For the UK Government, hitting net zero emissions by 2050 is a legal duty as much as it is a political commitment. The same holds true internationally, with many countries enshrining climate targets into law or formal policy, reflecting a global consensus on the urgency of climate action.

In the private sector, many companies have over the past decade proactively aligned their strategies with net zero goals, investing in renewable energy and adopting sustainable practices.

However, despite a clear legal and environmental imperative, political backlash from populists on the right against the net zero agenda has taken shape in recent years. This is perhaps most evident in the United States, where the Trump administration’s actions and rhetoric on climate action has led to companies, such as Walmart, Siemens and Apple, adjusting their communications and policies around sustainability, and distancing themselves from climate related initiatives.

Businesses and private sector actors and must be vigilant to the implications of this trend, being both reputational and legal. Companies must balance political pressures, while maintaining commitments to meet compliance standards; failure of which may result in litigation, regulatory penalties, or loss of investor confidence and consumer support. Notwithstanding, the politicisation of climate policy and action does not negate legal obligations or the market and social drivers pushing for decarbonisation.

Reporting duties for companies and reputational risk

Companies today face obligations to report not only on financial performance but also on non-financial information, particularly relating to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. This includes detailed disclosures about climate-related risks, sustainability initiatives, and how these are integrated into their overall strategy. Failure to report such information accurately – or being perceived to mislead investors or the public – can lead to significant legal and reputational consequences.

The introduction of global reporting frameworks, such as those developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), have worked towards standardising expectations across jurisdictions. The ISSB’s aim is to establish a comprehensive baseline of sustainability-related disclosure standards, enabling increasingly consistent and comparable information for global investors.

For multinational corporations, this creates complexity which must be navigated with care. Each jurisdiction presents a distinct set of legal, political, and societal pressures, meaning that language and actions on sustainability may be interpreted very differently across borders. Companies must therefore tailor their communication and compliance strategies carefully, remaining aware of how their messaging lands in a diverse set of geographies.

These pressures demand that businesses adopt transparent and adaptable strategies and communications to their diverse set of stakeholders. A one-size-fits-all approach no longer suffices. To maintain credibility and comply with evolving standards, firms must embed sustainability deeply into their governance, risk management, and corporate reporting structures.

Conclusion

Companies cannot afford to be passive. The evolving landscape of sustainability reporting, stakeholder expectations and political pressures means that transparency, consistency, and authenticity in communication are more important than ever.

Brand reputation, access to procurement opportunities, and the ability to attract and retain top talent are all at stake. As regulatory frameworks tighten and societal scrutiny intensifies, businesses must not only meet compliance obligations but also demonstrate genuine commitment to climate goals across the geographies in which they operate. In a world where perceptions can shape outcomes as much as performance, how a company talks about – and acts on – sustainability is no longer just a PR concern, but a core aspect of long-term strategic resilience and commercial success.