Silence is Deadly on Sustainability
Corporate and investor silence on climate and sustainability is creating the dangerous perception that the field is losing relevance just as it gains momentum to deliver real economic change.
By Monika Freyman, CFA, Vice-President of Sustainable Investing
Corporate and investment leaders and policymakers face a critical inflection point. The recent quieting of leadership voices on sustainability and institutional rollback of commitments is not a neutral shift — it is a strategic risk. Silence weakens policy signals, slows progress and atrophies capacity and resources, undermining the sustainable finance ecosystem as a foundation for long‑term economic stability.
Across investment committees and boardrooms, the stories of pullback are emerging: fewer climate‑risk questions by shareholders to corporate boards, delayed efficiency and climate transition capex, shrinking sustainability budgets and resources, and early‑career climate and sustainability professionals questioning the future of the field. This retreat is occurring precisely at a time when sustainability data, standards, and market infrastructure have matured and are beginning to drive real change on the ground.
On the Cusp of Something Great
Sustainable finance has evolved dramatically over two decades. Investor datasets, research processes, and portfolio theory can now integrate both systemic and company‑level sustainability and climate risks and opportunities more effectively. Once you become more aware of how deeply our economy depends on vulnerable natural systems — with seven of nine planetary boundaries under pressure — you can’t “unsee” it.1
The field is also reaching a new level of credibility. Sector‑specific sustainability metrics first envisioned through SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) are now moving toward mandatory reporting ultimately driving high‑quality, comparable data investors have long been asking for.
Global investor networks, human rights and climate institutes, standard setters, SPO (second party opinion) providers, auditors, academic programs, and specialized research bodies and career paths have also flourished. These developments have helped drive:
- $5 trillion in green, social, and sustainability bonds driving capital toward energy efficiency projects, renewables, water infrastructure, affordable housing and more.2
- 45% growth in retail sustainable investment funds in the past five years to $4.8 trillion.3
- 50+ national climate taxonomies developed, including the first steps in developing (finally) Canada’s own through the Business Future Pathways.4
- 25% global EV sales and 40% electric bus sales highlights strong EV adoption despite the pushback from established economies and car-markers5
- Record renewable energy investmentof $386 billion in the first half of 2025, up 10% from the previous year, despite increasing policy uncertainty.6
- Strong renewables even in regions such as Texas. As oil prices soar, regions and economies that have invested in a more diverse energy supply mix are finding themselves in a stronger position. For example, over 20 states in the United States now have renewable energy capacity over 30% of their total energy capacity including in historically traditional oil states such as Texas.7
The list goes on.
This is not a niche movement. It is a structural shift in capital markets.
When leaders go quiet, it signals that this ecosystem is irrelevant and that sustainability is optional or fading. It isn’t. The work continues globally with enormous momentum. However, silence can breed doubt, weaken public support and policy incentives, and give cover to those eager to roll back progress.
We Must Also Own Our Missteps
While some pushback is the status quo resisting change, some of it is earned. It’s important for sustainability professionals to reflect and avoid past mistakes of:
- Overpromising: Too many “green goals” were sold as easy wins rather than long‑term transitions requiring patience, resources, and trade‑offs.
- Impatience: It took decades for GDP to become a standard metric; sustainability data deserves a similar runway.
- Perfection traps: Critics dismiss sustainability data for being imperfect, even though financial markets routinely operate on incomplete information.
- Acronym overload: If the average person can’t understand a sustainable term or investment fund, we’ve failed. Clearer language builds trust and political durability.
- Misaligned incentives: Portfolio managers and corporate leaders are often primarily rewarded for short‑term performance, while sustainability outcomes unfold over years. Incentive structures must evolve to recognize this and the complexity of meeting both sustainability and financial goals.
We must do better, but we must not lose momentum.
Now Is the Moment to Speak Up — Not Step Back
Investors need to continue articulating why sustainability is core to fiduciary duty, risk management, and value creation. Corporate leaders need to reaffirm that transition and sustainability planning is not a marketing exercise — it is strategy.
The loudest voices right now are those resisting change. If the leaders who understand the economic, ecological and community stakes remain silent, we risk losing the systems that make our markets truly more resilient and serving communities rather than the other way. The cost of silence — for capital markets, for policy design, and for future generations — is too high.
This article first appeared on the Clean50 newsletter and website in a longer format.
[3] https://www.businessfuturepathways.ca/fr/accueil/
[4] https://theicct.org/pr-vision-2050-update-on-the-global-zev-transition-in-2025/ and https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/electric-vehicle-outlook/#overview
[5] https://rmi.org/the-state-of-utility-planning-2025-q4/
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_renewable_electricity_production