Backlash Spurs ESG Strategy Shift at Major Corporations
- Tharindu Ameresekere
- Jun 27
- 2 min read

Amid mounting backlash and shifting U.S. policy under President Donald Trump’s administration, 80% of large U.S. and multinational companies have adjusted their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies in 2025, according to a new report by The Conference Board. The report, based on a survey of 125 ESG executives, reveals widespread concern over the deceleration of corporate decarbonization and energy transition efforts.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents believe U.S. policy changes—such as the prioritization of fossil fuel infrastructure and the rollback of Environmental Protection Agency oversight—will slow down decarbonization. Furthermore, 82% said the domestic energy transition has lost momentum.
In response, companies are refining their sustainability communications to better emphasize business impacts and expanding legal oversight of ESG initiatives. Demonstrating the financial value of sustainability and even rebranding ESG have emerged as key responses to stakeholder criticism. Only 8% of surveyed firms said they were doubling down on ESG goals.

Backlash—mostly from advocacy groups and policymakers—was reported by 65% of companies, and 90% expect such resistance to persist or grow, especially around climate goals and transition plans. Regulatory inconsistencies between federal, state, and international ESG rules are the top concern, flagged by 49% of executives.
Despite domestic headwinds, global momentum continues. A March PwC report showed 4,000 companies (mainly in Asia and Europe) disclosed climate commitments in 2024, with 37% raising their ambitions. These firms expect over a third of revenue to come from climate-related products and services by 2030.
To navigate future uncertainties, the Conference Board recommends firms incorporate tariff risks into ESG planning and closely track international regulatory trends, particularly in the EU, UK, and Canada—jurisdictions likely to shape future global standards.




Comments