Last week we hosted our second ESG Edge conference and awards, both discussing and celebrating progress on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.

The bustling roster of shortlisted firms at the awards demonstrated how much our industry has achieved in ESG over the past year.

But there was also a spectre at the feast, widely acknowledged in the conference sessions.

Corporate commitment to ESG, including the resolve to respond to the climate crisis, has stumbled in recent months.

Determination to reach net zero targets, restore nature, deliver social value or to build for the long term is palpably on the ebb.

Some foot-dragging is homegrown, related to current economic doldrums and a desire to return to ‘business as usual’. But there is also no shortage of imported US populism.

For the past few years, US anti-ESG sentiment has grown at pace, fuelled not simply by president Donald Trump but by other Republicans like Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

Over the past three years, DeSantis has pushed through laws halting state-level funding for ESG goals, outlawing bonds seeking funding for ESG projects, rooting ESG considerations out of public procurement and preventing banks from bringing ESG factors into their decisions.

For the past few years, US anti-ESG sentiment has grown at pace

The state is not alone. In a July report, Washington DC-based consultancy Pleiades Strategy outlined 106 anti-ESG bills introduced by 32 states in the first half of this year.

“In 2025, we saw more proposals seeking to saddle financial institutions with liability for allegedly prioritising ESG factors in business decision-making, and fewer bills targeting state pension and contracting authorities,” the report states. “In part, this shift reflects the fact that the anti-ESG forces have already gained ground [on pensions and procurement].”

Big investment firms like BlackRock have found themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits filed by various attorneys-general, alleging collusion and misleading of investors, among other charges. One result was BlackRock’s January 2025 exit from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, an industry group it had enthusiastically joined four years earlier.

On leaving, the firm stated: “[Our] memberships in some climate finance organisations have caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected the firm to legal inquiries from various public officials in the US.” It added, lamely, that the exit resulted from a routine review.
BlackRock is by no means the only large US firm to succumb to similar pressure.

Against this backdrop, it was fascinating to hear the views of Chicago-based executive Jill Brosig, chief impact officer at US investment firm Harrison Street, who closed our conference last week. She told delegates that “turbulence” in the US could not dispel the facts. She said Harrison Street’s decade of internal tracking had measured $225m (£172m) in added value from $53m (£40m) in ESG investments, due to energy efficiency raising net operating income. This demonstrated “a clear fiduciary justification” for a progressive approach, she argued.

As the end of 2025 approaches, I hope more UK firms will return to fact-based rationalism in 2026. In the face of corrosive anti-ESG populism, data is the best defence.