Hanna, let’s start with the big question: Where are we in sustainability from your perspective?

That’s indeed a big question, and there aren’t any simple answers. I’d start by saying that we’re at a complex inflection point. Some describe it as a "backlash"—a slowdown in the development of ESG policies and a reduction in corporate ambition, and some rather argue that what is happening is a recalibration of the corporate sustainability domain. I think that both framings oversimplify what’s really happening.

We are living in a polycrisis: overlapping geopolitical tensions, lingering effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, climate-induced catastrophes, wars, genocide, and economic uncertainties, like recent threats of U.S. tariffs. These tensions don’t exist in a vacuum—they form significant parts of the challenges that we are addressing, and now the context in which sustainability is being tested.

The international landscape drives changes at national levels, and when major changes in trade and investment start to tell, this is quickly noticed in financing. Finance has been the sector driving changes in ESG policies in recent years, which means that when this powerful driver disengages, this is something that does not go unnoticed, neither in markets nor in policy. However, the regional differences need to be acknowledged; importantly, ESG investing has been different in Europe in comparison to the US. The so-called backlash in the US is part of a false and contagious narrative, since ESG investing was never big in the US. It was never big in Europe either, but it was certainly bigger than in the US.

So, what should corporates really be focusing on right now?

Many corporations still think about sustainability-related crises as creating risks that eventually will mobilize popular opinion and reshape politics. What should be much more debated are the financial risks and opportunities that exist for companies at the present time. Now.

Many companies work on their sustainability goals both in Europe and the US. Something that might not be common knowledge is that, according to the recent Reuters events report, sustainability reporting has become a standard practice for leading U.S. companies, with 99% of the top 100 now publishing reports, and 88% obtaining third-party assurance. Nearly half of these companies carry out materiality assessments, and 11% have adopted a double materiality approach. Additionally, 80% request Scope 3 emissions data from their suppliers. Internally, these efforts are even seen as value drivers, and 95% report reputational gains, and 74% link sustainability reporting directly to revenue growth.

How does this play out in the Norwegian context?

In the Norwegian market, it is also important to better translate which mega trends arise from where, and how they impact Norway in comparison to other countries. One of the most common practices we have noted from daily media coverage is that the shifts in corporate sustainability priorities have predominantly been focused on the US, while overlooking European dynamics. At the same time, the commitments under the EEA agreement are in full play, where we have seen both the largest Norwegian companies providing ambitious CSRD-compliant reporting, as well as adjusting to possible simplifications in the near future. The Omnibus proposals have made headlines because it has delayed the CSRD implementation timeline for medium-sized companies and include some significant simplifications.

This has disrupted ESG reporting, but one thing is clear: most companies are staying committed despite the uncertainty. They're adapting despite regulatory uncertainty, which for example shows in the Coolset Post-Omnibus Market Pulse Report; 90% of the companies surveyed plan to continue ESG reporting, viewing it as a strategic advantage rather than just compliance. Naturally, the voluntary sustainability reporting standard for non-listed micro, small and medium enterprises (VSME) gains momentum with CSRD no longer mandatory for many mid-sized companies;14% are shifting to voluntary reporting in line with the VSME as a structured alternative. 85% say voluntary ESG reporting remains important to investors, customers, and partners. The impact of the omnibus proposals is still unclear, and 46% are still evaluating how the changes will affect their reporting duties.

You talk about CSRD-inspired work—what’s your perspective?

CSRD-inspired work is the new normal for most European businesses, regardless of proposed omnibus simplifications. Why? Because we now have a new way of collecting, structuring, and reporting ESG data, and companies that see the omnibus changes as an excuse to pause their sustainability plans and ambitions, risk falling behind.

CSRD-inspired work could mean applying the EU VSME, but remember that the VSME standard will not automatically help fill data gaps – studies of voluntary reporting show that only companies with high stakeholder pressure are able to provide sufficient data. The reason is that voluntary reporting does not come with the same requirement for assurance, and without assurance, companies tend to underestimate emissions, according to a recent study from MIT.

What matters the most is that the process leading up to reporting helps businesses understand their value chains, identify material risks, and communicate in a more transparent and strategic way. The double materiality principle, which places the business model at the centre, remains a terrific starting point for companies that want to improve business acumen. I believe that companies that work systematically with CSRD and double materiality, regardless of specific reporting deadlines or technical changes, will be better equipped over time. These frameworks help companies see their business in a larger context. They provide tools and insights to better identify upcoming challenges and opportunities and help guide smart decisions in a complex landscape.

And even though formal obligations are delayed for smaller companies, large corporations have already started collecting ESG data from suppliers, amid some difficulties. So being ready early isn’t just about compliance—it can become a real competitive advantage.

So, beyond politics, what are some other factors companies need to consider when navigating sustainability today?

At ÆRA, we know that strategic business development doesn’t happen in a vacuum. While the ongoing shift in corporate sustainability practices is one factor companies need to acknowledge right now, de-risking in a planetary reality is also important, especially for companies and leaders with real sustainability ambitions.

That sounds complex. What exactly does “de-risking in a planetary reality” mean?

It is complex because the world we operate in has changed. Traditional risk management models are no longer sufficient. When we talk about de-risking in a planetary reality, we’re acknowledging that six out of nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed. That’s not just an environmental concern—it’s a deeply strategic issue.

Crossing these thresholds increases the risk of sudden, severe, and systemic disruptions—events that can affect operations, supply chains, access to capital, and market relevance. In this context, de-risking isn't just about managing financial exposure or regulatory compliance; it’s about embedding planetary health into the core of business strategy. If companies are still making decisions based on yesterday’s risks, they’re leaving themselves vulnerable to tomorrow’s shocks.

And in this more uncertain landscape, where do you see the opportunities?

This is exactly where ÆRA finds its energy. We’re deeply focused on opportunity and innovation, and we see this moment as a chance for forward-thinking companies to pull ahead.

When market leaders on sustainability and ESG performance shift their course, their leadership positions suddenly become open for others to claim. This is an often-overlooked opportunity in the broader conversation on corporate sustainability, and it deserves more attention.

It’s an opportunity for companies to reaffirm their ongoing commitment to sustainability.
An opportunity to showcase the corporate culture and values that truly define them.
An opportunity to explore new commercial possibilities.
An opportunity to continue driving meaningful actions that demonstrate real progress.
And an opportunity to signal to key stakeholders that their allyship and dedication will persist.

The conversation has moved beyond mere compliance.
It’s now about principles and authenticity.
Clients and consumers remain loyal to brands that live their values.
Corporate sustainability is very much alive.