The biggest challenge I see is the tension between doing the work and talking about the work. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about greenhushing lately, as in, companies going silent on sustainability (and really, diversity too) because they’re afraid of backlash or scrutiny. As a marketing and communications professional, this is deeply frustrating. If you’re not telling your story, someone else is. And the moment you’re called out is not the moment to start communicating. By then you look reactive and defensive rather than proactive and innovative.
The politicization of ESG has made this worse. The acronym now means something different to everyone, and that ambiguity has become a liability. We’re spending so much energy navigating language that we have less bandwidth for the actual work.
The flip side is that this moment is clarifying what actually matters. Grand pronouncements are over. What works now is being specific about the steps you’re taking, using the data you have at hand, and telling a story chapter by chapter. For companies and organizations that do this well, there’s an opportunity to differentiate, to be the voice that’s both authentic and credible when others have gone quiet.
· Challenges: Time poverty—no one is willing/able to make the time necessary for learning, understanding, debating, collaborating effectively… so how do you change the pace at which all of these things need to happen without shortcuts that have negative consequences of the taking the proverbial shortcut?? AI is a double-edged sword BUT an enormous opportunity to augment our work and workflows and make us more productive and more effective. BUT this is not outsourcing to AI—it is augmenting what we do and how we do it—far too many will be lured by the false assumption that they can offload elements of their work (including thinking) to AI entirely.
· Opportunities: As the saying often attributed to Churchill goes, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The current mix of socio-economic and environmental crises—many inter-related! – provide ample opportunity and necessity for innovation and collaboration. This illustrates Plato’s assertion that “Necessity is the mother of invention.” The opportunity lies in openness of far more stakeholder to explore and collaborate on solutions and actions IF we can communicate effectively and establish the trust that enables agreement to begin or expand work together. This requires investment (time, not “simply” money).
Challenges are from feeling discouraged due to the significant and mounting headwinds, both globally and certainly here in the US against the momentum of the last decade of alignment with the SDGs. Opportunities are for greater creativity in mobilizing impact – durable impact.
A1 - A1: My biggest opportunity in 2026 is helping organisations understand that distributed work is social impact infrastructure, not just an operational choice.
Remote and hybrid work opens economic participation to people excluded by geography, disability, caregiving responsibilities, or simply living in regions with limited local opportunity. When done well, it’s DEI in action - without needing to label it that way. The “return to office” backlash is closing doors that briefly opened. Companies citing “collaboration” and “culture” are often retreating to familiar patterns rather than building the leadership capabilities distributed work requires. The people who lose out aren’t executives - they’re the single parent who can’t do a 90-minute commute, the person with a chronic condition who thrives with flexibility, talented professional in a secondary city
My focus this year is helping leaders see that remote-readiness is a competitive advantage AND a social good - attracting diverse talent, reducing environmental impact, and building resilient organisations that don’t collapse when the next disruption hits.
Excellent point Jennifer, I well remember Unilever really struggling to communicate about the work that it was doing in Madagascar on vanilla as they felt “guilty” that it was being used in indulgent products such as Magnum and Ben & Jerry’s. Greenhushing is in many ways more dangerous than greenwashing as we don’t get to hear about some brilliant examples that we could learn from.
Fragmentation and fatigue. There’s a real risk of social impact being reduced to reporting, compliance, or isolated initiatives while shinking teams on the ground are stretched thin.
-Short-termism. Many organisations including philanthropic organisations want fast, visible results, even though the issues we’re tackling such as health systems, inequality, climate resilience demand long-term commitment.
-Shrinking trust. Communities, institutions, and even internal teams are more sceptical , in the case of non profit sector with the ongoing lay offs,trust now has to be re-earned continuously.
@Maggie, yes the fragmentation seems to be a perennial issue, not related to today’s challenging zeitgeist. Perhaps we can dig deeper on the true challenge of collaboration…
Second point I would make is that Desk-based “research” is being preferred to “on the ground” studies. As companies tighten their financial spending, more and more of them are reluctant to fund “boots on the ground” and are increasingly dependent on studies and reports conducted using desk-based research methods which are now being increasingly polluted by low quality AI tools. [I use AI myself but I am at pains to accuracy check its conclusions and observations against my own in-field experience]. If you are asked to do such work, do it and do it well, but always remind the organisations paying for the work that it is not the best value long-term solution compared to be being present locally and “feeling the need”.
In the face of discouragement; guiding actors in social impact creation to engage with debate in a meaningful way.
That is - in encouraging companies and investor to view opposition in politicization not as only threat – but instead as the next stage of the evolution of ESG mainstreaming.
The discussion on budget reductions and focus on internal repositioning/fundshifting at the development partners takes linger than expected and also seems to be a bit of a “downward spiral”. I prefer to focus on the challenges that are still the same as pre-ODA crisis i.e. social injustice, poverty and lack of opportunity for hundreds of millions of people. So trying to avoid the politicized discussion on where does the money come from but what needs to be done and how can we innovate is more fruitful. And partners often appreciate the shift to a more constructive narrative…
For investors, fantastic that non-financial reporting is mandatory at the larger end. In part what we’re seeing is that after the drive to get regulation and systems in place, is that…
… now we have large scale ESG reporting - but that doesn’t necessarily mean we like everything we see reported. The trick/challenge is responding appropriately and efficiently to the evidence. To make an impact.
**Building on Maya’s point about CONNECTING REMOTELY to make a difference.
Perhaps THE biggest opportunities are to act as coach and guide to local organisations operating closest to the source in the value chains that supply the multinational organisations.** I am finding myself doing a lot of work, often pro bono initially, to guide aspiring entrepreneurial companies in Africa, Asia and Latin America as to how they can start to tackle some of the key challenges that can lead to immediate positive impact on HREDD issues in their operating spheres of influence. [I find myself highlighting an offer taken up by a vanilla company in Uganda to “use me for free” to visit their operations, they paid travel & accommodation costs, and provide insights about satisfying end-market demands and improving their operations at the same time - my contribution to their sustainable sourcing programmes has earned them an additional $2m in sales already. I’m currently talking to companies in Brazil, India and Bulgaria about repeating the same exercise.]
Focus on the work, not the label. Talk about what your work actually is: risk mitigation, operational efficiency, stakeholder relationships, regulatory compliance. These aren’t political concepts. They’re business fundamentals. ESG, when done well, has always been about these things. The implication that we weren’t making the business case all along undermines us as a profession.
Small steps/always having something to talk about. The era of sweeping commitments is over. What resonates now is specificity: This is where we are, this is the data we have, this is what we’re working on. You connect those steps under an umbrella that authentically fits the business, and you build chapter by chapter. No silver bullet. No single press release that changes everything.
Transparency about trade-offs. I’ve been inspired by Patagonia’s recent reporting, acknowledging where they’re not meeting their own goals. That kind of honesty actually builds trust, but only if you’ve laid the groundwork first. You can’t start with “none of this is working.” You have to have tilled the soil and planted the seeds before you can harvest an authentic sustainability story.
Q2
A2
· Stephen Covey once observed, “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” It’s an important reminder, especially as social media seems to be driving a significant increase in personal and organisational “promotion.” “Back to the basics”, i.e. the fundamentals of communication, is useful. Know your audience, relate to them, listen (more than you talk/write/post/broadcast), and contribute to actual dialogue rather than a ping pong of talking points.
· There are A LOT of great resources on effective communication. One of my favourites is “Made to Stick” from Chip and Dan Heath. https://heathbrothers.com/books/made-to-stick/ . Their research into the six traits of “sticky” ideas (i.e., effective communication) and other insights and helpful advice and tools are indispensable, IMHO.
· A third “go to” that I think you’ll find useful in this context is the now legendary TED Talk by Ernesto Sirolli, “Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!”https://youtu.be/chXsLtHqfdM?si=1gfpqVezTJv6ODwm
I have to confess to never being a fan of TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms - I spent too long as a supplier to P&G and Unilever meaning I had a dynamic glossary of acronyms that meant the same thing but should never be interchanged!) to describe what is fundamentally treating people fairly and with respect. For me it has always been about building the right culture, and from an Organisational Development mindset this means BELIEFS, VALUES & BEHAVIOURS. In that sense when you focus on finding the BRIDGES and NOT the BARRIERS to connecting different cultures then you find ways in which you can harness shared understanding and create genuine win-win-win situations in which all can derive mutual benefit. I particularly liked Rachel’s “pragmatic not dogmatic” advice to making sure that connections work and lead to better collaboration for landscape-level impact.