Analysis of how the U.S. federal stance on ESG has swung sharply with the new administration. We will review specific changes expected under President Trump’s second term, such as the rollback of SEC climate disclosure rules and environmental regulations. Discussion will cover the implications of the U.S. potentially exiting global climate agreements again. We also examine how state-level actions (like California’s new climate disclosure laws versus anti-ESG laws in Texas/Florida) are creating a patchwork of ESG requirements that companies must juggle. 

A candid look at the rise of ESG’s critics. This includes studying real examples of anti-ESG legislation (e.g., state statutes banning “energy boycotts” by investors and mandating purely pecuniary investment criteria) and lawsuits targeting companies’ diversity or climate initiatives. Participants will learn how these developments have coalesced into a playbook that is influencing corporate behavior (for instance, several firms have already scaled back public ESG commitments in response to political pressure). We’ll also discuss the expected trajectory of this movement – surveys show an overwhelming majority of corporate leaders anticipate the anti-ESG wave to continue through 2026. 

Introduction to how global crises are straining ESG paradigms. We touch on how the war in Ukraine forced a recalibration of energy policy in the EU (balancing energy security with green goals), and how conflicts like Israel–Gaza are no longer “regional” issues but have global supply chain repercussions. We highlight the concept of ESG resilience – why geopolitical risk management has become part of the ESG remit, and therefore a concern for lawyers.

Finally, this session will explore how investors and companies have responded to the above pressures. We share findings that 80% of large companies have adjusted their ESG strategies in response to current political dynamics, often by reframing their messaging and increasing legal oversight of ESG programs. Notably, over half are moving away from using the term “ESG” in communications to avoid politicized backlash. We also discuss the record ESG fund outflows of 2025 as a signal that investors are rethinking approaches. The key lesson: the consensus that once propelled ESG has splintered, requiring a new approach. 

A deep dive into the split between federal disengagement and state activism on ESG. We examine the status of key U.S. federal regulations – for instance, the stalled SEC climate disclosure rule and any changes in enforcement priorities at agencies like the SEC, EPA, and Department of Labor. In contrast, we explore state-driven mandates, such as California’s Climate Disclosure Act (which compels large companies to report emissions and climate risks, effectively setting a de facto national standard). We also consider the proliferation of state anti-ESG laws and their legal implications: how should companies manage fiduciary duties when one state forbids considering ESG factors while another (like New York or Illinois) might encourage or require them? Lawyers will learn strategies for compliance that thread the needle – e.g. crafting investment policies that satisfy “red state” laws without violating duties to broader shareholder interests, or harmonizing disclosures to meet the most stringent applicable standard.

Delays and Adjustments: This portion provides an updated briefing on the EU’s ESG regulatory initiatives and the recent “stop-the-clock” adjustments. We break down the CSRD requirements and how their phased implementation has been pushed back (with practical timelines: large companies now reporting in 2028 instead of 2026, etc.). We also cover the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD/CS3D) – its aim to enforce human rights and environmental due diligence in supply chains – and the one-year postponement in its enforcement timeline. Importantly, participants will discuss why these delays happened: concerns about corporate readiness and reporting burdens. We’ll review the ongoing debates in the EU about potentially simplifying or scaling back ESG requirements to make them more practicable. From a legal advisory standpoint, this is a case study in regulatory risk: companies must prepare

for rules that are in flux. Lawyers will learn how to counsel clients to remain adaptive – e.g. by voluntarily aligning with emerging standards (many U.S. companies are still moving to align with EU rules, with one survey showing over 80% planning to follow CSRD guidelines in some form, anticipating stakeholder pressure) even as they monitor legislative changes.

Beyond the EU, we touch on other international regulatory trends – such as the UK’s and other countries’ ESG disclosure mandates, and how global frameworks like the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) are attempting to create a baseline for climate and sustainability reporting. We also address cross-border conflicts: what happens when U.S. anti-ESG laws conflict with EU requirements (for example, a U.S. asset manager banned by its state from considering climate goals but needing to report under EU rules)? Discussion will include the role of trade and diplomacy – could differences in ESG regimes become trade barriers or lead to legal disputes (for instance, over “carbon border taxes” or import restrictions on goods made with

This topic addresses how wars and geopolitical tensions expose vulnerabilities in global supply chains – a critical “S” (social) and “G” (governance) issue. Using the Israel–Gaza conflict as a current example, we discuss how sustained instability in a region can disrupt shipping routes, delay deliveries, and create shortages of key inputs. We will discuss “friend-shoring” or relocating supply chains means for ESG (e.g., shifting production to countries with different labor or environmental standards) and how lawyers can guide companies to do so responsibly and in compliance with trade laws. 

We start with an in-depth case analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict (ongoing since 2022) and its multifaceted ESG implications. Participants will review how the war triggered an energy crunch in Europe and discuss the resulting policy shifts – e.g. emergency use of coal plants vs. accelerated investment in renewables, and what that meant for companies’ environmental commitments. We also examine the massive corporate exodus from Russia (hundreds of Western companies pulled out) as an example of corporate social governance in action: businesses weighed legal sanctions, ethical considerations, and reputational risk, often choosing to prioritize “doing the right thing” amidst stakeholder pressure. In legal terms, this raises questions: How do force majeure or material adverse change clauses work when war erupts? What are the sanctions compliance requirements for companies (and their lawyers) dealing with abrupt government directives? How can counsel help companies navigate the decision to cease operations in a conflict zone while minimizing legal fallout (contract terminations, employment law issues, asset write-offs)? This discussion will offer insights on geopolitical conflict as a core ESG risk factor that must be accounted for in corporate governance. 

With energy markets roiled by conflicts (Russia cutting gas to Europe, Middle East instability affecting oil prices), many governments have prioritized energy security – sometimes at odds with climate pledges.  for rules that are in flux. Lawyers will learn how to counsel clients to remain adaptive – e.g. by voluntarily aligning with emerging standards (many U.S. companies are still moving to align with EU rules, with one survey showing over 80% planning to follow CSRD guidelines in some form, anticipating stakeholder pressure) even as they monitor legislative changes.

Beyond the EU, we touch on other international regulatory trends – such as the UK’s and other countries’ ESG disclosure mandates, and how global frameworks like the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) are attempting to create a baseline for climate and sustainability reporting. We also address cross-border conflicts: what happens when U.S. anti-ESG laws conflict with EU requirements (for example, a U.S. asset manager banned by its state from considering climate goals but needing to report under EU rules)? Discussion will include the role of trade and diplomacy – could differences in ESG regimes become trade barriers or lead to legal disputes (for instance, over “carbon border taxes” or import restrictions on goods made with

Finally, we tie it together by introducing tools for proactively managing geopolitical ESG risks.  

We begin by unpacking the current investor sentiment toward ESG. We’ll discuss high-profile statements from investor leaders, such as BlackRock’s public stance to stop using the term “ESG” due to political weaponization. Does this represent a true retreat, or simply a rebranding? We also cover how some investors (especially in Europe and among younger demographics) remain committed to ESG but are demanding better data and results.   How can lawyers engage with institutional investors’ evolving expectations? 

This discussion will taek a quick look at the alphabet soup of ESG frameworks and the current efforts to harmonize them – or the lack thereof.  The roles of ISSB, GRI, SASB, TCFD, EU’s ESRS, etc., and highlight that 2024–2025 is a turning point with the ISSB issuing new global standards for sustainability reporting.  For lawyers, understanding these frameworks is not just academic: it’s about knowing what to disclose and how.  

Beyond the EU, we touch on other international regulatory trends – such as the UK’s and other countries’ ESG disclosure mandates, and how global frameworks like the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) are attempting to create a baseline for climate and sustainability reporting. We also address cross-border conflicts: what happens when U.S. anti-ESG laws conflict with EU requirements (for example, a U.S. asset manager banned by its state from considering climate goals but needing to report under EU rules)? Discussion will include the role of trade and diplomacy – could differences in ESG regimes become trade barriers or lead to legal disputes (for instance, over “carbon border taxes” or import restrictions on goods made with

As investor consensus wavers, one thing is certain – regulators and plaintiffs are paying closer attention to ESG claims.  

Even as the exact expectations are in flux. Therefore, lawyers must help their clients walk a fine line: be ambitious and transparent enough to satisfy genuine stakeholder demands, but cautious and precise enough to avoid legal pitfalls. 

We will conclude this discussion exploring the significant opportunities for lawyers and firms that become fluent in the new ESG language. How can understanding ESG risks open up advisory opportunities in areas like climate risk management, ESG-oriented M&A due diligence, compliance consulting, and beyond.