Is the chief sustainability officer becoming irrelevant? It’s debatable
For much of the past two decades, the chief sustainability officer was a corporate avatar of progress. If a company had one, it signaled seriousness — about climate, social impact, governance, transparency, resilience and more.
That’s changing. In some circles, the CSO is now seen less as a vanguard and more as a vestige, a bureaucrat more than a builder. The question, still largely whispered, is blunt: Is the CSO increasingly irrelevant?
The answer, inconveniently: yes and no.
On the one hand, sustainability strategy and implementation have been pushed into business units and functions — procurement, finance, legal — leaving less need for a singular department. On the other hand, a dedicated someone at the executive level needs to “own” an organization’s sustainability strategy, goals, commitments and transparency.
That is, it’s subject to debate.
We’ll be holding that debate on stage next month at GreenBiz 26 in a 90-minute plenary session devoted to airing both sides of this existential question. I’ll be co-hosting the debate along with Sophie Lambin, CEO of Kite Insights, who has staged such debates at Davos and Climate Weeks and alongside COP conferences, among other places around the world.
I’ve had the good fortune to participate in two Kite debates on other topics, as a debater (at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, arguing the motion “We can upskill our way out of the climate crisis”) and as co-host (at Climate Week NYC in September — “AI will do nature’s work”). Employing the Oxford debate style — two teams of three, volleying back and forth — they are as entertaining as they are enlightening.
The winner, as determined by the audience, is not which team is “right” but which is more persuasive.
The format encourages thoughtful consideration of both sides. In Dubai, for example, I was tasked with making a case that was counter to my belief. (My team won.)
What are some points likely to be raised at GreenBiz 26? Here’s my take on the arguments you’ll hear, although I’m quite certain that the debaters will each bring their own special sauce to the occasion.
The case for irrelevance
In some companies, sustainability has become everyone’s job or no one’s. Climate risk sits with finance. Supply-chain emissions live in procurement. Product sustainability belongs to R&D. Investor disclosures are owned by legal. Strategy is handled by — well, strategy. The CSO, meanwhile, often floats above it all, coordinating, cajoling and translating, but with little direct authority.
That made sense when sustainability was marginal. It makes less sense now that it is material.
As sustainability has matured, the CSO role has often failed to evolve at the same pace. Too many CSOs still lack direct control over capital allocation, product design or operational decisions. They focus on reporting, frameworks and reputation rather than on value creation. Their power is influence, not imperative.
Add to this the political backlash that is pushing companies to keep their sustainability initiatives sotto voce, plus the regulatory uncertainty and ESG fatigue of the past few years, it’s no wonder the CSO’s role has become a lightning rod — responsible for navigating a culture war with fewer tools, less air cover and smaller budgets than even a couple years ago.
Then there’s the talent paradox. CSOs, deeply knowledgeable about climate science, human rights or stakeholder engagement, may be less fluent in finance, operations or P&L trade-offs. In an era when sustainability must compete head-to-head with growth, resilience and margin pressure, that gap matters.
Seen through this lens, the role can look like a transitional one — useful for a chapter but destined to dissolve as sustainability is absorbed into core functions.
The case for relevance
Writing off the CSO is not only premature, it misunderstands the moment we’re in.
Sustainability has become more complex, more interconnected and more consequential. Climate risk is now systemic. Supply chains are geopolitical. Water scarcity is local and acute. AI and data centers are impacting energy systems, aquifers and land use. Nature loss is impacting food security and insurance markets.
This is not a coordination problem that solves itself.
What the best CSOs do — and what few other executives are positioned to do — is integrate across silos. They link climate science to capital planning, human rights to procurement, regulatory risk to product strategy, and long-term planetary constraints to near-term business decisions. That connective tissue doesn’t form by accident. It requires a systemic role and mandate over a sustained period.
Moreover, a growing number of CSOs do bring deep business experience to their roles, some having already served in supply chain, finance and other mission-critical parts of the company. They can play a critical role in bridging the all-too-common gap between sustainability and more traditional business goals.
Without a senior executive whose job it is to keep asking uncomfortable questions — about tradeoffs, time horizons and externalities, among other things — sustainability tends to lose gravity.
So, what do you think? I can assure you that whatever your current leanings, you’ll come away from this debate with new insights and inspiration. You might even think differently about your job.
The post Is the chief sustainability officer becoming irrelevant? It’s debatable appeared first on Trellis.