On the Move: Urban Mobility and Progress Towards the SDGs

Urban Mobility is a vehicle for global transformation and progress towards the SDGs. From the air we breathe to how we conduct our morning commutes, our relationship with our cities and life within urban hubs is constantly redefined through the changing modes of transport networks. However, the role of urban mobility goes far beyond getting us from point A to point B. City infrastructure and transport sectors present an opportunity to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

UN leaders from around the world are gathering in New York City this month at the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development to discuss progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). I cannot help but think about how our progress toward the SDGs is currently reflected in cities globally and the tangible impact urban mobility has on our capacity to continue to advance toward the goals.

The City and its Ecosystem of Leaders, Industries, and Citizens

Today according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), cities account for 80% of global GDP, two-thirds of global energy consumption, and more than 70% of annual global carbon emissions. Over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and this is expected to increase to 68% by 2050. Cities underlie our progress toward the SDGs, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 65% of SDG targets won’t be achieved without proper engagement with municipal and regional actors.

City leaders, together with transport authorities, play a critical role in the development of accessible, affordable, and efficient mobility infrastructure and services. For example, the European Commission's 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities scheme has signed on more than 100 European cities that have pledged to become climate-neutral by 2030. Besides conceiving, designing, and funding these mobility transformations, such public authority initiatives offer a platform for collaboration. The C40 Cities global network of mayors engages with over 10,000 businesses to capture value from public-private sector partnerships.

Various authorities, including the International Transport Forum at the OECD, have acknowledged that active participation of the broader urban ecosystem is required to achieve climate-neutral municipal transport, and this is further highlighted by this year’s HLPF’s focus on SDG 17 (Partnerships). Transportation, energy, manufacturing, and technology sectors drive construction, power infrastructure, and capitalize on advances in disruptive technologies. Naturally, in addition to multi-sector collaboration, a multi-stakeholder approach including citizens — who use public transport, purchase vehicles, and participate in the sharing economy — will be key to facilitating sustainable demand that will guarantee uptake, help finance upfront investments in urban mobility, and derive SDG-related benefits.

Driving Environmental and Societal Progress through Urban Mobility Solutions

As a sustainability professional, I am conscious of the intersections and synergies across the SDGs. In the context of urban mobility, the intersection of environmental and societal benefits becomes apparent through SDGs 7 (Affordable and clean energy) and 13 (Climate action), and SDGs 5 (Gender equality) — which is also a focus at this year's HLPF — and 8 (Decent work and economic growth).

During the recent pandemic-related lockdowns, where we witnessed improvements in air quality and traffic congestion in cities across the globe, I had the opportunity to work with the World Economic Forum on developing the System Value Framework, exploring cities in developed and developing markets. The analysis highlighted that government support to decarbonise Europe’s cities by transitioning to electrified transport has the potential to deliver approximately 64 metric tonnes of CO2 emission reductions, € 5 billion in human health benefits through reduced air pollution, and create just under 200,000 incremental jobs in 2030. The strategy entails increased investing in EV charging infrastructure and supporting smart charging mechanisms to unlock value from grid flexibility.

Beyond transport electrification, we are already seeing signs of these types of city transformations becoming a reality. These include metropolitan hubs such as Barcelona’s “superblocks”, investment in hydrogen buses and a pandemic-triggered expansion of cycling infrastructure. Through examples such as Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s instrumental role in developing the “15-minute cities” vision, and Shenzhen’s innovative policies driving EV adoption, which I witnessed while attending the 2019 UNLEASH innovation lab on the SDGs, it is increasingly apparent that municipal governments play a critical role as catalysts for change. Cities offer enormous opportunity for innovation and can serve as testbeds for experimentation, which is particularly relevant in the context of the SDGs. Many municipal and regional actors have taken notice.

Nevertheless, the solutions that are unveiling in London or Paris cannot be replicated for the majority of the population around the world, particularly in developing economies. While the use cases may be similar, the challenges to solve are different. When it comes to public transport, newly developing cities face issues around population density, sparse transport links, and the need to travel long distances to arrive to employment hubs.

In regard to gender equality and economic inclusion, women and girls often face inadequate or no access to reliable, safe modes of public transport. Significant levels of harassment and violence against women are reported across transport systems globally. Safety provisions are critical to enabling women to travel freely, access work, and become financially independent. These issues rise to the top in cities with total populations of over 20 million. In countries around the world, I have experienced first-hand the feeling of unease when traveling alone at night on public transport. And while initiatives such as female-only carriages on trains provide a level of comfort, I am acutely aware of the progress that needs to be made to improve gender inclusiveness and safety across multimodal city transport.

Moving Forward

In this decisive decade, we require a transformative change in cities of all sizes and stages of development. While successful initiatives today demonstrate potential for replication, it is key to acknowledge the need to adapt to cultural, environmental, and economic nuances in order to deliver equitable climate action and societal progress.

We have less than 2,000 working days to achieve the targets set out in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As microcosms of these global challenges, cities are catalysts for change. From national and municipal government policies and initiatives, to benefits derived from multi-sector partnerships, it is evident that actors across the board need to come together. As end-users of urban mobility solutions, it is also up to us to demand action from our leaders and to demonstrate support for SDG-aligned mobility investments in the cities we call home.

About the Author:

Chhavi Maggu, MEng, SEP
Sustainability Strategy Manager at Accenture
ISSP Governing Board Treasurer

Photo Credit:

Pradamas Gifarry | Jakarta | Unsplash

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

Start With Community: The First Mile of Sustainable Development

By Sobel Aziz Ngom, CEO, Tostan • September 25, 2025

For 35 years, the NGO Tostan has partnered with communities across Africa to define and achieve their own vision of sustainable development based on respect for human rights. In our September ISSP Blog, Tostan CEO Sobel Aziz Ngom shares Tostan's unique approach to enduring community-led development: include all, listen before acting, take time to build trust, and share ownership with humility. Start With Community: The First Mile of Sustainable Development September 2025 Sobel Aziz Ngom CEO, Tostan When I stepped into the role of CEO at Tostan, I did not come in with the illusion that I already understood its unique approach. On the contrary, both our Board and senior leadership advised me to begin slowly, by listening, learning, and asking questions. This guidance resonated with my own experience: that lasting change only happens when communities feel ownership and define priorities in their own voices. For me, these first months have been a journey of re-affirmation and discovery. I have seen how Tostan’s approach builds directly on principles I already believed in: participation, dignity, and youth leadership. It has also opened new insights for me about what genuine engagement really looks like. Most of all, I am struck by how the process is not only about involving people in decisions, but about changing the way people relate to one another: listening more deeply, including those often excluded, communicating more peacefully, and governing more fairly. At Tostan, we believe in the dignity and potential of every community. Change is not imposed; it is nurtured through dialogue, trust, and the mobilization of local knowledge. Our approach is built on a conviction: lasting change cannot be decreed, it must be built together, step by step, in dignity and trust. That wisdom applies equally to leadership transitions and to sustainable development. Step by step toward lasting change Rather than relying on one-off or top-down interventions, our approach supports communities through a progressive journey, moving from trust and dialogue to collective action. It begins by creating an inclusive space where every voice is heard and valued. Within this space, communities identify their strengths, priorities, and core values, laying the foundation for a shared vision of wellbeing. Building on this vision, democratic principles and human rights are explored in ways that resonate with local realities, strengthening the community’s ability to organize and make informed decisions. Step by step, communities move toward planning and implementing concrete actions, mobilizing their own resources while engaging local authorities for support. Along the way, new skills are developed — in literacy, management, health, and advocacy — to sustain progress and help translate the community's shared vision into reality. Each phase reinforces the next, deepening trust, knowledge, and collective capacity, until communities are fully equipped to drive lasting change for their own wellbeing. From voices to livelihoods: the women of Somone Lagoon One story captures this transformation for me. In Somone, Senegal, women from the lagoon area came together to discuss what mattered most for their community. At first only a few spoke. Over time, with dialogue in their own language and through participatory methods, more women raised their voices, sharing concerns, proposing ideas, and debating solutions. By the end, they not only agreed on practical steps, but also shifted how they interacted: listening actively, respecting differences, and ensuring no voice was left aside. What emerged was more than a plan for the lagoon; it was a new practice of governance grounded in fairness and inclusion. And it was not only social. By organizing collectively, the women strengthened their economic group, improved how they managed resources, and increased the income generated from their activities around the lagoon. This story is a reminder that when relationships change, so do livelihoods. Social inclusion becomes the foundation for economic empowerment. Prepared ground, lasting growth It is often tempting to judge progress by what is visible: a new structure built, a service installed, or an activity launched. But the real difference lies beneath the surface, in the preparation that makes lasting results possible. Think of planting a tree. In dry, unprepared soil, even a strong seed struggles to take root. It may sprout quickly but soon withers when conditions become harsh. In well-prepared and nourished soil, the very same seed grows deep roots, withstands storms, and bears fruit for generations. Communities work in much the same way. When there is no shared vision, no clear rules, and no sense of ownership, progress often stalls at the first obstacle. But when people take time to build trust, establish transparent practices, and develop the skills they need, their initiatives take root and thrive. As I learn about Tostan from the inside, I see the same truth. Preparation through dialogue, clarity, and capacity is what allows both communities and organizations to carry their ambitions forward with confidence. Why starting from strengths changes outcomes Across sectors, communities point to four recurring benefits of this approach: Resilience. With a shared vision and clear roles, people adapt quickly when supply or budget conditions shift. Lower lifetime costs. Early investments in facilitation and governance save money later. Fairness by design. Co-created rules reflect lived realities — girls fetching water, elders with mobility challenges, young entrepreneurs seeking opportunity. Trust as infrastructure. Trust accelerates coordination and makes accountability real. These are lessons for leadership too: trust, fairness, and resilience are as essential inside organizations as they are in village water committees. Avoiding shortcuts (and their costs) Under pressure, it is tempting to cut corners: brief consultations, over-engineered technology, committees without real mandates, or community sessions held in languages people rarely use. These approaches may deliver short-term outputs, but communities often remind us that the hidden cost is confidence. The same temptation exists in leadership transitions: to announce, to prove oneself, to act before listening. But each shortcut risks raising the cost of trust later. Spaces for sharing and mutual learning Practitioners often ask how such community capabilities are built and sustained. At the Tostan Training Center in Senegal, these questions are explored not through formal lectures but through spaces of sharing and mutual learning. In these settings, facilitators and community members sit side by side with practitioners, opening dialogues in local languages and revisiting real experiences from villages that have gone through Tostan's Community Empowerment Program. Instead of theory, people see how conversations unfold, how inclusive decisions are made, and how trust is gradually built. The value lies in what participants carry back: not a prescription, but a set of practices they have witnessed, tested, and adapted to their own contexts. This kind of exchange helps those working with communities to strengthen their partnerships, avoid common pitfalls, and ground their initiatives in methods that last. For me, it is also a reminder that leadership — whether in a village or an organization — grows through shared reflection, humility, and practice, rather than through quick fixes. Closing the loop Sustainability is not only technical or financial. It is civic and relational. It depends on who decides, who acts, and who continues to nurture progress once the external team has left. Like a tree that grows strong only in prepared soil, communities that invest in trust, inclusion, and clear responsibilities create the conditions for lasting change. Progress does not stop at the first difficulty; it deepens and spreads. The same lesson applies inside organizations. What lasts is not only a set of strategies or plans, but the culture we cultivate: listening before acting, building capacity, and sharing ownership with humility. That is why, both in my role as CEO and in our community work, I return to the same conviction: start with listening, prepare the ground carefully, and let trust grow over time. In Tostan partner communities, this is how water pumps keep running, how health improves, how livelihoods expand, and how governance endures. In Tostan as an organization, it is how culture is preserved, innovation emerges, and transitions succeed. Start with community. Lead with humility. Prepare the ground well. That is how you ensure sustainability.

Do the Math: Why Financial Modeling Is Essential for Sustainability

By Todd Cort, MS, PE, PhD • July 25, 2025

Todd Cort, MS, PE, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Yale School of Management and Yale School of the Environment and serves as Faculty Co-director of both the Yale Center for Business and the Environment and the Yale Initiative on Sustainable Finance. In our July blog, he sheds light on the fundamental importance of financial modeling for sustainability to be a core part of business strategy. Do the Math: Why Financial Modeling Is Essential for Sustainability As global markets begin to internalize the financial impacts of climate change and other environmental and social risks, I’ve seen expectations rise sharply for companies to provide financially robust disclosures. Standards and regulations are evolving, and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has made it clear that sustainability disclosures must be useful to investors by linking environmental and social risks to enterprise value over the short, medium, and long term. Similarly, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires us to identify and mitigate adverse environmental and human rights impacts across our company’s value chain—including integrating these risks into our corporate strategy and financial planning. These frameworks don’t just ask us to be aware; they demand that we develop a quantitative understanding of how environmental and social risks affect our financial outlook. Simply put: we can no longer talk about sustainability in broad, qualitative terms. We have to do the math. And yet, despite these evolving expectations, I see little movement in risk disclosures and still see almost all in the corporate world treating sustainability as a reporting task, not a financial modeling challenge. The one possible exception being the calculation of appropriate shadow prices for carbon emissions for oil and gas asset planning by companies like Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips. Although even these can be difficult to reconcile with global energy scenarios. The ISSB and CSDDD reference enterprise value, financial planning, and risk mitigation, but I notice that many corporate responses stop at narrative statements—talking about reputational risk, regulatory uncertainty, or stakeholder pressure. While those qualitative insights provide context, they fall short of supporting sound financial decision-making. As a board member, CFO, or investor, I must move beyond vague statements like "climate change may impact our operations" and instead ask: by how much, under what assumptions, and with what financial consequences? Without this level of rigor, we can’t prioritize investments, adjust capital allocation, or weigh transition risks against emerging opportunities. The data challenge I understand the lack of financial modeling and the prevalence of qualitative risk assessment and mitigation narratives issued by corporations today. The data that underlies and explains environmental and social risks feels like it is not up to the challenge of quantitative financial modeling and making statements of financial risk based on shaky data is a good recipe for inviting litigation. Even for the most well documented risks such as climate adaptation, the data can leave enormous gaps in our ability to forecast financial impact. How frequent and of what duration are the expected climate events? Where in my supply chain am I likely to see the greatest disruption? What components or operations will prove to be most vulnerable and most critical in the face of disruption? How will critical stakeholders such as regulators react and respond in the face of severe events? How strained will our backstops such as insurance coverage become in the face of widespread events? These and other questions are important to calculating severity and likelihood of financial risks, but the available data may leave us with enormous sensitivities and error bars in our analysis. However, I have found in practice that the data challenge is frequently not as daunting as it appears. Many variables turn out to be less important to the model, thereby making the data challenge less relevant. In other cases, we are able to find new data sets that provide meaningful insights to critical variables. Even in those cases where the data are lacking and the question is critical, I find that knowing the range and likelihood of outcomes is more useful than an unsubstantiated narrative. Net present value Looking forward, companies must integrate sustainability risk and opportunity into financial modeling tools typically used in capital budgeting and investment analysis to make better strategic decisions. That means projecting the net present value (NPV) of sustainability-related projects, whether it's decarbonizing operations or installing renewable energy systems. NPV is a fundamental tool for companies to assess whether these projects will create or erode value over time, especially when compared to the cost of inaction—such as paying for carbon emissions or recovering from extreme weather damage. A key part of this is choosing the right discount rate—one that reflects our risk-adjusted cost of capital and the long-term calculations of climate investments. If I choose a rate that’s too high, I risk undervaluing the future benefits of resilience; too low, and I might overstate the returns. Embedding sustainability into financial models Practitioners must also recognize that environmental and social risks directly influence key financial metrics like free cash flow, leverage ratios, and cost of capital. For instance, rising water stress and deforestation policies can drive up input costs and squeeze margins in some circumstances and for some companies. Exposure to carbon pricing can increase earnings volatility, which affects beta and ultimately raises the cost of equity. Lenders and insurers are beginning to price environmental risk into debt and premiums, which means corporate cost of capital is increasingly tied to how well companies manage sustainability. If we want to integrate sustainability into our enterprise valuation and ensure that our initiatives are financially sound—not just aspirational—we have to model these dynamics accurately. Equally importantly, we must be cognizant of which financial metrics are most critical to financial health and whether these are the most sensitive factors to sustainability risks. For example, earlier ventures typically live and die by free cash flow whereas larger companies may be much more sensitive to leveraged ratios. Matching the sustainability risk and opportunity to the appropriate line item can be the difference between critical and meaningless insights. At the end of the day, I see financial modeling as the essential bridge connecting sustainability goals, enterprise valuation, and fiduciary duties. By quantifying the financial implications of our net-zero targets, carbon transition risks, nature-positive investments, labor disruptions, and resource constraints, we can move beyond abstract narratives and deliver forecasts that truly guide action. This shift allows wise capital allocation, sets credible decarbonization paths, and communicates sustainability risks and opportunities in ways that matter to investors. For sustainability to be a core part of business strategy—not just a footnote in a report—we must embed it in our financial models. In today’s world of tightening regulation and growing risk, doing the math isn’t optional. It’s essential.

Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG?

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.