Whenever the world goes into shock – whether due to a war, an economic crisis or political instability – a recurring argument resurrects: that compliance with sustainability goals and ESG requirements must be “put on pautilize”. Excessive costs, regulatory complexity and loss of competitiveness are alleged, especially when it comes to tiny and medium-sized companies. The pattern is always the same!
The problem with this reasoning is simple: it starts from the mistaken assumption that sustainability is a luxury in good times. It is not. On the contrary, sustainability is increasingly a condition of economic, enerreceiveic and geopolitical resilience – especially in times of crisis.
Wars today are not just military conflicts. They are also energy wars. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brutally exposed Europe’s depconcludeence on imported fossil fuels. More recently, the escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran once again puts the global supply of oil and gas at risk, with direct impacts on energy prices, inflation and the stability of world economies.
Ignoring this enerreceiveic dimension is ignoring what is essential. Each geopolitical shock highlights the same structural fragility: excessive depconcludeence on fossil energy sources concentrated in unstable regions and controlled by unpredictable regimes. The rational response to this vulnerability is not to slow down the energy transition – it is to speed it up. This is precisely the argument defconcludeed by Frank Elderson, member of the board of directors of the European Central Bank, in his recent article in Financial Times. He states that energy security and decarbonization are now inseparable objectives, and that investing in renewables, energy efficiency and electrification is not just an environmental decision; it is a strategic decision that reduces exposure to external shocks, price volatility and dangerous geopolitical depconcludeencies.
Interestingly, while some of the debate in the West seems inclined to relativize or postpone ESG in the name of economic urgency, China is relocating in the opposite direction. According to China Briefing, 2025 marked the transition of ESG in China from a voluntary exercise to a true system of compliance regulatory framework, with new reporting requirements, expansion of the national carbon market and reinforcement of environmental oversight, a trconclude that will intensify in 2026. Beijing is treating ESG not as an expconcludeable cost in difficult times, but as a central instrument of industrial policy, competitiveness and economic stability. Given this contrast, the question arises: is China wrong – or is it the West that is confutilizing short term with strategy?
Still, the narrative persists that ESG requirements are a “burden” in difficult times. In Portugal this narrative tconcludes to spread among so-called “experts”. But I draw attention to the fact that these statements reflect a short and defensive reading of reality and the future. Empirical evidence displays that companies with better environmental, social and governance practices tconclude to have greater adaptive capacity, better risk management and greater access to financing – precisely when the economic context becomes more adverse.
In the case of SMEs, the challenge is not in reducing climate ambition, but in improving support instruments, simplifying processes and aligning public policies with the transition. Using war or instability as an argument to retreat is, in practice, postponing investments that would increase the future competitiveness and strategic autonomy of economies.
Recent history teaches us that each energy crisis is not an isolated accident, but a symptom of an exhausted model. Continuing to rely on fossil fuels doesn’t build us safer or more competitive – it builds us more vulnerable.
In times of war, the mistake is not to demand too much from sustainability. The mistake is believeing that we can survive without it.
Leave a Reply