As 2024 draws to a close, the past few days have seen typical articles in the media reflecting on what a year of reckoning it has been for ESG and for sustainability more broadly.

Political polarisation has seen some companies caught in the crossfire over ESG-driven investment and corporate targets, while progressive policies have been under the microscope. Public attitudes have been a factor too, particularly in a year in which elections have taken place in many major economies.

ESG has taken many knocks and, to a degree, had to change its spots. But spare a thought - if you are so inclined - for the anti-ESG lobby, which as the Financial Times illustrated this week likely faces ever stiffer challenges in 2025 to state its commercial case and communicate its virtues.

It makes the point that while ESG as an investment construct is hard to define, the antithesis is even harder.

Investment portfolios with a counter-ESG agenda have struggled to make their case, it says, referencing two in particular with the names of YALL and MAGA. “Pro- and anti-ESG shareholders both have to reckon with the $1.4tn headache that is Tesla. YALL includes it. MAGA skips it, because while boss Elon Musk is a committed Trumper his employees are not, according to data from Open Secrets,” it cites as an example.

“Casting a vote for president is simple enough; creating a portfolio to match is harder than it sounds,” it concludes.

It’s an interesting perspective, and for companies concerned about getting drawn into polarised debates likely offers some reassurance - that definitions and details are perhaps the most important thing, rather than the subjective perspectives of crowds.

With presidential change on the horizon in the U.S. next month, there has also been recent media commentary about the extent to which a future retreat on sustainability may be more of a factor there than elsewhere. Another recent FT piece outlined the current differences in American versus European business schools, with the former under pressure to be less ‘woke’ and the latter bringing a sustainable change agenda higher up the curriculum.

2025 will surely not be a quiet year for sustainability when it comes to investment mechanisms, corporate change initiatives and public support for widescale transformation. We can expect to hear some very loud voices for a change of direction, alongside others reaffirming their commitments.

But when it comes to the justification and explanation around those actions - and setting provocative rhetoric aside - at least the challenges around the words being used will be equal for both camps.