The Environmental Shift That is Now Standard

When people think about environmental impact, they often picture factories, planes, or city traffic. But individual routines matter too. A traditional office job bundles energy use and emissions into shared spaces: large buildings, daily commutes, centralized heating and cooling, and constant lighting.

Remote work breaks that bundle apart. Working from home doesn’t automatically make someone “greener,” but by 2026, it has fully moved environmental decisions closer to the individual. This shift creates both opportunities and responsibilities.

2026 Snapshot: What Has Changed

• Permanent reduction in daily car trips and fuel consumption.
• More individualized control over heating, cooling, and lighting.
• Increased use of home electronics during the workday
• Greater visibility into personal energy habits

In short: less commuting, more personal choice.

Key Takeaways for the 2026 Workforce

Working remotely can lower personal carbon footprints mainly by cutting commutes, but the environmental benefit depends on how people manage energy at home. Small, intentional changes—like efficient heating, mindful device use, and sustainable routines—add up. Remote work doesn’t eliminate environmental impact; it redistributes it into everyday decisions.

Carbon Footprints: Commutes vs. Living Rooms

For many workers, commuting was the single biggest daily source of carbon emissions. Driving alone, sitting in traffic, or even using public transit adds up over time. Remote work removes or reduces that entirely.

However, home energy use rises during the day. The net environmental impact depends on several factors, summarized below.

How remote work shifts emissions

For many people, the reduction in transportation emissions outweighs the increase in home energy use—especially if they live in energy-efficient homes or take steps to manage consumption.

Learning, Careers, and The Digital-First Economy

Remote work doesn’t exist in isolation from education and career development. In 2026, many people now prepare for remote-friendly roles without ever setting foot on a physical campus. Earning an online degree allows students to build relevant skills while avoiding daily travel, reducing commuting emissions and the energy demands of large institutional buildings. It also aligns naturally with remote work culture, where digital communication, self-management, and virtual collaboration are essential.

For those interested in technology-focused roles, exploring cybersecurity career paths can support both career growth and sustainability goals. With a cybersecurity degree, you can also learn about protecting businesses’ computers and network systems—an increasingly critical need in a digital-first world.

Daily Habits That Quietly Matter

Remote work changes the rhythm of the day. Lunches are cooked at home. Coffee is brewed in personal kitchens. Breaks look different. These small shifts can influence sustainability more than people expect.

A few examples:

• Cooking at home can reduce packaging waste and food transport emissions.
• Flexible schedules make it easier to run errands on foot or by bike.
• Less pressure to “look busy” can reduce unnecessary device use.

On the 2026 flip side, always being home can blur boundaries and lead to higher energy use if devices stay on all day or heating runs longer than needed.

2026 Checklist: Making a Home Office Eco-Friendly

You don’t need a solar roof or a smart home overhaul to make a difference. The biggest gains usually come from simple, repeatable choices.

A practical checklist for greener remote work

• ☐ Set a consistent thermostat schedule for work hours only
• ☐ Use natural light whenever possible
• ☐ Power down monitors and equipment when not in use
• ☐ Choose energy-efficient bulbs and devices
• ☐ Avoid printing unless absolutely necessary
• ☐ Bundle errands to reduce extra trips

These habits not only reduce emissions but often lower utility bills—a rare win-win.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is working from home always better for the environment?
Not always. The benefits depend on commuting distance, home energy efficiency, and daily habits. For most people with long commutes, remote work reduces emissions overall.

Does remote work increase electricity use?
Yes, typically during the workday. However, targeted use at home is often more efficient than powering large office buildings.

What’s the biggest eco-friendly change remote workers can make?
Reducing unnecessary heating, cooling, and device use during the day usually has the biggest impact.

Do hybrid workers still see environmental benefits?
Often, yes. Even working from home a few days a week can significantly cut transportation emissions.

By 2026, remote work has reshaped environmental challenges. By shifting control from centralized offices to individuals, it turns sustainability into a daily practice rather than a distant policy goal. The real impact comes from awareness: when people notice their energy use, they can change it. Small decisions, repeated every workday, quietly add up to something meaningful.

The post From Rush Hour to Kitchen Table: Remote Work’s Quiet Environmental Shift in 2026 first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post From Rush Hour to Kitchen Table: Remote Work’s Quiet Environmental Shift in 2026 appeared first on ESG Foundation.

The post Is ESG dead? first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Is ESG dead? appeared first on ESG Foundation.

So what? He’s right and it’s not good enough. There was relief that a deal was agreed given it could have completely fallen apart a day earlier. Important decisions have been made on boosting climate adaptation funds and protecting rights in a green economy. But limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is increasingly unlikely when

• delegates failed to come up with a roadmap on ending deforestation;
• there was no mention of fossil fuels in the final summit text; and
• the US elected not to send a delegation.

Cut to the chase. Brazil, which hosted the fractious summit in the city of Belém, published a draft text on Tuesday that referred to a roadmap to phasing out fossil fuels. It was designed to build on Cop28, location of the first agreement to explicitly mention a transition away from oil, gas and coal. That text wasn’t binding, but in climate negotiations language matters.

Cutting room floor. By Friday the Cop30 draft had removed any mention of fossil fuels, even though its inclusion was supported by the UK and dozens of other countries. The final agreement followed all-night talks and merely nodded to the “United Arab Emirates consensus”. It did, at least, reiterate that the 1.5C target requires “deep, rapid and sustained” emission cuts.

Good luck with that. Ani Dasgupta from the World Resources Institute said that “intense lobbying from a few petrostates weakened the deal”.

Not naming names. Leading the charge were Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. They were arguably emboldened by the absence of the US, the top oil producer and consumer.

For the record. Donald Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and recently called climate change the “greatest con job” in history.

Woodchucked. Also excised from the final text was a roadmap to the end of deforestation, which was a major goal of Cop30. The summit had been deliberately hosted in the Amazon to focus minds on the role of trees in tackling climate change.

Scant comfort. Brazil softened the blow by unilaterally announcing the creation of the roadmap and launching an investment fund to compensate nations that preserve tropical forests. Both were taken outside the UN process. It also committed to a fossil fuel roadmap, which will

• similarly sit outside the UN;
• proceed under the leadership of Colombia and the Pacific Islands; and
• report back to Cop after dialogue that includes an international conference in April.

The problem is that the US would probably block any global agreement that follows.

Take a bow. There were some things to celebrate. Countries agreed to a so-called just transition mechanism, a plan to protect human rights when moving to a green economy. This is the result of hard-fought campaigning by the Global South, including Indigenous groups.

Progress of sorts. The final text also trebles adaptation finance to help poorer nations deal with a warmer world, another good thing. But the 2035 deadline was initially 2030, and the goal of roughly $120 billion a year is well short of the $300 billion target set at Cop29.

Unvarnished truth. Many countries were also unhappy at the indicators adopted to measure progress on adaptation. Sierra Leone’s climate minister said the list was not the one “crafted by experts”. He dismissed its contents as “unclear, unmeasurable, and in many cases, unusable”.

Beyond Cop. For all the small wins and sinewy multilateralism, countries have still not come up with national climate plans that will come close to keeping the world within 1.5C of warming.

What’s more… One word that made it into the final text was “overshoot”, which was used to refer to this threshold and specifically to the world that lies beyond. It draws closer by the day.

The post Some like it hot first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Some like it hot appeared first on ESG Foundation.

The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) today warns that the UK’s legally binding climate targets are under threat, as a new report, Leading the Pathway to Net Zero: Transforming Management and Leadership for a Sustainable Future, reveals a critical management and leadership skills gap stopping organisations from turning net zero ambitions into action.

The research, spanning organisations across the UK economy, highlights a fundamental “say-do” gap in the net zero transition: while nearly three-quarters of managers (74%) say sustainability is a priority for their employers, one-third (33%) lack confidence in their organisation’s readiness to deliver the necessary change.

The management and leadership skills deficit

The report also shows that the net zero challenge is managerial, not just technical. Over half of managers (57%) in organisations with a net zero plan report lacking clarity on what is expected of them, leaving strategies stuck on paper instead of translating into practical day to day action. At the same time, demand for green-skilled management has soared by 69% between 2015 and 2024, highlighting the urgent need for capable leaders to drive what will be complex organisational changes.

Closing this skills gap is not just about hitting climate targets, it’s also a business imperative as organisations are increasingly required to demonstrate their sustainability commitment for procurement opportunities and in the face of consumer demand for businesses that behave responsibly when it comes to their environmental impact. The CMI research also shows that investing in management can boost organisational performance by 23%, demonstrating that skilled managers are also essential to improved productivity.

Professionalising the Green Transition

The report concludes that the UK cannot achieve net zero without upskilling leaders at all levels, from the C-suite to frontline managers. Successfully navigating the transition requires professionals capable of systems thinking, change leadership, and clear stakeholder engagement.

Ann Francke OBE, CEO of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), said:
“The transition to a sustainable, net zero economy is one of the greatest challenges and opportunities of our time. This transformation will reshape the labour market and redefine how we all work, and at the heart of that change are managers and leaders with the skills to turn sustainability ambitions into tangible actions. 

“This report highlights the scale of the challenge ahead, exposing the widening management and leadership skills gap that risks slowing our progress. To achieve lasting impact, we must develop managers who can lead sustainably, embedding environmental responsibility, resilience and innovation into everyday business decisions. Doing so well will benefit rather than burden the bottom line – so it’s a win for everyone.“ 

Martin Baxter FISEP, Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), added:
“There is an urgent need to embed green skills across a wider range of different professions beyond environment and sustainability specialists, from finance and engineering, to accountancy and procurement. This research by the CMI highlights that skills gap extends to people in leadership and management positions as well – who are facing growing levels of responsibility and accountability for achieving net zero and sustainability goals more broadly.

“At ISEP we are seeing more and more evidence that the success of any organisation in improving performance in areas like carbon reduction can be directly linked to management being visible champions and proactively leading efforts to support sustainability. And the best way to ensure this happens is for managers to have knowledge and skills developed through training and qualifications.”

CMI Sustainability Leadership Qualifications

To address this gap, CMI has launched a new suite of Sustainability Leadership Qualifications (Levels 3, 5, and 7) designed to build green management competencies across careers. These qualifications enable managers to:

• Implement strategy: Translate high-level net zero plans into clear, measurable operational targets.
  

• Lead change: Build the professional confidence to manage complex, systemic change and resistance effectively.
  

• Professionalise the workforce: Equip organisations with a quality-assured pathway to develop managers capable of delivering on ESG commitments.

About the Chartered Management Institute (CMI)

The Chartered Management Institute is the professional body for managers and leaders. We have a membership community of over 230,000 aspiring and practising managers and more than 150,000 people are currently studying on one of our management and leadership programmes. Our Royal Charter defines our charitable mission as increasing the number and standard of professionally qualified managers and leaders.

Further information:

Izzy Pougatch, Senior Account Executive, Atalanta +44 (0)7712 256399

www.atalanta.co

(Picture credit: Pexels.com)

The post CMI: Management skills gap threatens UK net zero targets first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post CMI: Management skills gap threatens UK net zero targets appeared first on ESG Foundation.

𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘌𝘚𝘎/𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘪, 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘚𝘢𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘰, 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘬𝘰𝘬, 𝘛𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰, 𝘋𝘰𝘩𝘢, 𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘺𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘌𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 & 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

From my experience advising on cross-border sustainability regulations, I’ve seen that though there are still significant overlaps, “ESG compliance” has its jurisdictional nuances, with those differences widening continuously.

Here’s a quick summary of where things stand today:

Africa: ISSB reporting mandates (Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya). New climate change regulations & Green Finance Guidelines gaining ground.

Asia: Mandatory disclosures (Singapore, Japan, Korea, India). Human rights due diligence & supply chain transparency on the rise.

Europe:  CSRD, CSDDD, EU Taxonomy, CBAM, etc., Europe remains the centre of regulatory gravity with extraterritorial reach.

Latin America: Mandatory reporting (Brazil, Chile, Mexico). Enforcement tied to deforestation, FPIC, & indigenous rights litigation, etc.

Middle East: ESG reporting now standard for listed firms. Green taxonomies & hydrogen transition policies taking shape.

North America: SEC climate rules (pending), California SB 253/261, Canadian disclosure standards + forced labour. Litigation & state-level action defining the tone.

Oceania: Mandatory climate disclosure under AASB S2 in Australia. Modern slavery & biodiversity frameworks expanding.

This is the “now” – the enforceable layer of ESG law – but the “next” is where the real risks & opportunities lie. Essentially, this is where most entities – especially multinationals – will either get ahead or fall behind.

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰/𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼-𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱).

#ESGLaw #ESGCompliance #SustainabilityCompliance

The post What ESG Compliance Means in Different Parts of the World first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post What ESG Compliance Means in Different Parts of the World appeared first on ESG Foundation.

Peers who dismiss ESG with phrases like, “too much cost,” “burdensome regulation,” or “woke excess” are not defending their companies – they’re defending inertia. To say ESG is expensive without saying that inaction is more expensive is intellectual dishonesty. To insist governance or social fairness are optional extras when they increasingly determine access to capital is risk insanity.

Many procurement leaders in Europe are currently caught off guard by shifting sands in regulation – amendments in the February 2025 Omnibus have introduced both delays and narrower scopes for key directives (CSRD, CSDDD), and uncertainty over what compliance will really require. Those delays do not equal escape. They are signals. Signals that the regulatory system is adjusting, but also tightening its grip. Companies that treat this as “more time to adapt,” instead of “more pressure to deliver,” are those who will be left floundering when enforcement becomes unforgiving.

Look at Uzbekistan’s ongoing reform: state-owned enterprises are being compelled, by Presidential Decree, to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), including sweeping changes to governance and transparency. That may feel distant if you’re operating in Western markets, but it underlines how global standards are moving inexorably toward higher accountability. If large, previously opaque institutions in developing economies can embrace serious reform under top-down enforcement, what excuse remains for companies in stable democracies to lag?

Then there’s the matter of materiality: an article “Materiality: the new measure of sustainability” emphasises that risks and opportunities which companies once dismissed as “non-financial” are now central to survival. A supplier switch after Brexit, for example, which might seem operational or logistical, turns into a financial liability if it hits sustainability standards. If firms keep mis-assessing what truly matters – or underestimating the cost of inaction- they will see those costs inflicted anyway by regulation, market shifts, or reputational meltdown.

“Advancements in Solar Energy” is not just a feel-good story – it is a warning: technology is moving, government policies are tilting, and competitors investing in renewables are getting ahead. If your R&D budget, or your capital allocation plan, still treats solar (or wind, or low-carbon energy) as secondary, you’re effectively betting against market forces, environmental necessity, and regulatory direction.

Consider also “An Inconvenient Truth: Why Private Jets Have No Place in a Climate-Conscious World.” It illustrates stark hypocrisy: elites continue to champion climate action in media statements while indulging practices that multiply emissions.

When senior leadership authorises or overlooks such contradictions, it communicates that ESG is only for optics. But stakeholders – investors, employees, customers, Gen Z generally – can see through facades. They will judge companies not by what they say on glossy slides but by what they do when the private jet is taxed, or the jet-charter is regulated, or public outrage forces policy change.

It’s time to call out the Heads of Sustainability who silently shifted away from calling themselves Heads of ESG, because it was professionally expedient to kowtow to the Trump administration’s lead.

The moral core of ESG isn’t soft. It demands integrity, transparency, accountability – values the Quaker philanthropists for example embodied long before modern regulation. It demands that companies stop masking harm, stop cherry-picking data, stop assuming future forgiveness. “Sustainability” and especially “Purpose” – the new label de jour – can mean anything to anyone. ESG doesn’t ask for perfection; it demands alignment between what you say and what you do. That alignment is fast becoming mandatory, not optional. It’s hard. “Nothing worth having ever came easy,” as the saying goes.

The ESG Foundation will not be changing it’s name.

So here is an ultimatum: adapt now – meaning embed ESG into your core strategy and operations – or risk irrelevance. Because those who lead in ESG are not “nice” or “progressive” -they are the only ones looking to encourage resilient organisations in a changing world.

Those who have back-tracked are not courageous – they are betting that society, regulators, nature itself will ignore the contradictions. And that is a bet they cannot win.

If you’d like to join the ESG Foundation and continue to champion the obvious economic and social value of not giving up on people, planet and purpose, we’d love to hear from you: https://esgfoundation.org/join-us

(Picture credit: Pexels.com_Anna Shvets)

The post Embarrassed by ESG? You’re the embarrassment first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Embarrassed by ESG? You’re the embarrassment appeared first on ESG Foundation.