From ESG to Impact: How Organizations Are Reframing Sustainability

In boardrooms across the country, a quiet but decisive shift is underway. While organizations continue to invest heavily in sustainability, climate action, workforce development, and long-term value creation, boards and executives are intentionally moving away from the ESG label. The term “ESG” (an acronym for Environmental, Social, and Governance) has become politically charged, creating more noise than clarity, so many leaders now see it as a distraction from the substantive work they are actually doing. According to a July 2025 EcoVadis survey of 400 U.S. firms, 87% are maintaining or increasing sustainability investment, yet 31% are reducing external messaging, a phenomenon dubbed “greenhushing.”

Trends in Corporate America

This trend came into sharp focus during recent remarks by President Trump at McDonald’s Corporation’s 2025 Impact Summit (November 17, 2025). Framed around affordability, small-business empowerment, regulatory relief, and job creation, the conversation signaled a cultural and strategic inflection point: the substance of sustainability is being repackaged in language that resonates with economic pressures and operational realities.

What stands out is how McDonald’s own Impact reporting backs this up without missing a beat. Their 2024–2025 Purpose & Impact Progress Report lays out ambitious, measurable goals that haven’t budged despite the political noise – things like slashing Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by over 50% by 2030 (with 68% progress already in the bag by 2024), hitting 100% renewable/recycled packaging by 2025 (at 91% as of last year), and robust workforce programs like Archways to Opportunity, which has doled out over $230 million in U.S. tuition aid.

This is a masterclass in strategic repositioning that many organizations are adopting: keep the substance (environmental stewardship, inclusive hiring pipelines, board-level accountability) but frame it as “resilience and value creation” to sidestep the ESG culture wars.

McDonald’s is not alone in strategic repositioning; other major corporations are building on their sustainability practices. Walmart’s Project Gigaton has already reduced 750 million metric tons of emissions in its supply chain, and the firm is now tying sustainability goals to executive compensation. Goldman Sachs is now integrating its traditional ESG disclosures into its financial reports, and SalesForce announced a goal of 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030.

The initiatives remain strong. The ambitions remain high. They aren’t stopping the work, they just don’t want it called ESG.

The new vocabulary centers on impact, risk, resilience, and value creation. Boards are increasingly instructing management teams to frame their strategies in terms of:

• decarbonization and energy transition
• workforce development and mobility
• supply chain stability and resilience
• governance, ethics, and enterprise risk management
• community and economic impact

The message is clear, impact is being reframed, not rejected.

Sustainability Trends for Tax Exempt and Purpose Driven Organizations

The same pattern emerges for tax-exempt organizations such as associations, nonprofits, NGOs, and mission-driven companies. Boards want to keep advancing climate, workforce, governance, and community goals, but they also want to avoid polarizing language in the way those goals are framed and communicated.

1. Associations: ESG and the Sustainability of Major Events

For professional and trade associations, the most material ESG and sustainability issues often sit inside the annual conference or flagship events:

• Travel and logistics: Air and ground travel emissions, hotel nights, and venue energy use.
• Venue selection: Energy efficiency, water use, waste systems, and accessibility of host facilities.
• Waste and materials: Food waste, single-use plastics, exhibitor booths, printed materials vs. digital.
• Inclusion and safety: Accessibility, psychological safety, anti-harassment policies, and inclusive programming.
• Local community impact: Economic benefits to local businesses, community partnerships, and potential displacement or disruption.

In a “greenhushing” environment, many associations are still doing the work: choosing more efficient venues, pushing suppliers on emissions and waste, and designing inclusive events. Rather than ESG, they may be talking about it as:

• “Member value and experience,”
• “Operational efficiency and cost savings,” or
• “Risk management and duty of care.”

The shift doesn’t reduce the need for robust governance and measurement. If anything, it increases the importance of credible data (e.g., event emissions baselines, supplier standards, accessibility metrics) to back up claims and withstand stakeholder scrutiny.

This is where structured ESG risk assessments and internal audit–style reviews of event planning, procurement, and vendor due diligence can add real value for associations.

2. Nonprofits, NGOs and Foundations: Impact, Trust, and Donor Expectations

For charities, foundations, and NGOs, sustainability and ESG topics are increasingly tied to:

• Donor and grant-maker expectations – Larger institutional funders now ask for climate, DEI, and governance data as part of due diligence and ongoing reporting.
• Program integrity and mission alignment – Environmental and social risks can directly undermine program outcomes (e.g., climate shocks affecting health or food security projects).
• Reputation and regulatory risk – Governance failures, workforce issues, or weak controls over partner organizations can quickly erode trust.

Even if these organizations avoid the ESG label, they still need:

• Clear impact and risk frameworks that connect sustainability themes to mission and strategy.
• Internal controls and governance systems that stand up to audit and regulatory scrutiny.
• Consistent accounting and reporting on items like carbon credits, environmental obligations, or restricted funding tied to climate or social outcomes.

In practice, this might look like:

• Building climate and social risk scenarios into strategic planning and ERM.
• Reviewing investment policies, endowment strategies, and procurement through a sustainability and ethics lens.
• Developing lightweight but robust metrics for workforce well-being, DEI, and community impact, even if they’re not branded as “ESG KPIs.”

From a broader lens, this shift could be a net positive for organizations. It moves the needle from defensive compliance, where companies chase mandates amid backlash, to offensive integration, where impact becomes a competitive edge.

Trends for Risk, Strategy, and Internal Audit in 2026

At GRF, we are already advising clients on how to adjust to this evolving “post-ESG” environment.

Key themes emerging for 2026:

✔ Shift from Compliance → Performance

Organizations are asking: “How do our sustainability and community investments improve resilience, cost structure, and competitive positioning?”

✔ Reframing ESG as ‘Impact, Value, & Risk’

Boards increasingly prefer terms like:

• Impact
• Value creation
• Resilience
• Enterprise risk management
• Sustainability performance

The concepts remain the same; the language evolves.

✔ Increased Demand for Credible Reporting

Even as regulations fluctuate, stakeholders still expect:

• Clear KPIs
• Materiality assessments
• Third-party assurance
• Transparent reporting tied to real performance metrics

✔ Supply Chain & Workforce as the New Frontiers

Inflation, labor shortages, and supply instability were dominant themes at the Trump/McDonald’s event, and these are emerging as central impact risks for 2026.

GRF Can Help

Trump’s remarks –and even his participation – at the McDonald’s Impact Summit mark an inflection point: a shift from politically charged ESG debates toward a more pragmatic, business-aligned concept of impact, resilience, and long-term value.

GRF CPAs & Advisors is here to help organizations navigate this new era with confidence. Contact our Risk & Advisory Services team for assistance on your impact plan and reporting.