Trellis Suggests CEOs are Changing their Climate Strategies

Firms with revenues more than US$1bn are redefining sustainability programmes through the lens of operational efficiency and financial returns rather than public commitments. Investment patterns show that environmental initiatives are being evaluated against the same business case criteria as other capital allocations.

Trellis Group published its State of the Sustainability Profession 2026 report following a survey of more than 500 sustainability professionals at companies with revenues of more than US$1bn. According to the Trellis survey, 46% of firms increased sustainability headcount and budgets over the last two years.

Energy management, technology investments, supply chain operations and manufacturing efficiency are absorbing sustainability functions as organisations seek to balance environmental objectives with financial performance metrics.

Energy efficiency reduces costs

Firms are framing energy-related sustainability programmes around cost reduction and operational resilience rather than climate positioning. Many organisations prioritise projects that deliver emissions reductions alongside lower operating expenses, particularly as tariffs, inflation and ROI scrutiny intensify.

A sustainability director at a US technology company explained that while staff cuts were made to reinvest in AI, the company still needed "substantial investments in solar, building electrification and EV charging" because emissions continued to rise. The statement demonstrates how energy infrastructure spending persists even during workforce optimisation periods.

According to the Trellis data, 44% of organisations said leaders now place a higher priority on making the business case for sustainability, while 41% increased focus on climate risk management. Companies continue to pursue sustainability initiatives directly tied to energy savings and business continuity.

Organisations are becoming more cautious in external communications about these initiatives. Several respondents noted that terms such as carbon reduction are increasingly replaced with phrases like energy savings and asset protection to avoid political backlash while still advancing sustainability goals.

According to the Trellis survey, 63% of companies have scaled back sustainability communications or rethought how they talk about the topic. This indicates that communications strategies are being recalibrated to minimise regulatory and political risk.

"As we publish the ninth biennial Trellis State of Sustainability Profession report, we find ourselves in a much-changed world," says John Davies, President of Networks at Trellis Group, in the report. "We are operating in a highly volatile and uncertain political and economic landscape."

"Regulatory requirements are in flux and inevitably the sustainability job is too," says John. "As sustainability moves to the mainstream from the margins, the rules also change."

Of companies that have announced sustainability targets, 57% say they have maintained them, 24% have strengthened them and 16% have either weakened or abandoned them.

Automation increases productivity

Technology adoption is accelerating as sustainability performance requirements persist while budgets and staffing growth slow. Although sustainability investment remains substantial, expansion has weakened compared with previous years.

"Trellis Group's State of the Profession 2026 is the oldest and most established study of its kind, with the survey attracting more than 1,000 respondents, more than 500 of whom are in qualified corporate sustainability positions at companies with revenue more than US$1bn," writes Grant Harrison, VP Sustainable Finance and ESG at Trellis Group and Executive Director of Trellis Impact, on LinkedIn.

In 2024, 74% of companies increased sustainability staffing, but by 2026 only 50% reported adding employees, while 26% reduced headcount. To compensate, companies are increasingly turning to automation and digital systems.

A Vice President of sustainability at a US building supply company reported that customer requests for sustainability data had "increased dramatically," leading the company to prioritise "productivity via automation" instead of continuously expanding teams. This shows that customer demand for environmental data is outpacing internal resource availability.

Compliance technology is also becoming more important as reporting obligations grow. More than half of companies, 52%, said they are now investing more time and money into sustainability reporting than they did two years ago, 36% are investing the same and 12% have reduced resources.

"Sustainability is moving from the aspirational to the operational - less focused on bold announcements, more execution," writes Anna Timme, Global Vice President Sustainability, Data Centre Business and Schneider Electric. "The companies winning right now are the ones that always knew clean energy and decarbonisation were not trends."

"They are infrastructure. They are long-term bets on how the world must be built," writes Anna. Many organisations are building sustainability data systems and adding specialised compliance roles, including positions focused on third-party assurance and sustainability data control.

Supply chain integration grows

Sustainability responsibilities are shifting away from centralised corporate teams and into operational departments such as procurement, manufacturing and logistics. According to Trellis data, only 47% of professionals believe corporate sustainability offers a more attractive career path over the next five to 10 years.

Larger companies in particular are embedding sustainability expertise directly into supply chain functions, where environmental performance can influence sourcing costs, resilience and regulatory compliance. Among organisations with more than 10,000 employees, 53% embedded sustainability staff within supply chain and procurement teams, while 38% placed sustainability personnel in manufacturing, operations or facilities.

"Our report this year identifies a significant decline in support from CEOs for sustainability programs," says John in the report. "That should not necessarily surprise anyone as tariffs, supply chain disruptions, DEI attacks and letters from attorneys general take up a lot of headspace."

"All of this can make the day-to-day work of sustainability disheartening," says John. This operational shift reflects a broader transformation in how businesses approach sustainability.

Rather than focusing primarily on aspirational goals, companies are concentrating on measurable improvements across production and value chains. One Australian travel company described the current period as a recalibration designed to ensure sustainability programmes are grounded in both impact and commercial relevance.

Another executive explained that sustainability projects now survive only when they deliver both environmental and financial benefits. At the same time, supply chains remain vulnerable to political and economic disruption.

Respondents cited tariffs, shifting regulations and pressure from government agencies as factors influencing sustainability decisions. Still, many companies continue integrating sustainability into sourcing and manufacturing because of its connection to operational efficiency, risk management and long-term resilience.

Even with one third of companies cutting sustainability budgets, 44% still increased spending, demonstrating that many organisations continue to see sustainability as a core business function rather than a temporary initiative. This suggests that budget allocation patterns vary based on sector, revenue performance and regulatory exposure.