A striking divergence is emerging in the global corporate landscape. According to The Conference Board’s 2026 C-Suite Outlook survey, 38% of US CEOs now say sustainability-focused investments are not a priority this year – nearly double the 20% global average. This marks a dramatic shift from 2025, when 39.3% of global executives named sustainability as the external ESG factor most affecting their business.
What’s driving this recalibration? And more importantly, what does it mean for practitioners navigating climate reporting and sustainability assurance?
Deep Dive: Understanding the Shift
The Numbers Tell a Story
The Conference Board surveyed over 1,700 executives, including 750+ CEOs across North America, Europe, and Asia. The findings reveal a polarized executive landscape:
- US CEOs are twice as likely to de-prioritize sustainability compared to global peers
- Top sustainability priorities for those still engaged: circular economy/waste reduction (17.4%) and sustainable use of key inputs like water and energy (16%)
- Social priorities (working conditions, gender equality, human rights) ranked relatively low globally
- AI emerged as the #1 concern (30.3%), while climate events ranked third among goods/services sector leaders
What’s Behind the US Pullback?
Andrew Jones, Principal Researcher at The Conference Board, attributes this to three factors:
- Regulatory uncertainty – The shifting federal policy landscape has created compliance confusion
- Political and legal scrutiny of ESG – Anti-ESG legislation and shareholder activism are forcing defensive postures
- Slower energy transition momentum – Infrastructure and investment challenges are tempering ambitions
The European Contrast
While US executives retreat, European counterparts are embedding sustainability into core business operations. This isn’t just rhetorical – the CSRD mandates and EU Taxonomy requirements are making sustainability reporting a baseline operational requirement, not a discretionary initiative.
Practical Takeaway
For assurance providers and sustainability practitioners, this divergence signals several strategic imperatives:
1. Reframe the Value Proposition
Jones notes CEOs are “prioritizing initiatives that directly improve cost efficiency, operational resilience, and supply chain stability, rather than broad or reputational ESG commitments.”
Translation for practitioners: Connect every sustainability metric to operational value. Scope 1 & 2 emissions reduction? Frame it as energy cost management. Supply chain due diligence? Position it as risk mitigation.
2. Anticipate Regulatory Convergence
The UK FCA’s current consultation (closing March 20, 2026) proposes mandatory climate disclosures mirroring TCFD scope, with implementation targeted for January 2027. Whether US executives like it or not, global reporting standards are converging. Companies with international exposure will need assurance-ready data regardless of domestic political winds.
3. Watch the Carbon Market Bridge
As voluntary and compliance carbon markets converge (Japan’s GX-ETS launches in 2026), institutional-grade carbon accounting becomes essential. This creates natural demand for third-party assurance even among reluctant US firms with global trading partners.
4. Quality Over Quantity
The era of sprawling ESG reports may be ending. Focus assurance engagements on material metrics with clear audit trails. CEOs want targeted initiatives with demonstrable ROI – give them assurable data that supports that narrative.
The Bigger Picture
Environmental sustainability hasn’t disappeared from CEO agendas – it has become “more selective and economically grounded.” This isn’t necessarily bad news for the profession. Selective, economically-grounded sustainability claims demand rigorous assurance.
The question for 2026 isn’t whether sustainability matters, but which sustainability metrics will survive executive scrutiny – and whether your assurance practice is positioned to validate them.
