Today many have predicted the death of environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Alas, even amidst such predictions, there remains considerable confusion about ESG’s meaning. Some view ESG as synonymous with corporate social responsibility or stakeholderism, others view ESG as a mechanism for assessing risks; some characterize ESG as political, others view ESG as inextricably aligned with business goals. The lack of consensus around ESG’s meaning makes assessing its demise complex. On the one hand, any future version of ESG will be incompatible with alternative – and strongly held – conceptions of ESG, confirming predictions of ESG’s demise while ensuring that ESG’s future will be plagued by controversy and discontent. Nonetheless, there is a version of ESG that is both sustainable because it focuses on economic risks and opportunities, and also beneficial because it may move the needle on improving shareholder value while positively impacting critical social issues.

Despite its explosive growth, there is considerable disagreement about the fundamental purpose of ESG. Two types of policies associated with ESG metrics and mechanisms give rise to at least two opposing views of their purpose: “profit-maximizing policies” versus “normative sustainable policies.” This chapter advocates the second type of strategy, arguing that corporate leaders who embrace ESG should be open to adopting a purpose that may undermine or even intentionally sacrifice shareholder wealth. In defending this view, the chapter considers the question of who has the legal, political, and moral authority to decide on ESG purposes. The chapter argues that business leaders already retain a great deal of legal autonomy in deciding whether or not to adopt some version of an ESG purpose as part of the firm's overall purposes. The chapter then discusses the challenges posed by what the authors call the Political Liberal Problem, which seems to suggest that corporate leaders should refrain from promoting a particular view of the good on behalf of their constituents or stakeholders. The chapter contends that a normative sustainable view of ESG purpose depends crucially on the ability to defend the relatively autonomous moral judgment of business leaders in setting ESG strategy.

This introduction situates the volume within contemporary debates surrounding Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). It traces the historical evolution of the ESG movement—originally conceived as a voluntary form of regulation—from its origins in the early 2000s, associated with the launch of the UN’s Who Cares Wins initiative, to current developments marked by political backlash in the United States and regulatory consolidation in Europe. The authors argue that the widespread tendency to reduce ESG to issues of financial materiality—a view they describe as “mainstream ESG”—risks undermining its ethical and social foundations. Against this backdrop, the book advances the claim that ESG cannot be meaningfully developed without serious ethical reflection. The second part of the introduction presents the chapters included in this collection along three main lines: debates about the purpose(s) of ESG; discussions concerning the tensions between profitability and sustainability; and analyses of ESG as a form of voluntary or mandatory disclosure.

This chapter provides a comprehensive historical perspective on the ups and downs and the remarkable renaissance of China’s economy in modern times. It delves into the factors influencing China’s economic growth, explores future growth prospects, and examines the challenges it encounters.

In an era of interconnected crises – from climate change to biodiversity loss – transformative solutions require collaboration at scale. This chapter explores how public-private-philanthropic partnerships (4Ps) can unlock new funding models, amplify impact, and drive systemic change. It introduces pooled funds as a game-changing approach, demonstrating how aggregating resources across sectors can mobilize capital for high-impact initiatives.

Through compelling case studies, the chapter illustrates how aligned interests between businesses, governments, and philanthropy can catalyze sustainable development – from empowering smallholder farmers to financing global land restoration efforts. It also confronts the challenges hindering 4Ps from reaching their full potential and offers actionable strategies for overcoming them.

Water security in Latin America is at a tipping point – despite holding 30% of the world’s freshwater, millions lack access to safe drinking water. Enter the Latin American Water Funds Partnership (LAWFP), a groundbreaking model of radical collaboration that unites governments, businesses, nonprofits, and philanthropy to drive systemic change in water security.

This chapter explores how Water Funds pool financial and technical resources, implement nature-based solutions, and foster cross-sector partnerships to deliver long-term, scalable impact. With over 26 Water Funds engaging 340+ organizations, LAWFP has protected over 565,000 hectares of watersheds, improved water access, and strengthened community resilience. A compelling case study in multi-sector cooperation, this chapter demonstrates how philanthropic capital can act as a catalyst for innovation, unlocking sustainable financing to combat climate change and transform water security.

The epilogue considers one possible future incarnation of the idea of progress in medicine, namely progress as achieving sustainability. Despite the fact that environmental concerns have long been associated with reimagined ideas of progress, aspirations for sustainability remain underdeveloped in medicine. Nevertheless, this epilogue discusses the cases in which the concept of medical progress has been coupled with “sustainable” or “green” medicine. Visions of sustainable medical progress tend to presuppose a multidimensional concept of medical progress, call for expanding the time frame in which progress is assessed, and posit environmental limits as constraints on open-ended progress. At the same time, few of these visions engage with the pluralistic nature of medical progress, preferring to understand measures that support a robust natural environment as intrinsically good for the health of individuals and societies, and broadly aligned with the goals of conventional medicine.

Cohen adapts the doughnut model of sustainable economic development to suggest ways for policymakers to identify regulatory policies that can better serve the humans who live in digital spaces. She does this in two steps. First, she demonstrates that a similarly doughnut-shaped model can advance the conceptualization of the appropriate balance(s) between surveillance and privacy. Second, she demonstrates how taking the doughnut model of privacy and surveillance seriously can help us think through important questions about the uses, forms, and modalities of legitimate surveillance.

The first chapter of the book covers the context, aims and objectives of the book and situates these aims and the book’s approach in relation to both existing strands of academic scholarship and contemporary policy debates about the role of the state in sustainability transitions.

For traditional textiles, geographical indication (GI) protection offers improved brand visibility while insulating a hard-earned reputation against misuse. This form of IP has additional synergies with the shift towards more sustainable production and consumption in the global fashion industry. These textiles have conventionally used natural fibres, organic dyes and artisanal methods. They are also meant to be reused, unlike fast fashion. This chapter investigates this ‘GI optimism’, asking whether there are legal and institutional mechanisms to systematically reinforce sustainability commitments. It unpacks a recent regulatory reform in the EU, whereby the GI product specification can incorporate voluntary ‘sustainability undertakings’ by producer groups. The chapter concludes by observing that synergies between different aspects of sustainability should not be taken for granted, if GI law is to truly deliver on ‘threads that last’.

Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing: using second-hand garments as raw materials for new creations, upcyclers can transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the source material. Considering the overarching policy objective to ensure a circular economy, the use of trademark-protected fashion elements for upcycling purpose can be qualified as a particularly important form of artistic expression. The reference to products of the original trademark owner is made for the socially valuable purpose of providing a vision of better, more sustainable production and consumption practices.