Why diluting ESG language risks undermining our sustainability imperative

24 July 2025

Sustainability is at a crossroads. Across industries, there is increasing pressure to soften the language around ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), with some proposing alternatives like “resilience” or “adaptation.” This trend is backed up by a recent article in The Banker which raises concerns that ESG has become too politicised and “toxic” for some stakeholders to engage with openly.

However, this shift risks diluting the meaning of ESG and could undermine the progress required for a genuinely sustainable future.

The importance of clear ESG language in sustainability

ESG gives businesses a practical way to manage risk, spot new opportunities, and stay accountable for how they impact people and the planet. Stepping away from ESG language doesn’t make those challenges disappear, it just delays the action companies need to take to stay competitive in a world where sustainability is fast becoming a business essential.

While using “softer” terms might ease political tension for now, investors, customers, and regulators are asking for more clarity, not less. Swapping out “ESG” for words like “resilience” or “adaptation” may sound more neutral, but they don’t go far enough. Resilience is about bouncing back from damage, not preventing it. Adaptation can make climate change sound like something we can simply adjust to, which risks making urgent action feel less urgent. If businesses avoid direct ESG language, they also risk losing trust, and momentum, at a time when the stakes have never been higher.

Global ESG trends and regulatory expectations

Avoiding ESG terminology or terms like “climate change,” will not reverse these trends. On the contrary, companies risk losing access to important funding, customers, and talent if they do not keep up with the changing ESG expectations. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated.

Stakeholders expect honesty and measurable progress. Rebranding or diluting ESG efforts to avoid controversy does not build credibility. Businesses should instead focus their efforts on clear, transparent communication and education to show how ESG initiatives create real value.

Similarly, attempts to overextend ESG definitions, for example, by including unrelated sectors like defence projects under “social bonds”, may confuse stakeholders and weaken the impact of ESG frameworks. This practice, known as 'greenwashing', can mislead stakeholders and dilute the credibility of ESG efforts. Maintaining transparency is essential for building and keeping trust.

The bottom line? ESG is not a passing trend, but central to building resilient, responsible and future-ready businesses. While softening ESG language may provide temporary relief, it risks undermining the sustainability goals upon which we all depend.

At ESGmark®, we believe businesses must embrace ESG with courage, clarity, and commitment to thrive in a world where sustainability is no longer optional, but essential. Need advice on how your organisation can lead with transparent, impactful ESG communication? Get in touch.