Introduction & survey methodology

This report is based on a survey of 844 sustainability experts across 72 countries, most with over 10 years’ experience. It identifies a pivotal moment in the sustainability agenda. Over 90% of respondents believe current approaches require revision, with more than half calling for a radical overhaul. Trust in institutions such as NGOs, the UN, and multi-sector partnerships has declined, while academic institutions are increasingly seen as credible.

The state of the sustainability agenda – Fit for purpose?

Most experts believe the current sustainability approach is inadequate: 56% support radical revision and 37% favour moderate changes, with fewer than 10% endorsing the status quo. Half rate global progress as poor, and only 5% as excellent.

Backlash is increasing, with 70% reporting significant resistance to sustainability agendas in 2025, up from 57% in 2024, particularly in North America. Experts also view political and economic shocks as a threat rather than an opportunity. Governments, institutional investors, and the private sector are rated poorly in contributing to progress, while research organisations and NGOs are viewed more positively.

Confidence in civil society and global frameworks such as the SDGs and Paris Agreement is declining. Regional differences persist, with more optimism in Asia-Pacific and Latin America. Overall, the agenda is seen as failing to deliver sufficient progress, necessitating structural change.

What should we do? Assessing potential impact vs. feasibility of different levers of change

The report evaluates 64 actions across government, finance, corporate, and civil society domains, prioritising those with high impact and feasibility.

Key government actions include carbon pricing and urban planning, which are considered both impactful and implementable, while subsidies and wealth redistribution offer high impact but face feasibility constraints.

In finance, green bonds, ESG integration, impact investing, and central bank actions on climate risk are identified as critical levers. However, integrating natural and social capital into accounting systems is seen as impactful but difficult to scale.

Corporate actions with strong potential include integrating sustainability into business strategy, investing in R&D, advancing circular economy practices, and improving supply chain performance. Voluntary reporting and certifications are seen as lower impact.

Civil society contributions such as policy advocacy, education, media scrutiny, and consumer behaviour change are considered both impactful and feasible, whereas judicial action and systemic reforms face implementation challenges. Overall, the report emphasises aligning efforts towards scalable, high-impact initiatives across sectors.

Different schools of thought – A segmentation of the global sustainability community

The analysis identifies four groups: Traditionalists (42%), Institutionalists (9%), Pathfinders (23%), and Radicals (26%). While all groups support revising the sustainability agenda, they differ in approach.

Traditionalists favour incremental improvements and established frameworks. Institutionalists prioritise regulatory and accountability-based solutions. Pathfinders advocate pragmatic, market-driven approaches such as sustainable finance and cross-sector collaboration. Radicals call for systemic change, including wealth redistribution, carbon pricing, and stronger civil society action.

These groups reflect differing regional and sectoral perspectives, with incumbents favouring gradual change and insurgents pushing for rapid transformation. Despite differences, alignment across these perspectives is seen as essential to achieving a global sustainability transition.