Is There Value in ESG in 2026?

Is there value in ESG in 2026? It’s all been a political hot topic to the point of being taboo in some circles, and the media-centric theme is that the tables have turned for ESG after years of being front and centre in many corporate strategies. But does the money match the rhetoric?

In many circles (particularly the US), the debate over Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has devolved into a political flashpoint. The Anti-ESG movement criticises it as “woke”, “restrictive” and contrary to basic investment goals. 

It’s no surprise that the fair and urgent question has arisen in response: Is there value in ESG at the moment, and how have future projections changed given the growing hostility?

The simple answer is yes, there is value. It was always there, it’s there now, and it will remain. The language around ESG is what may be undergoing a fundamental change, but that’s motivated in large part by US politics, and is concentrated there. In other words, while it may be loud in the news, it’s not sufficient to derail a worldwide movement now deeply embedded in corporate governance, global regulation, and core business strategy.

Understanding the value of ESG in 2026 and beyond is a little trickier than previous time periods because we’ve entered a huge era of uncertainty. For ESG, the clear boundary was when Donald Trump took the reins of the world’s most powerful economy and embarked on an anti-ESG platform that’s been echoed by his political allies and news networks that remain fixed on the fast, polarised nature of US politics. 

Since Trump took office, some of the major sources, like Bloomberg Intelligence and Forbes, have not yet published revised figures for the current and projected value of ESG assets worldwide. However: 

• Pre-Trump estimates from these sources indicated that this figure would reach around $40 trillion by 2030.
• Post-Trump research from the same organisation indicates the value of worldwide ESG assets under management is still expected to grow in the next two years.
• On a day-to-day level, any impact of the anti-ESG movement is limited to adaptation, rather than a complete abandonment of ESG altogether.

So, in summary, ESG still accounts for tens of trillions in worldwide assets. While there might be regional, reactionary fluctuations in this figure, those trillions don’t appear to be going anywhere.

ESG may be a touchy subject in the United States and foreign bodies that are tied to US government funding policy, but that’s where the backlash reaches its limit. 

Beyond it, ESG integration continues to accelerate. 

There are two big points in the ESG debate that we can’t ignore when analysing the backlash: 

1. There is an enduring worldwide belief in ESG-related assets as creators of long-term value. In other words, despite the noise and avoidance, many investors remain of the belief that they’ll get healthy returns. A 2025 BNP Paribas survey, targeting the firms in command of much of the currently $30-35 trillion, has found that 87% say their ESG and sustainability objectives remain unchanged, while 84% believe the pace of progress of sustainability is either going to continue or accelerate between now and 2030.
2. The US is becoming a political outlier. Other major economic players like the European Union and various Middle Eastern nations are moving in the complete opposite direction with new regulations. Take CSRD as an example – landmark EU legislation expected to enhance reporting standards dramatically. It is having teething issues, but there is general agreement among stakeholders across the political spectrum in Europe that more transparency around ESG is crucial in the years ahead. These kinds of regulations keep ESG centre stage for thousands of companies, many of them headquartered beyond Europe’s borders – an example of the so-called “Brussels effect”, where big firms apply EU regulations to their worldwide operations because the alternative is to abandon a market they can’t afford to leave.

In some circles, ESG is getting huge criticism. When we compare that backlash to the continuing global currents of investment, a gulf emerges between the rhetoric and the money.

The bottom line is that investors caught in this gulf have a few options at their disposal:

• Re-adjust their strategies and divest from ESG-related assets. Multiple statistics have reported this on varying scales, but the value of such divestments doesn’t come close to the trillions of ESG assets that are estimated to be worth worldwide. 
• Re-adjust their strategies to pursue ESG investments in another way. It’s the “what’s in a name” approach. Companies can still pursue the same principles even if they fear that the actual term “ESG” is more bother than it’s worth. 
• Stay quiet. “Hushing” is a more popular trend for businesses and investors. It means keeping silent on big policy decisions because speaking out will inevitably attract unwanted criticism from somewhere.

The short answer is yes. The main reason is that the tide is far too big for the current political backlash to change. That may change in the future, but with demonstrable value and new regulations in regions like Europe and the Middle East enforcing ESG principles, the backlash just doesn’t seem like it will hold up long term, in its current form.