As ESG Language Changes, Sustainability Moves Deeper Into the Business

Straining infrastructure over the summer

Earlier this year, crews at Oslo Airport sprayed over 9000 litres of water on the tarmac to prevent it from softening under the weight of aircraft during a summer heatwave. Temperatures were expected to reach 30C, which is about 10C above the seasonal norm. On its own, that may not sound especially extreme, but the fact it was enough to threaten the integrity of airport infrastructure tells a different story and illustrates a broader business problem. The infrastructure, operating models and risk assumptions built around historical climate patterns are being confronted with temperatures and weather events far beyond the parameters they were ever designed for.

A similar pattern is playing out in places where climate risk feels more familiar. The wildfires burning outside Bordeaux spared the region’s vineyards, yet drought and repeated heatwaves still pushed growers toward one of the earliest harvests on record and raised questions about a future where water scarcity and high temperatures are becoming the norm. Across North America, Canadian wildfire smoke again showed how disruption can travel far beyond the fire line, affecting public health and local infrastructure, disrupting trade and creating potentially long-term economic consequences.

While these examples differ in scale, geography, and consequences, their impact on business shares a common thread and threat. From infrastructure that may not perform as expected, to vulnerable supply chains, threats to worker safety, and insurance gaps that leave companies to absorb the loss, sustainability risk is becoming harder to separate from business risk.

The billion-dollar price tag of climate uncertainty

Companies have begun to quantify what that means. Among organizations that disclosed full environmental data in 2025, 35% identified extreme weather as a material financial risk. Collectively, those organizations reported nearly US$3 billion in real losses and projected US$714 billion in future financial impacts, with nearly half expecting those risks to materialize in the near term. Resilience however, is far less costly than absorbing the damage. According to CDP, the median cost of mitigating environmental risks is 13 times lower than the cost of the risks themselves.

Yet even as the financial consequences of climate risk become more explicit, the language companies use to discuss sustainability is becoming less so. In 2025, The Conference Board found that the share of S&P 100 companies using “ESG” in annual sustainability report titles dropped from 40% in 2023 to 25% in 2024, with early 2025 data showing a further decline. The number of sustainability reports published by U.S. public companies also fell by 17% in 2025 compared to the previous year.

Policy changes, political pressure and stakeholder skepticism around greenwashing have all contributed to a more cautious approach to ESG language and communications. But reduced visibility does not necessarily mean reduced activity. In many companies, the same work continues, but under the more familiar language of risk, resilience, efficiency and business performance.

So where has all the ESG language gone?

The change extends beyond sustainability reports. According to FactSet Document Search data, mentions of “ESG” on S&P 500 earnings calls have fallen by more than 50% since peaking in Q4 2021.

In many organizations, sustainability priorities are now being evaluated through the lens of efficiency, risk, resilience, infrastructure, waste reduction and business value. At SXSW earlier this year, the founder of a water-monitoring start-up said the CFOs and data center operators they were in talks with weren’t asking about environmental mission; they wanted to understand the financial and operational consequences of a pipe bursting or a server going down.

The vocabulary replacing ESG is also becoming more specific. AlphaSense transcript analysis points to greater use of operational and regulatory terms such as “CSRD” and “decarbonization,” as companies move away from ESG as an umbrella term.

The same pragmatism is evident in how companies are reassessing their sustainability targets. In its 2025 analysis, The Conference Board found that 87% of S&P 500 companies had disclosed climate-related targets, but executives were concerned that many of those targets had been set without fully assessing operational, technological, or financial constraints. That concern suggests sustainability targets are being scrutinized against what companies can measure, what their operations can deliver and what their budgets can support.

And that scrutiny now extends responsibility beyond the sustainability team. Finance teams may need to weigh resilience investments against the cost of disruption. Procurement teams may need to ask suppliers for emissions or labor-practice data. EHS teams may need to track energy use, water consumption, waste, emissions, and site-level risks that affect worker safety, compliance, and operations. IT may be involved in the systems, integrations, control, and infrastructure to manage that data.

While the rules may change, the need for reliable data doesn’t

Reporting requirements will continue to change across markets, but the business need for reliable sustainability information is less dependent on the regulatory cycle. Bringing more functions into sustainability management also raises the stakes for the underlying data. Sustainability data and the processes built around disclosure and reporting requirements were not always designed for use across finance, risk, procurement, operations and other business functions.

Scattered spreadsheets, one-off reporting cycles, and unclear ownership lack the rigor and transparency needed to inform climate-related decisions. Using that information beyond disclosure requires a clear record of where it came from, who owns it, how it was calculated and how it has changed over time. Common definitions, documented methodologies, clear ownership, review controls and version histories provide that foundation. Centralizing those records in a digital system of record allows teams across the business to work from the same information, without rebuilding or reinterpreting it each time.

We are already seeing this approach among enterprise sustainability teams we work with. One customer, for example, uses a centralized sustainability platform to turn climate risk assessments into action, tracking performance against its most material risks and sustainability targets while also managing greenhouse gas accounting, carbon footprinting and overall environmental performance. That allows the organization to use the information gathered through its sustainability program to track risk and performance over time, instead of treating the climate risk assessment as a standalone exercise.

Consider a manufacturing facility exposed to wildfire risk. A company may need to assess short-, medium- and long-term effects on operations, workforce safety, supply routes, insurance, and capital planning. Looking at those effects together can help determine where resilience investment could reduce future disruption, whether capital plans need to change and where changing conditions may create new operational or strategic opportunities.

The label matters. The actions matter more.

Changes in regulation, political pressure and greater scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims have made many companies more cautious about how they communicate their ESG commitments, particularly in the United States. That makes the language a poor measure of what is happening inside the business.

Language still counts. The words companies choose shape trust and public expectations. But a change in vocabulary is not the same as a change in commitment. A better indication is what companies continue to measure and manage: whether they collect sustainability information, assign accountability, monitor material risks and impacts, and use that information to inform business decisions.

That work may be less prominent than a public-facing ESG message, but it is also more deeply embedded in how the business operates. At its core, ESG was always about accountability, making informed decisions and having a clearer understanding of how business affects, and is affected by, the world around it. Stronger data, clear ownership and more disciplined processes bring companies closer to that objective, whatever terminology they choose to describe it.