It’s a recurring dynamic in sustainability leadership: After 12 months of modelling, three rounds of stakeholder consultation, and a business case demonstrating a clear payback period, it's time to present the proposal to the board. 

The finance director nods at the numbers. Then a non-executive director leans back and asks whether solving this problem is really the company’s job, or whether it is “getting ahead of where the regulator actually is”. Another wants to know why the business would move first when a competitor has not. A third mentions, not quite as a joke, that the market has had enough of companies' “virtue signalling”. The meeting moves on to the next agenda item, and the proposal is parked.

That scene plays out regularly in board and executive meetings globally. A South Pole survey of more than 1400 sustainability executives across 12 countries found most companies were still increasing their climate investment and staying on track against their targets, yet a majority in nine of 14 major sectors had deliberately cut back on talking about it, out of concern about scrutiny from investors, regulators and the media. A follow-up analysis published in Harvard Business Review found only 13% of 75 global firms studied had actually retreated from their sustainability commitments, while The Conference Board’s 2025 survey of 125 sustainability executives at large US and multinational companies found 90% expect anti-ESG sentiment to increase or persist over the next two years.

New research from UNSW Business School breaks down the challenges behind these trends and presents practical solutions to help get sustainability proposals across the line. Co-authored by PhD student Anthony Lockhart and Professor Peter Heslin from the School of Management & Governance at UNSW Business School, the research brings together findings on cognitive bias, identity theory and moral disengagement. Their paper, Framing sustainability proposals: A toolkit for unlocking internal support, which was recently published in Organizational Dynamics, includes resources to assist industry practitioners including scripts, a diagnostic tool, and a checklist for use before and during meetings in which sustainability proposals are discussed and decided on.

A three-stage pattern of resistance

The research was motivated by a puzzle that regularly arises: why do credible sustainability proposals stall even when the numbers stack up? “We wanted to identify the different forms resistance can take and give proponents a more targeted response than simply making the business case again,” Lockhart said.

Lockhart and Prof. Heslin describe resistance to sustainability proposals across three stages, though they note this is a typical pattern rather than a fixed sequence. In the first stage, “identity-congruent appraisal”, people apply mental shortcuts before any debate about values starts. In the second, “identity defence”, the proposal begins to signal something about who the organisation is, and pushback takes on an ideological tone. In the third, “moral identity affirmation”, leaders find ways to justify inaction while maintaining their self-image as responsible organisational decision-makers.

Learn more: Unilever’s CEO Nicole Sparshott on the business of sustainability

The authors describe these patterns as “escalating efforts to protect identity, not simple stubbornness.”

Stage one: the pull of today over tomorrow

The researchers explain that two biases dominate the first stage. Temporal discounting means people weigh near-term costs more heavily than long-term gains, even when the long-term gains are larger. Loss aversion means that giving up familiar routines or assets feels worse than an equivalent gain feels good. Together, these produce a preference for “wait and see” that manifests as caution rather than delay.

This observation is illustrated by ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods during the company’s 2024 second-quarter earnings call. He asserted that new spending must “generate competitive returns, possess clear competitive advantages, and be resilient to the bottom of any commodity cycle” – filtering long-term proposals through near-term capital discipline.

In response to such positions, the researchers suggest designing early phases that deliver visible wins against metrics executives already track, and putting a figure on the cost of delay so inaction no longer looks free.

“Consider a proposal to replace ageing equipment with a more energy-efficient system,” Prof. Heslin explained. “The upfront cost is immediate, while the total savings unfold over years into the future, so ‘wait and see’ can feel prudent. A tightly scoped pilot can shift that calculation by showing lower energy or maintenance costs within the next reporting cycle – and by putting a price on another year of delay.”

Stage two: when a proposal signals identity

A proposal that clears the first hurdle can still be read as a political statement rather than a strategic one. Lockhart and Prof. Heslin note that values-driven ideologies “are consistently the strongest predictors of denying human-induced climate change.” This helps explain why some board discussions shift from numbers to values.

BlackRock’s exit from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative illustrates how a climate commitment can become entangled with organisational identity and role expectations. The firm said its membership had “caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials”, distancing itself from a collective climate commitment to protect its standing as an independent, non-ideological fiduciary.

"Presented instead as a way to reduce operating costs and strengthen resilience – ideally alongside a respected finance or operations leader – the same proposal may be treated as a core business opportunity"

ANTHONY LOCKHART

The paper’s suggested response: frame the initiative in language that matches the organisation’s existing identity, whether that is cost discipline, reliability, or competitiveness, and use messengers that top leadership already trusts.

“Imagine a sustainability leader presenting an energy-efficiency proposal to a company that prides itself on disciplined capital allocation,” Lockhart explained. “If it is introduced mainly as an environmental initiative, it may be dismissed as peripheral. Presented instead as a way to reduce operating costs and strengthen resilience – ideally alongside a respected finance or operations leader – the same proposal may be treated as a core business opportunity.”

Stage three: staying the good guy while delaying

The third stage centres on moral disengagement, a concept developed by psychologist Albert Bandura to describe how people justify conduct that sits at odds with their own and community standards. In this setting, that includes shifting responsibility to regulators or consumers, downplaying harm, or comparing favourably against a worse competitor rather than against what the situation requires.

BMW chief executive Oliver Zipse used this reasoning to defend continued combustion-engine production: “If someone cannot buy an EV for some reason but needs a car, would you rather propose he continues to drive his old car forever? If you are not selling combustion engines anymore, someone else will.”

In response, the researchers suggest replacing vague language with plain descriptions of what an operation does and naming a specific owner for each decision rather than leaving it with “the group”.

“Moral disengagement allows leaders to obfuscate, ignore, or deny responsibility for addressing an ethical issue,” Prof. Heslin explained. “A retailer may agree that excessive single-use plastic packaging is harmful, yet justify continuing to use it because customers expect convenience, regulations still allow it, or competitors use even more. Yet the costs of becoming seen as socially irresponsible can be substantial. Ways forward include making community impacts visible by avoiding euphemisms such as 'rightsizing'; rejecting 'at least we’re better than them' reasoning; and treating compliance as a floor, not a goal, because social licence depends on public trust and conduct that exceeds regulatory minimums.”

A more tactical approach for sustainability leaders

For a manager preparing to pitch a sustainability initiative, it is important to work out which stage dominates the conversation before choosing an argument. In their paper, the researchers package this into a three-part toolkit: a diagnostic to identify the dominant barrier, a set of stage-matched scripts for the room, and a checklist to work through before a meeting starts. They also note that organisational hierarchy, governance structure and power distance all affect whether a direct challenge or a more indirect approach is likely to land best.

The paper explains how these solutions play out differently across organisations. In large corporates, proponents gain more traction by locking in decision criteria upfront, running tightly scoped pilots and setting a fixed review date, so momentum survives the journey through multiple layers of approval. In smaller firms, direct access to the founder or chief executive tends to matter more than formal process.

In capital-intensive and regulated industries, proposals land best when framed as risk mitigation, benchmarked against the same investment hurdles used for any other capital request. And in professional services firms, where status and autonomy carry more weight than budgets, proponents need to agree on role clarity and ownership before raising the idea.

“A strong case can still fail when it answers the wrong objection, so the key is to diagnose before you persuade”, Lockhart said. “Is the real barrier risk and return, organisational identity, or a rationalisation for delay? Then, the goal is not to hoodwink the audience, but to match the proposal framing to the organisational imperatives decision-makers care about.”

Seven stage-related recommendations for sustainability leaders

When the concern is near-term risk and return:

1. Make the cost of delay visible: Put a figure on the financial, operational or strategic consequences of waiting, so the cost of inaction is assessed alongside the cost of acting.

2. Create an early, credible win: Use a tightly scoped pilot with clear exit points and measure it against metrics decision-makers already track, such as cost, reliability, and risk.

When the proposal is being treated as a challenge to organisational identity:

3. Connect the proposal to established organisational priorities: Explain how it supports values the organisation already recognises, such as disciplined investment, resilience, reliability or competitiveness, rather than relying on environmental language alone.

4. Use messengers the audience already trusts: Build visible support from credible leaders in finance, risk, operations or the relevant business unit before taking the proposal to a senior forum.

When the discussion is dominated by moral justifications for inaction, avoid and manage:

5. Reframing harmful conduct as acceptable via moral justification (e.g., “Our operations create employment and support local economies”); euphemistic labelling (e.g., “We undertake resource extraction” rather than mining or logging”); and advantageous comparison (e.g., “We’re not as bad as most companies in our industry”).

6. Evading personal responsibility via displacement of responsibility (e.g., “We’re abiding by all our legal obligations”) and diffusion of responsibility (e.g., “The decision was made collectively by the board, not by me”).

7. Diminishing harm or shifting blame via disregarding consequences (e.g., “Some environmental impact is unavoidable to produce the clothes we’re wearing”); dehumanisation (e.g., “We should not let the lunatic fringe derail the discussion”); and attribution of blame (e.g., “We only make products that customers demand”).