Majority of leading US firms continue sustainability disclosures despite regulatory uncertainty and changing corporate priorities
A Teneo analysis found that 87% of large US companies that published sustainability reports in 2025 continued to do so in 2026, though many delayed publication and fewer issued press releases. Companies are shifting their terminology away from ESG language toward terms like 'impact' and 'purpose,' while adoption of international reporting frameworks such as ISSB standards has doubled compared to the previous year. Nearly a quarter of reporting companies have assigned general counsel as the primary sustainability officer, and 12% of firms reported at least one sustainability goal as off-track.
The research examined 250 sustainability reports from S&P 500 companies published in 2026, revealing nuanced shifts in how corporate America approaches environmental and social accountability. While the vast majority of firms maintained their reporting practices, the timing and presentation changed notably, with delayed publication dates and reduced press release accompaniment suggesting a more cautious approach. The assignment of sustainability oversight to general counsels—rather than chief executives or dedicated sustainability officers—indicates companies may be treating these disclosures increasingly as legal and compliance matters.
The framework landscape is evolving significantly for multinational corporations. International standards like ISSB saw adoption rates double year-over-year, while nearly one-fifth of reporting companies are monitoring European CSRD requirements. Simultaneously, the sharp decline of "ESG" terminology reflects efforts to reframe sustainability messaging, possibly in response to political criticism of that terminology in certain quarters.
These reporting trends may influence how investors, regulators, and stakeholders assess corporate environmental commitments. The increased number of off-track and repositioned sustainability goals could signal either realistic goal-setting or diminished corporate ambition, potentially affecting market confidence and regulatory pressure. The terminology shift and legal department involvement might reshape how sustainability performance is communicated and verified, which could affect transparency levels for those evaluating corporate climate action credibility.