The debate over ESG is louder than ever, but the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The global ESG investing market was valued at approximately $35 trillion in 2025 and is projected to surpass $42 trillion in 2026 Precedence Research, even as political resistance intensifies across major economies. Nearly 70% of surveyed industry respondents say they remain committed to sustainability's long-term future despite political headwinds US SIF, with investors increasingly demanding that ESG commitments be backed by data, governance rigour and measurable outcomes.

For Ukrainian businesses and boards, this global recalibration is not a distant conversation. As Ukraine moves toward reconstruction and deeper European integration, alignment with international sustainability standards is becoming a precondition for accessing capital and rebuilding credibility with foreign investors. This article brings together two practitioners who examine what that means in practice: Alina Sokolenko, a sustainability expert tracking how global capital markets are reorienting around long-term value, and Nina Dombrowska, board member and co-founder of Women on Boards Ukraine, whose governance perspective is shaped by the realities of operating in a wartime environment.

Although ESG is increasingly questioned in public debate, investor behaviour suggests not retreat, but a shift toward more rigorous and outcome-oriented sustainability practices. What is losing momentum is not sustainability itself, but an over-simplified and politicised interpretation of ESG that often struggled to connect environmental and social ambition with financial discipline. What is emerging instead is a more mature understanding of sustainability as a long-term value, resilience and risk framework.

As Alina Sokolenko explains, the backlash surrounding BlackRock reflects a broader ESG recalibration. As ESG visibility outpaced methodological rigour, sustainability was often communicated through labels and scores rather than demonstrable impacts on risk management and portfolio outcomes, fuelling scepticism about its implementation. This shift is now visible in investment decisions: Netherlands-based pension fund manager PME Pensioenfonds ended BlackRock’s equity mandate following an ESG-focused review, after PFZW withdrew approximately €14 billion as part of a move toward a more sustainability-driven investment policy. Taken together, these decisions signal not a retreat from sustainability, but rising expectations that ESG commitments translate into fiduciary discipline and measurable outcomes.

Board perspective by Nina Dombrowska: For boards, this shift confirms that ESG is no longer about positioning or communication. It is about governance quality, capital allocation and long-term risk oversight. If sustainability claims cannot be defended with data, controls and clear impact on performance and resilience, they will not survive serious investor scrutiny. In Ukraine, where resilience is a daily reality for companies, this also means boards must treat sustainability as part of business continuity and not as a separate agenda.

As Alina Sokolenko notes, this pattern is not confined to Europe. In China, ESG is moving rapidly from voluntary disclosure to mandatory compliance. In 2025, regulators shifted decisively from framework-building to implementation, embedding standardized sustainability reporting, expanded carbon markets and stricter monitoring into core corporate governance. ESG data is increasingly treated as management-grade, auditable information with direct cost and operational implications.

Board perspective by Nina Dombrowska: When sustainability data becomes auditable and affects costs, financing and operations, it becomes a core board responsibility, comparable to financial reporting or risk management. For Ukrainian companies, this is also about building credibility with international investors and partners in a high-risk environment.

Globally, as Alina Sokolenko writes, large asset owners are reassessing sustainability claims against real performance, governance quality and risk integration. Sustainability investing is being refocused on fundamentals rather than branding. Climate mitigation is increasingly complemented by adaptation, biodiversity protection and nature-based solutions. Supply-chain resilience, labour standards and governance quality are treated as integral to sustainable value creation, not as secondary considerations.

In practice, as Alina Sokolenko underlines, sustainability is no longer approached as a standalone overlay. It is being embedded into capital allocation, stewardship and engagement, with greater emphasis on real-economy outcomes such as emissions reduction, asset and community resilience, and responsible governance across value chains.

Board perspective by Nina Dombrowska: For boards, this means sustainability can no longer sit in a separate report or committee. Strategy, risk and capital allocation now have to be tested against climate, social and governance stress — especially in countries like Ukraine, where multiple shocks are already shaping business reality.

At the same time, as Alina Sokolenko points out, underlying sustainability risks are intensifying. The Global Risks Report 2026 identifies environmental risks — including extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and systemic changes to Earth systems — as dominant long-term threats. These risks are no longer abstract. They directly affect infrastructure resilience, food systems, insurance markets, labour productivity and public finances, shaping long-term investment performance. Crucially, the report identifies inequality as the most interconnected global risk. Climate impacts are unevenly distributed, and transition costs are not socially neutral. Sustainability strategies that overlook affordability, employment and regional disparities risk losing political and social legitimacy, ultimately undermining climate action itself. From a sustainability perspective, environmental and social objectives are inseparable.

Board perspective by Nina Dombrowska: For boards, especially in countries facing war and reconstruction, the social dimension of sustainability is inseparable from economic stability. Ignoring inequality or social impact is not only a reputational risk, but a strategic one as society is highly sensitive on the social implications of a lack of sustainability.

The contrast with the ESG backlash is instructive. As Alina Sokolenko explains, highly visible, politicised narratives created resistance. What is taking shape instead is a quieter but more durable model: less emphasis on labels, more focus on outcomes; fewer slogans, stronger governance. For banks, asset managers and policymakers, the implications are clear: climate risk and biodiversity loss are financial risks; social cohesion is essential to a just and durable transition; and governance quality determines whether sustainability commitments translate into real impact.

Finally, as Alina Sokolenko observes, a similar evolution is visible in the relationship between sustainability, security and defence. In the EU context, energy security, resilient infrastructure, critical raw materials and defence readiness are increasingly understood as sustainability issues. Defence and security investments that ignore climate risk, environmental limits, labour conditions or governance vulnerabilities are now recognised as strategic liabilities rather than assets. As geopolitics evolve, sustainability is expanding to encompass resilience, security and strategic autonomy — reinforcing its role not as a trend or communications strategy, but as a long-term operating condition for the global economy.

Board perspective by Nina Dombrowska: For boards, this confirms that resilience, security and sustainability are now one strategic agenda. Treating ESG as a side topic is no longer compatible with a board’s fiduciary duty or long-term value creation. In 2026, as Alina Sokolenko concludes, sustainability is no longer a narrative choice, but an operating condition for long-term economic resilience and investment performance.

Sustainability is increasingly a driver of long-term value creation, and, as this article argues, a precondition for the kind of governance quality that international investors now expect.

For Ukraine, that distinction matters. Access to reconstruction capital will depend not only on project pipelines and political stability, but on whether Ukrainian boards can demonstrate the rigour, transparency and long-term thinking that sustainable investment requires.