Discover top fintech news and events!
Subscribe to FinTech Weekly's newsletter
Read by executives at JP Morgan, Coinbase, Blackrock, Klarna and more
This editorial represents the author's personal analysis and perspective. While based on data and current developments, the views expressed are subjective interpretations and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution or organization. Readers are encouraged to critically engage with the ideas presented and form their own conclusions.
What defines sustainability? The dictionary would tell you it’s about meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Fair enough, but if we stop at this simplistic definition, we risk missing the bigger picture.
Sustainability is not just about carbon footprints or green energy—it’s a much broader concept that affects businesses, economies, and even the political decisions shaping our societies. And it’s precisely because sustainability is so vast that it creates friction, misunderstandings, and, at times, outright resistance.
Take what’s happening in the EU right now. After years of pushing for stricter sustainability reporting, the European Commission is suddenly rolling back some of its green policies. They’re proposing to raise the employee threshold for mandatory sustainability reporting from 250 to 1,000 employees, meaning about 80% of previously obligated companies would no longer have to disclose their impact.
The reasoning? Reducing bureaucratic burdens and ensuring European companies remain competitive. The result? A blow to transparency and a clear signal that, despite all the talk, institutions can be the slowest actors when it comes to adaptation.
Now, let’s be honest—transitioning to a sustainable economy is not easy. If you tell a business they need to cut 100% of their emissions within 10 years, it’s understandable that they might struggle.
But here’s the real question: do businesses and investors truly need government-imposed boundaries to follow a sustainable path? Or is sustainability already an inevitability, regardless of political shifts?
When I worked in international politics, I learned a lesson that seems obvious, yet too often gets overlooked: people choose policies, businesses are the intermediaries, and institutions adapt—eventually. And if we look at where younger generations stand, the message is clear. A significant percentage of them consider sustainability a deal breaker when making purchasing decisions.
That’s why businesses bombard us daily with ads about their commitments to cutting emissions and embracing ESG. Not necessarily because they suddenly care, but because they know they won’t survive if they don’t. Their business model is simple: no sales, no survival. And when businesses move, institutions, however slowly, must follow.
But adaptation is not always smooth, and there’s always resistance. We’ve already seen what happens when businesses fail to embrace obvious, forward-thinking strategies. Look at the pandemic: companies that weren’t digitized struggled, many collapsed. But did we really need a global crisis to understand that digital transformation was inevitable? And now, do we really need governments to force sustainability on businesses, or will the market dictate it anyway?
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need regulations. Businesses would understand that short-term profits are meaningless if they come at the expense of long-term survival.
The smartest companies and investors already know this. Sustainable businesses are attracting capital. And while some politicians waste time debating whether diversity and sustainability initiatives are "necessary," the market is already speaking.
According to the "Spend Z" report from NielsenIQ, Gen Z is the generation with the fastest-growing economic influence, and projections show they’ll surpass Baby Boomers in spending by 2029. In other words, they’re about to become the dominant force in the market.
Guess what? Almost 73% of Millennials and Gen Z see ESG as a key factor when shaping their investment portfolios. That’s straight from a survey by deVere Group. So, if you’re wondering whether sustainability is just a passing trend, the numbers tell a different story.
And this is where things get even more interesting. If we look at where investors are directing their money, we see another trend emerging: the rise of Shariah-compliant finance.
The global Islamic finance market is projected to grow to over $8.255 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of about 13% from 2023 to 2032. And here’s the key point—this isn’t just about religious values. Shariah-compliant finance follows a structure that naturally avoids excessive speculation, high-risk leverage, and exploitative financial practices. In short, it offers a sustainable, ethics-driven alternative. And it’s attracting investors beyond its traditional Muslim-majority base.
That tells us something. When financial models built on ethical principles gain traction globally, it’s not just about belief systems—it’s about long-term viability.
So, with all this in mind, we have to ask: if sustainability is so crucial to businesses, to investments, and to economic survival, why don’t these ideas always win at the ballot box?
My answer is simple. The number of people who vote is far greater than the number of people with real purchasing power. Politics follows the first. The market moves with the second. And while political cycles come and go, smart businesses and investors don’t operate on four-year mandates—they look at the next fifty years. And they know, with or without imposed boundaries, that sustainability isn’t just an option. It’s the only way forward.
