The centre of gravity in corporate sustainability is beginning to move.
Asia-Pacific, China and the European Union are expected to shape more of the global sustainability agenda over the next three years, while the influence of the United States may weaken.
That does not mean one region is simply replacing another. The picture is becoming more scattered. Clean technology manufacturing, supply chains, regulation and local market pressure are pulling corporate strategies in several directions at once.
The findings come from the State of Sustainable Business 2026 report by GlobeScan and BSR. The research surveyed 124 senior sustainability professionals working at companies with annual revenues above $1 billion. Responses were collected between April 14 and May 15, 2026.
Asia-Pacific Is Becoming More Influential
Around 62% of respondents expect Asia-Pacific’s influence on sustainability to increase during the next three years.
There are practical reasons for that rise. The region sits at the heart of global manufacturing, renewable energy equipment, battery production and major supply chains. Companies cannot build serious climate or sourcing strategies without dealing with what is happening across Asian markets.
The shift is also about execution. Europe may write many of the rules, but Asia increasingly manufactures the equipment, processes the materials and operates the supply chains needed to meet them.
GlobeScan said the findings point to a more geographically distributed sustainability landscape rather than the emergence of a single new global centre.
China and Europe Will Continue Setting the Pace
China remains difficult to separate from the global clean energy transition.
Its position across solar manufacturing, batteries, electric vehicles and critical mineral processing gives it considerable influence over the price and availability of low-carbon technologies.
The European Union holds a different kind of power. Its reporting rules, supply chain requirements and environmental regulations often affect businesses far beyond Europe. Multinational companies may apply European standards across wider operations rather than create separate systems for every market.
Together, China and the EU are shaping both sides of corporate sustainability: the industrial systems needed to deliver it and the regulatory frameworks used to measure it.
US Sustainability Influence Faces Pressure
The United States appears to be heading in the opposite direction.
About 43% of sustainability professionals surveyed expect US influence on the global agenda to decline over the next three years. Only 23% expect it to increase.
Political division is part of the problem. Sustainability policies vary sharply between states, while corporate environmental and social programmes have faced growing legal and political scrutiny.
For multinational businesses, that creates an awkward operating environment. A strategy encouraged in one state may attract resistance in another.
The US will remain a major source of capital, technology and corporate decision-making. Its ability to provide a consistent sustainability direction, however, looks less certain.
Regulation Now Drives Corporate Sustainability
Corporate sustainability was once sold heavily through ambition, reputation and long-term opportunity. Compliance is now doing more of the pushing.
Regulation was identified as a leading driver by 76% of respondents, compared with 31% in 2016. Consumer and customer demand also rose, from 21% to 44%, while market growth became a less prominent motivation.
That changes how sustainability teams work.
More time is being spent on disclosure requirements, legal exposure, supply chain documentation and risk controls. The work has become closer to finance, legal and compliance. Less visionary, perhaps, but much harder for companies to ignore.
Sustainability Teams and Executives See Different Priorities
Inside companies, there is still a wide gap between sustainability professionals and senior executives.
About 77% of sustainability leaders see the issue as a core driver of long-term business strategy. Only 39% believe senior leadership teams share that view. Executives are more likely to treat sustainability as a compliance or risk-management matter.
That disconnect matters when budgets are approved.
Sustainability teams may argue that climate resilience, responsible technology and stronger supply chains create future value. Senior management may focus on avoiding fines, meeting disclosure deadlines and limiting reputational damage.
Both concerns are real. The problem comes when compliance becomes the entire strategy.
Sustainability Budgets Remain Tight
Companies are being asked to deliver more while spending stays flat or falls.
Only 18% of respondents expect their sustainability budgets to increase during the next budgeting cycle. Around 40% expect no change, while 25% anticipate further cuts.
Targets are already being adjusted.
More than half of the companies covered by the survey had changed or rescoped their sustainability goals during the previous 12 to 18 months. Some raised their ambitions, but others reduced commitments or narrowed the areas they planned to address.
Separate GlobeScan analysis found that 71% of sustainability professionals believe at least one commitment at their company is at risk of being scaled back.
Climate Risk Plans Still Stop at Assessment
Many companies now recognise physical climate risk. Far fewer have built detailed plans for dealing with it.
Nearly 60% have integrated physical climate risk into wider risk-management systems. Only 30% have formal adaptation plans for their own operations, and just 15% have plans covering supply chains.
That gap is becoming harder to defend.
Floods, extreme heat, drought and storms are already disrupting factories, transport routes and access to raw materials. Recording the risk in a corporate report does not keep a facility operating during a heatwave or reopen a damaged logistics corridor.
AI Governance Adds Another Sustainability Problem
Artificial intelligence has entered corporate operations faster than the rules designed to govern it.
Only one-third of the companies surveyed have formal systems for managing the environmental and social impacts of AI.
Those impacts can include electricity use, water demand from data centres, workforce disruption, data rights and bias in automated decisions.
Businesses are adopting AI because it promises faster analysis and lower operating costs. Many have not yet decided who is responsible for measuring the consequences.
That issue will not remain separate from sustainability for long.
Corporate Sustainability Is Becoming Quieter
More than 60% of respondents said their companies are taking more sustainability action than they communicate publicly.
Some of that silence reflects caution. Companies face accusations of greenwashing when their claims run ahead of delivery. In other markets, even discussing environmental or social programmes can attract political attention.
The result is a quieter form of corporate sustainability: fewer sweeping promises, more compliance work and closer attention to operational resilience.
Asia’s growing influence fits that new mood. The next phase will be shaped less by where companies make the biggest announcements and more by where clean technologies are built, supply chains are managed and sustainability rules are enforced.
