The backlash against ESG is growing louder. For some, sustainability has become synonymous with bureaucracy, cost and constraint. For others, it is portrayed as an obstacle to competitiveness. But this reaction says less about sustainability itself than about our collective discomfort with complexity and uncertainty.
Over the past decade, ESG gradually drifted away from its original purpose. It became more technical, more procedural, more focused on reporting than on decision-making. In many organisations, sustainability was treated as a compliance exercise rather than a strategic one. As a result, the conversation lost clarity and credibility.
This is unfortunate, because it distracts from what sustainable finance was always meant to address: how organisations remain competitive, resilient and profitable in a world of shocks.
From a resilience perspective, the real cost at stake today is not the cost of transition. It is the cost of inaction. We are operating in an environment shaped by geopolitical fragmentation, supply chain disruptions, technological dependency and increasing systemic risk. Volatility is no longer exceptional; it is structural. In this context, sustainability is not a moral add-on. It is a condition for long-term performance.
To understand this, we need to return to first principles.
Resilience is the ability to absorb shocks without collapsing.
Governance is the ability to anticipate risks and steer through uncertainty.
Sustainability is the ability to endure, adapt and remain relevant over time.
Seen through this lens, ESG is not about “doing good.” It is about building organisational capacity. Capacity to understand risks earlier. Capacity to allocate capital more effectively. Capacity to adapt faster than competitors when the environment changes.
When ESG is properly integrated into governance, it improves the quality of decision-making. It forces companies to look beyond short-term efficiency and examine the robustness of their business models. It pushes leadership teams to understand their value chains, secure critical inputs, invest in innovation and manage downside risk more seriously. Over time, this translates into lower volatility, greater strategic clarity and more stable performance.
Markets already reflect this reality. Investors may debate ESG labels and scores, but they consistently react to governance failures, operational discipline and unmanaged risk. Companies exposed to repeated safety incidents, supply chain breakdowns or strategic blind spots tend to suffer sustained value destruction. By contrast, organisations that demonstrate stronger risk management and governance resilience generally show more consistent long-term performance.
This is not ideology. It is a competitive discipline.
The idea that sustainability undermines competitiveness rests on a false dichotomy. The real trade-off is not between ESG and performance, but between short-term optimisation and long-term resilience. In an uncertain world, resilience is not a cost. It is a competitive advantage.
The transition is not a cost. It is a condition for future growth. Sustainable finance, when designed properly, helps align capital allocation with long-term value creation rather than short-term volatility.
Of course, this does not mean that everything done in the name of ESG is effective. Complexity has grown too fast. Overlapping requirements and poorly coordinated frameworks have created frustration. Simplification is necessary. Better guidance is necessary. More coherence is necessary.
But simplification should not be confused with deregulation.
The challenge is no longer to design the architecture, but to complete the infrastructure that turns rules into decisions, data into trust, and compliance into performance.
This is where Luxembourg matters. As a financial hub built on long-term capital and cross-border distribution, it sits at the intersection of capital, regulation and execution. Luxembourg has also proven its ability to preserve continuity and trust under stress, including during Covid.
For such ecosystems, the real debate is not ESG versus performance, but execution versus fragmentation. Simplification improves usability, speed and coherence. Deregulation, by contrast, creates uncertainty and weakens the trust on which global capital allocation depends.
Read more articles:
From Crisis to Action: Luxembourg Sustainability Forum 2025 Highlights
