The recent open class with John Elkington and several Portuguese business leaders, organized by the Center for Responsible Business and Leadership at Católica-Lisbon SBE, left an impression that is difficult to reduce to consensus. More than alignment around sustainability, it conveyed the sense that the topic has entered a more demanding and less linear phase, in which the system’s contradictions are becoming more visible than its solutions.
For years, the business debate was organized around the idea of creating economic, social, and environmental value, summarized in Elkington’s triple bottom line — a performance assessment framework based on the dimensions of “People, Planet, and Profit.” However, what should have evolved into a consistent decision-making architecture was, in many cases, absorbed through fragmented ESG metrics. The current critique, voiced by the author himself, is not aimed so much at the original concept, but rather at its translation into management language, often without strategic coherence.
It is in this context that Elkington’s reading of a phase of ESG “correction” gains relevance. The backlash against sustainability should not be seen only as fatigue or political regression, but as a sign that the phase of simplification has ended. The transition from a logic of “soft sustainability” to one of “hard sustainability” — focused on security, resilience, and sovereignty — reflects this shift: sustainability is no longer a voluntary framework and has begun to incorporate systemic risks and real constraints on operations.
This change became evident during the roundtable with the CEOs of Galp, Fidelidade, and Brisa. In the energy sector, sustainability materializes as a permanent trilemma between security, affordability, and decarbonization, where investment decisions are increasingly inseparable from geopolitical and sustainability factors. In the insurance sector, climate risk has ceased to be abstract and now directly influences pricing models and behavior. In infrastructure, sustainability depends on long-term horizons and alignment among capital, regulation, and execution — a balance that is often unstable.
Despite its growing centrality, a structural tension remains between the sophistication of the discourse and the capacity for execution. Sustainability is integrated into strategies, indicators, and reporting, but it continues to depend on divided governance structures and short-term incentives. It is in this gap that its ambiguity becomes clear: sustainability is both central and still limited in its institutionalization.
The meeting therefore leaves one relatively clear idea: sustainability cannot, and is not, being treated as a stand-alone agenda, but rather as a contextual condition for economic activity — and, in many cases, as a critical factor for operational continuity and market access. This is precisely what turns it into a competitive lever — or a condition for survival. The transition underway is not time-neutral: if it is delayed or carried out incompletely, it will become more expensive, more abrupt, and potentially more disruptive, possibly compromising the viability of companies unable to adjust their business models to this new context.
Matilde Campos da Cruz, Research Fellow - Center for Responsible Business and Leadership - Católica-Lisbon SBE