It’s Time For NGOs To Rethink Their Sustainability Strategies

According to a recent survey “Sustainability at the Crossroads” of 884 sustainability experts in 72 countries, 71% of NGOs think the sustainability agenda needs a radical reset. Only 3% felt it was working just fine, 23% felt only modest revisions were necessary and the rest had no opinion. The implications of this are clear. Since NGOs have played a central role in the sustainability agenda it is time for them to do a little soul searching and decide how much of this radical reset requires a radical reset in the strategies they have been using. I will argue they need a radical reset that is more bipartisan in nature, but first some more background on the survey for context.

It was done as a collaboration by the strategy consulting firm ERM, GlobeScan, an advisory firm focused on sustainability and engagement, and Volans, a collective of experts focused on the intersection of sustainability and innovation and founded by the sustainability pioneer John Elkington. The respondents came from the NGO, academia and research, corporate, service and media, and government communities. The purpose of the survey was to take stock of the sustainability agenda in 2025. It is a well-timed survey given the shifting political currents, particularly in Europe and the U..S., voicing skepticism about or even hostility towards sustainability. And it’s important to note that the people who responded to this survey are most likely sustainability advocates, not sustainability skeptics. This is far from a random sample of the population. But even in this group 56% felt a radical reset was necessary, only 6% felt nothing in it needed to change, and 37% felt it was basically fine but needed some modifications.

The sustainability focus of NGOs has, appropriately enough, been at the system level but it has always existed in tension with sustainable value creation for companies and investors. Some of the more radical NGOs are unconcerned about financial value creation (they basically don’t like capitalism) and have the view that companies and investors should do whatever is necessary to make the world a better place. This is naïve and unhelpful. Others argue that over the long term sustainability at the system level converges with sustainable value creation. While there is probably some truth in this, it ignores the fact that the short term also matters and tradeoffs are inevitable as I’ve written about last fall in this Harvard Business Review article ‘Moving Beyond ESG.”

Lets Make a Better World sign

getty

Taking Stock of NGOs

The obvious question is what, if anything, should NGOs be doing differently given their dissatisfaction with the progress of the sustainable development agenda which they have had a huge part in shaping? One answer is that they are doing everything they can, and it is up to other stakeholders—companies, investors, and government—to, as the phrase often goes, “do more.” Supporting this view is that NGOs rank just below research and academic organizations for their contribution to sustainable development with 45% of respondents having a positive view compared to 50% for research and academic organizations. I’m an academic so I don’t want to throw shade at this group, but they come up with ideas and it’s up to other people to implement them. NGOs focus on implementation, both in terms of their own work and engaging with other groups. The United Nations is only at 26% and at the bottom of the barrel are the private sector (14%), institutional investors (12%), and national governments (5%). One possible conclusion is that NGOs are doing the best they can and most everyone else isn’t carrying their weight.

I think this lets NGOs off the hook too easily. Note the dramatic decline in their approval from around 60% just four years ago. (In fairness, this is true of all other groups except for research and academic organizations and local and city governments.) Some of this could be due to the backlash against sustainability. The survey found that 70% (65% of NGOs) feel this backlash has been significant vs. 57% in 2024. Not surprisingly, this number is 91% in North America, but it is also 71% in Europe. The lowest percentage is 38% in Asia/Pacific, perhaps because sustainability has not become a topic of political discord.

My view is that the NGOs themselves, particularly the ones who are indifferent to sustainable financial value creation, are a major contributing factor to this backlash. I am obviously aware of the political dimension here with the pendulum in America and Europe swinging to the right. Much of the pushback on the right, particularly from elected officials in red states, is an ideological culture war that is as disconnected from economics as the radical left. But some of it is sensibly pushing back on the failure to recognize the limits of what companies and investors can do to make the world a better place.

Here it’s worth noting that while only 43% of NGOs think economic and political shocks create opportunities for sustainability, this is higher than for the other groups with, rather tellingly, corporates ranking lowest at 28%. The current sustainability backlash is a political shock and should be taken by NGOs as an opportunity to think about how to be more effective.

High Impact and High Feasibility

The survey results provide some guidance on how to do this. Respondents were asked to evaluate 64 different actions in terms of impact and feasibility that can be taken by NGOs, companies, investors, and governments to support sustainable development. These are shown in the matrix below where one dimension is impact and the other is feasibility. NGOs are seen has having 15 ways they can contribute to sustainable development. Eleven of these are high in feasibility and six are seen as high in impact as well. Let’s start with them:

50. Advocacy for better government policies/regulations/enforcement

54. Consumer awareness / behavior change campaigns

55. Media scrutiny / coverage of sustainability performance

56. Political activism

61. Education/capacity-building for sustainability leadership

62. Media/cultural influence around pro-sustainability messaging

I see these as a double-edged sword. NGOs are good at these sorts of things; the question is how they are going about it. If they are only playing to the pro-sustainability crowd, I think they will just continue to contribute to the backlash. Much better would be for them to learn to engage with the skeptics and look for common ground. I know this make some NGOs recoil in horror but we in the sustainability crowd need to be honest with ourselves and face the current political reality, whether we like it or not.

Research (e.g., Carmichael, Brulle, and Hexter; Hiatt, Grandy, and Lee; and Tingley and Tomz; shows that in the U.S., confrontational tactics—like boycotts, litigation, and public shaming—can entrench partisan divides and even mobilize resistance to sustainability, especially among moderates. Aylin Cakanlar of the Stockholm School of Economics has proposed a BREAK model (Balance, Reactance, Essence, Adherence to norms, and Knowledge) which might be useful to NGOs. Her work “aims to integrate and synthesize academic research at the intersection of political ideology and sustainable behavior to propose a framework that explains polarized responses to climate change.“

There are five actions of high feasibility but low impact:

51. NGO campaigns against poor business sustainability performance

52. NGO campaigns praising strong business sustainability performance

53 Public demonstrations / boycotts

58. Sustainability certifications

60. Use culture to engage people on sustainability

These actions are all highly visible, great for fund raising, reinforce group identity, and bring a certain satisfaction of being “a good person.” At the same time, while easy to do, even sustainability experts see their impact as low. Even worse, I think these are the kinds of things that are contributing to the backlash. NGOs who have these actions as a central part of their change strategy need to think hard about whether they are part of the solution or part of the problem.

The same is true for the three actions in the low impact/low feasibility box: 59. Non-violent direct action, 63. Just Transition frameworks, and 64. Inner work / personal development for individuals/teams. Here I want to call out Just Transition frameworks since there’s a certain irony here. If those enthusiastic about this idea were also applying it to people whose livelihood depends on the fossil fuel industry, it might have more traction. But, again, I’m sure this is anathema to most of the NGOs advocating for this idea

Which leaves us with the one item in the high impact/low feasibility box: 57. Using the judicial system to push for change, sometimes referred to as strategic litigation. For sure these lawsuits generate great headlines. For sure these lawsuits contribute to the backlash. In the current U.S. political environment, the chances of success are slim to none and all they’re doing is making polarization worse. The last thing we need for the sustainable development agenda.

Here’s a recent example. Writing for Trellis, Tove Malmquist of GlobeScan cites the fact that 56% of respondents note #57 as a high impact action and she ties this to a July 23, 2025 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that under international law countries have legal obligations to prevent environmental harm. Malmquist ignores the survey finding that puts this in the low feasibility box. She also ignores the very practical question of just how much weight it carries in the U.S. The answer is “none” due to its non-binding nature, how U.S. courts treat international law, and the lack of any enforcement mechanism. I don’t know how other countries treat ICJ rulings but it’s important to know this before getting too excited about them, however important their moral and symbolic value. And at least in the U.S., making a big deal of this ruling is going to do far more harm than good.

The Challenge and Opportunity

NGOs are the canary in the coal mine. They identify issues that need to be addressed before governments, companies, and investors are aware of them. We all depend on an active and effective civil society sector. NGOs have had a foundational role in developing the sustainability agenda. But it’s time to take stock of what this agenda looks like and nearly three-quarters of them agree with this. So what should be done?

One option is to simply double down on the existing approach and become shriller. Those advocating for this approach may say that to do otherwise is “compromising their principles,” a phrase I hear from time-to time. Good luck with this approach. The highly predictable result is just making the sustainability backlash worse.

The alternative, and I believe more effective one, requires NGOs to hold two rather contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. They need to maintain their passion and commitment to sustainability, but they also need to learn how to engage with those who don’t completely share their views. This means getting outside the pro-sustainability bubble and talking to people who are skeptical and uncomfortable with sustainability but who are open to having a discussion.

I’ve been doing this for several years now with my “GOP Outreach Campaign” and active engagement with the so-called Ecoright, conservative organizations focused on climate change. While I can’t claim any dramatic break throughs, I’m only one guy. These breakthroughs will come when this kind of engagement happens at scale. Something the NGO community is well-positioned and very capable to do. It has a great opportunity to take us to the next level of sustainability. It just has to have the courage to do so.

Enhance your driving experience with the P12 Pro 4K Mirror Dash Cam Smart Driving Assistant, featuring Front and Rear Cameras, Voice Control, Night Vision, and Parking Monitoring. With a 4.3/5-star rating from 2,070 reviews and over 1,000 units sold in the past month, it’s a top-rated choice for drivers. The dash cam comes with a 32GB Memory Card included, making it ready to use out of the box. Available now for just $119.99, plus a $20 coupon at checkout. Don’t miss out on this smart driving essential from Amazon!

Help Power Techcratic’s Future – Scan To Support

If Techcratic’s content and insights have helped you, consider giving back by supporting the platform with crypto. Every contribution makes a difference, whether it’s for high-quality content, server maintenance, or future updates. Techcratic is constantly evolving, and your support helps drive that progress.

As a solo operator who wears all the hats, creating content, managing the tech, and running the site, your support allows me to stay focused on delivering valuable resources. Your support keeps everything running smoothly and enables me to continue creating the content you love. I’m deeply grateful for your support, it truly means the world to me! Thank you!