In Times of War, Accelerate — Don’t Slow Down — Sustainability

Whenever the world is shaken — whether by war, an economic crisis, or political instability — a recurring argument resurfaces: that sustainability targets and ESG requirements should be “put on hold.” Excessive costs, regulatory complexity, and loss of competitiveness are cited, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. The pattern is always the same.

The problem with this line of reasoning is simple: it is based on the mistaken assumption that sustainability is a luxury for times of prosperity. It is not. On the contrary, sustainability is increasingly a condition for economic, energy, and geopolitical resilience — especially in times of crisis.

Today’s wars are not only military conflicts. They are also energy wars. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brutally exposed Europe’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. More recently, escalating tensions between the United States and Iran have once again put global oil and gas supply at risk, with direct impacts on energy prices, inflation, and the stability of global economies.

Ignoring this energy dimension is to ignore what truly matters. Every geopolitical shock highlights the same structural vulnerability: excessive dependence on fossil energy sources concentrated in unstable regions and controlled by unpredictable regimes. The rational response to this vulnerability is not to slow down the energy transition — it is to accelerate it. This is precisely the argument put forward by Frank Elderson, a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, in his recent article in the Financial Times. He argues that energy security and decarbonisation are now inseparable goals, and that investing in renewables, energy efficiency, and electrification is not merely an environmental decision; it is a strategic one that reduces exposure to external shocks, price volatility, and dangerous geopolitical dependencies.

Interestingly, while part of the debate in the West seems inclined to relativise or delay ESG in the name of economic urgency, China is moving in the opposite direction. According to China Briefing, 2025 marked the transition of ESG in China from a voluntary exercise to a true regulatory compliance system, with new reporting requirements, expansion of the national carbon market, and strengthened environmental enforcement — a trend set to intensify in 2026. Beijing is treating ESG not as a dispensable cost in difficult times, but as a central instrument of industrial policy, competitiveness, and economic stability. In light of this contrast, the question arises: is China wrong — or is the West confusing the short term with strategy?

Even so, the narrative that ESG requirements are a “burden” in difficult times persists. In Portugal, this narrative tends to spread among so-called “experts.” However, it is important to highlight that such claims reflect a short-term and defensive reading of reality and the future. Empirical evidence shows that companies with stronger environmental, social, and governance practices tend to demonstrate greater adaptability, better risk management, and improved access to financing — precisely when the economic environment becomes more adverse.

In the case of SMEs, the challenge is not to reduce climate ambition, but to improve support mechanisms, simplify processes, and align public policies with the transition. Using war or instability as a justification to step back is, in practice, postponing investments that would increase future competitiveness and the strategic autonomy of economies.

Recent history teaches us that every energy crisis is not an isolated accident, but a symptom of an exhausted model. Continuing to depend on fossil fuels does not make us safer or more competitive — it makes us more vulnerable.

In times of war, the mistake is not demanding too much from sustainability. The mistake is believing we can survive without it.

Published on Diário de Notícias