Cycles of Sustainability — A Maturing Profession

Fabian Sack, PhD, SEP • December 15, 2022

How might the sustainability profession bend the alarming curves across all sustainability metrics—from emissions to wage inequality and to species collapse? Fabian Sack, PhD, Director at Sustainably Pty Ltd and ISSP Governing Board Member, shares insights from a three-decade career in sustainability practice.


As my tenure on the ISSP Board comes to an end after six exciting years, including a stint as president, I have been reflecting on what has changed over my three decades working as a sustainability professional in Australia. As I see it, we are now into a fourth cycle of sustainability practice.


The very early years of sustainability thinking were largely academic, aside from direct action on gross toxic pollution. I think of the Love Canal, Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring, the work of The Club of Rome in life cycle assessment. Radical efforts peppered the 60’s and 70’s, leading to the rapid adoption of environmental protection in many countries such as the Environmental Protection Administration in the U.S. This gradually consolidated into international initiatives like the historic Brundtland Report, Our Common Future.




Second Cycle: National and International Governance

During the years immediately following the 1992 Rio Declaration, there was widespread environmental enthusiasm worldwide, especially in government circles. In Australia this was expressed in a landmark intergovernmental agreement on the environment establishing principles of ecologically sustainable development. These were subsequently written into a suite of state and federal laws, many of which continue today and generate a growing body of legal precedents.


Internationally, the NGO community established the first iteration of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), beginning the effort to mainstream triple bottom line (TBL) reporting. Other international initiatives, such as the Ecological Footprint, gained momentum in pursuit of the United Nations Millennial Goals. I had the good fortune to be part of a corporate effort to apply TBL reporting, including ecological footprinting, in the early '00s. During these first two cycles, most sustainability jobs were in academia and later in the public and NGO sectors. These professional roles tended to be technical or strategic in focus.



Third Cycle: The Business Case for Sustainability

In the early 2000s, market forces in Australia and other developed economies were noticing the potential impact of sustainability on commercial activity. Increasingly the business case for sustainability was made in terms of reputational risk and licence to operate, and professional practice centred in public relations and to a lesser degree in governance. This had the positive impact of bringing a focus to engaging stakeholders and more generally on the social attitudes toward sustainability. More concerningly, fossil fuel interests worked hard to capture and divert the emerging debate on climate change, setting the groundwork for a decade of inaction.


Corporations globally sought to demonstrate that voluntary action discounted the need for regulation. In Australia, tying progress on corporate sustainability to profitability meant that the global financial crisis (GFC) reassigned resources to more fundamental business drivers, causing the sustainability profession to contract rapidly and ending the third cycle.


An Australian exception to the post-GFC shift away from sustainability practice was local and regional government, where climate impacts, biodiversity loss, rising inequality, and resource scarcity could not be ignored. Over the past decade, this grassroots voice has become increasingly global, expressed particularly across small island developing states in forums like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the annual Conference of the Parties (COPs) to the UNFCCC.


Along with these events, there has been increased international attention on the threat posed by the drivers of unsustainability—a global economic, community, and ecosystem threat.



Fourth Cycle: Towards Sustainable Markets

Noting the immediacy of this threat, the international finance community is working to encourage sustainable investment through mechanisms like ESG (environmental, social, and governance) disclosures and the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Regulators are following suit. This coordination of the market and regulation has led to a new wave of sustainability professionals, a wave sufficiently robust that it has pushed through the disruptions of the pandemic.

An important factor in the robustness of the current cycle is demographic change. Millennials in Australia, schooled during the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014), are now a growing political force with concern for the realities of climate change, social inequity, and planetary constraints. This generational momentum is global and increasingly mainstreaming sustainability themes across policy and commercial activities, such as the push for a circular economy. With it, there is increasing recognition of voices championing traditional knowledge, both in Australia and elsewhere.


The Next Cycle: Transformation?

The challenge now for the growing cohort of sustainability professionals is to work together towards the truly transformative practices required. We must bend the alarming curves across all sustainability metrics—greenhouse gas emissions, wage inequality, species collapse.   Mindful of lessons from the past, we need to encourage radical thinking, international cooperation, evidence-based decision making, social inclusion, and the coordination of markets and states. And we need to be wary of regulatory capture, of spin, and the disingenuity of vested interests.


I believe that the ISSP, guided by its Sustainability Hall of Fame and working with its strategic partners, is well placed to support the sustainability community to do its important work. Sustainability professionals have a set of transdisciplinary, transformative skills which distinguish them from other professions—skills recognised by the SEA and SEP credentials. As I turn my complete attention back to academic practice at the University of Sydney and my work with clients, I’m grateful for the unique opportunity ISSP has lent me to interact with so many truly dedicated sustainability professionals around the world.


About the Author:

Fabian Sack, PhD, SEP
Director, Sustainably Pty Ltd
ISSP Governing Board


PHOTO: Fabian Sack | Forest regrowth three months after Australia's Black Summer Fires | NSW South Coast


Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Alex Smith June 4, 2025
Join the ISSP Programming Committee: Shape the Future of Sustainability Learning! Are you passionate about sustainability and eager to help professionals grow their skills and leadership? The International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP) is seeking volunteers to join our 2026 Programming Committee! What’s Involved? Collaborate with a diverse team to plan impactful webinars and interactive working sessions. Help select topics, speakers, and resources that empower sustainability professionals worldwide. Commit to two monthly Zoom meetings (one 90-minute working session and one 60-minute full committee meeting). Spend 2-5 hours monthly researching ideas and contributors. Why Volunteer? Make a meaningful impact in the sustainability field. Gain hands-on experience in program development and nonprofit leadership. Connect with a network of like-minded sustainability professionals. Receive recognition for your valuable contributions. Key Dates: Application Deadline: June 23, 2025, 8am ET Meetings begin August 2025 (all virtual via Zoom) Ready to help shape sustainability education and make a difference? Sign up here to join a community dedicated to advancing sustainability worldwide!
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
More blog posts