to Trellis, the global sustainability community formerly known as GreenBiz. In 2025, compared with 2024, there was a 17% decrease in sustainability reports issued by Russell 3000 companies (the 3,000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S.), Trellis reported in March 2026.
Impacts – Good and Bad
There are likely some benefits from these upheavals. I’d like to think that reporting content is becoming more reliable and consistent across industries, which will simplify comparisons and benchmarking efforts. Reporting should be more strategic and less fluffy, providing stakeholders with a clear understanding of what is truly material to an organization.
However, I am concerned that a muted approach to sustainability disclosures, driven by fear of litigation, geopolitical backlash and criticism from anti-sustainability activists, may lead to unintended consequences. Greenhushing is on the rise, and it limits shared learning and cross-industry collaboration, which are critical to addressing complex environmental and social challenges.
Over time, this low-key approach could slow progress toward existing environmental goals or even result in companies abandoning them (we are already starting to see indications, as noted in this December 2025 DevelopmentAid summary). If open engagement is limited, particularly in the U.S., there may be broader impacts beyond reporting, potentially reinforcing climate denial, enabling the continued rollback of environmental regulations, and allowing the suppression of climate science.
We must also consider the impact on mission-driven sustainability professionals, who may be left with feelings of frustration and question their purpose in an organization. Organizations risk losing the very people they need to drive progress in their operations and supply chain, not just in their reporting. Where might these people end up? Europe, Asia, nonprofit groups or out of the sustainability profession altogether.
Moving Forward
The macroenvironment is challenging, but I suggest sustainability professionals use this moment as an opportunity to recalibrate and reassess how we move the work forward. Let us start by separating reporting from the actual work of driving sustainability progress.
We should all take another look at the tried-and-true meaning of sustainability: the United Nations definition of “…meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The work should be focused on driving meaningful environmental and social progress.
Leaders must be intentional about holding space for shared learning and open dialogue. If guardrails are needed, establish them, but do not restrict the exchange of ideas out of fear. Frameworks like the Chatham House Rule exist to support exactly that.
More broadly, I’ve been reflecting on how we got into this position. I remember when sustainability felt like it was on the fringe of business. Then, one day, it was on everybody’s mind, and everyone seemed to have an opinion on what the priorities should be. There were multiple ways to “make the business case,” including operational efficiency, ESG ratings’ impact on investor decisions, as well as talent attraction and retention. Not long after, topics such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion became centers of controversy. Today, we continue to operate in a complicated, dynamic situation.
As professionals in the sustainability field, we must remember our purpose, get beyond the fear, focus on the work, preserve shared learning and stay the course, even if that means being a little more quiet about it, at least for now.
Renita Dixon is a Chicago-based environmental and sustainability professional with more than 20 years of experience in global manufacturing and other sectors.
