Global instability isn't a distraction from sustainability work. It is the work

Reuters

5 days ago

June 18 - As sustainability teams prepare for London Climate Action Week and eye New York's summit in September, a sobering question looms: will the international order even hold long enough to support a meaningful sustainability agenda? With wars, political assassinations, attacks on science and rising inequality and authoritarianism, global instability is escalating.
But this is not a distraction from our work. It is our work. Sustainability has never only been about goals, metrics or technologies. It's about people – about protecting lives, livelihoods, rights and opportunity on a finite, fragile planet. If we ignore rising threats to life, freedom and justice, we are part of the problem.
And yet the path forward isn't neat or certain. Many of us are asking: How do we lead in this moment? When the ground is shifting beneath us, what still holds?
As we argue in our recent report, Competing in the Age of Disruption, there are no perfect answers. But here are some of the most important questions that we need to engage with, both individually and collectively, right now:
When and how should we speak up?
Many of us are part of institutions with influence. In moments of crisis, using that voice matters – thoughtfully, and where it carries legitimacy and weight.
Professionals of all kinds have a duty to stand up for truth and reason in public life. As historian Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny, 'to abandon facts is to abandon freedom'. That abandonment is already well underway in some jurisdictions.
But knowing when and how to speak up is not always straightforward. Silence can be complicity, but speaking without listening – or without credibility – can do harm. We are grappling with where our voices matter most, and how to speak in ways that build trust, not division.
How do we build coalitions in a broken world?
Geopolitical instability and democratic backsliding affect every effort to build a fairer, more resilient future. Many of the alliances we've relied on are under strain. Political divisions, mistrust and economic precarity make collaboration harder but also more urgent. We can't wait for consensus or calm to return, we need to engage now with the realities of shifting power, contested legitimacy and emerging centres of influence.
That means working with those who are already shaping what comes next – not just defending what's being lost. Coalitions of consequence are forming where capability, legitimacy and intent align to drive meaningful change.
These include mayors and city blocs reshaping infrastructure and inclusion; middle and emerging powers investing in green industrial growth and holding the line on multilateralism; cross-sector alliances building the sustainable industries of the future. What's our role in helping these new coalitions gain traction, legitimacy and practical impact in a fractured world?
Can we stay with the messiness – without burning out or giving in?
Systemic change is happening, and not always in ways that serve people or planet. Progress is never clean or uncontested. There is no end state, no single breakthrough, no moment when the battle is 'won', just a series of choices: to act or stay silent, to protect gains or make tactical compromises. Some messiness is unavoidable, but not all of it. Part of the work is knowing when to sit with complexity, and when to cut through noise, clarify direction and let go of what's no longer working.
That constant negotiation takes a toll. The exhaustion comes not only from the scale of the task, but from navigating tough choices and moral grey zones day after day.
But we know the long arc of history does not bend toward justice on its own. It bends because people pull it, counter-acting those that are pulling in the opposite direction. The work is to stay in the fight – not with illusions of perfection, but with a refusal to give up on what's possible.
How do we navigate the battle for meaning and trust?
The fight over sustainability was never just a technology or policy debate - it's a contest over meaning and values: who defines progress, who gets blamed, and what futures are seen as desirable.
The contest won't be won with facts alone. We are up against powerful, coordinated forces - strategic disinformation campaigns, manufactured cynicism, populist manipulation. We need narratives that resonate - on progress, fairness, security, opportunity and belonging.
Institutions – including businesses – also have a vital role to play, protecting access to evidence, fostering public trust and keeping space open for inclusive, democratic dialogue.
Moral purity can't be a prerequisite for action. Institutions carry history. The same systems and countries that once upheld exploitation also nurtured the movements that fought back. What matters now is how those in power respond to today's defining challenges.
What does leadership look like when the answers aren't clear?
We are learning, often uncomfortably, that leadership in this moment involves difficult trade-offs and carries the risk of backlash, being misunderstood, even damaging the causes we care about. In such situations, institutions often default to caution, but caution alone will not meet this moment.
We need to act with integrity, stay open and thoughtful, and try bold things without being paralysed by fear of saying the wrong thing or choosing the imperfect path.
It's understandable to fear for our futures and those of our children, but we should try to make that fear a source of resolve, not retreat.
And we must hold on to the possibility of success – not as naive hope, but as a reasoned belief that change is still achievable. It's a time to connect, adapt, act – and to hold fast to the values and principles that brought many of us into this work in the first place.