Is the 2030 Agenda failing?

The 2030 Agenda promised a shared horizon, a clear course towards a fairer, more sustainable and resilient development model. But five years from the target date, the data suggest a worrying shift. Geopolitical tensions, climate crises, the decline of multilateralism and economic pressures have cast doubt on the viability of its objectives. Is it failing as a strategy? Is it still useful for guiding the course of companies and governments?

The eighth report on the Contribution of Spanish companies to the Sustainable Development Goals prepared by the Chair of Leadership and Sustainability of Esade and "la Caixa" Foundation provides a critical and rigorous diagnosis of the state of the SDGs and their fulfillment by companies. It also addresses how sustainability has recently ceased to be a global consensus and has become a variable that generates controversy, especially in relation to competitiveness.

A global diagnosis

Less than 20% of the SDGs are on track to be met. Goals such as the eradication of hunger and biodiversity have slipped compared to 2015. Although goals linked to basic services and infrastructure have shown progress, their pace has also slowed down. In this context, Spain occupies 15th place in the world ranking and Europe leads thanks to the Nordic push, while Asia has made notable progress. However, inequalities are increasing: the poorest countries are lagging behind and the richest tend to have a negative impact.

The gap between discourse and action is evident. The report finds that many sustainability commitments do not translate into effective results, especially for those goals that do not offer immediate short-term returns.

Polycrisis, uncertainty and deglobalization

The setback of the 2030 Agenda is framed in a state of polycrisis: the overlapping of wars, climate crises, economic and social disruptions, generates uncertainty, disorientation and political fragmentation. In operational terms, new trends are emerging, such as "nearshoring" and "friendshoring" as opposed to the production offshoring of previous years. The report also identifies other factors of de-globalization:

• Geopolitical recession: the weakening of the response of international institutions to crises, coupled with the rise of revisionist powers and the reconfiguration of power blocs.
• Decline of multilateralism: with an evident lack of consensus at global summits, evidenced by the scant progress made at recent COPs on climate and biodiversity.
• Trade war: escalated by the imposition of new tariffs, causing tensions between major powers, such as the "domino effect" generated by the Trump administration.
• Technology race: for leadership and global hegemony in disruptions such as AI, microchips, quantum computing and green energy.

Although this slowdown does not erase the fact that the world has reached a level of interdependence that is hardly reversible, we are witnessing a change of gear towards a "slowbalization" that affects sustainability as a global project.

Cost or value? The sustainability narrative at stake

In this context, sustainability has become an area of discrepancy. The "cost" narrative is gaining ground: ESG standards are perceived as burdens that affect competitiveness, which has led to regulatory postponements.

However, the report points out that there is no empirical evidence that reducing sustainability requirements improves competitiveness. Moreover, limiting to minimum compliance may trap companies in a reactive logic, while those that integrate sustainability as a value lever will be able to strengthen their resilience and differentiate themselves in the market. 

This change in approach (or in perception) does not occur in a vacuum. The rise of extreme right-wing political forces has instrumentalized sustainability as an ideological issue, weakening consensus and slowing progress.

ESG backlash

In the United States, the so-called ESG backlash has provoked a tangible backlash. Some conservative states have pushed for anti-ESG laws, eliminated public investments with sustainable criteria, and promoted litigation and media campaigns that associate ESG with a "woke agenda." This polarization has generated uncertainty and weakened the coherence of global frameworks.

Europe, for its part, has begun to recalibrate: the Omnibus Law, the Draghi Plan and the Competitiveness Compass point to a shift in focus from pure sustainability to a balance with industrial competitiveness, relaxing certain requirements and prioritizing strategic sectors.

China represents another model. Although it is the largest CO₂emitter on the planet, it leads in green investment: investing 70% more in energy transition and presenting record increases in solar (+35%) and wind (+40%) capacity by 2022. With a centralized, state-owned model, its plans combine sustainability and large-scale industrial strategy.

Scenarios for 2027

The report describes four possible near-term global scenarios, depending on the evolution of geopolitical relations and economic policies:

• Self-sufficiency: a nationalist retreat, less trade, less cooperation.
• Second cold war: clashing ideological blocs and a retreat from multilateralism.
• Friends first: selective alliances (friendshoring) with progress and trade agreements between like-minded countries within the blocs.
• Globalization light: moderate cooperation with more selective progress.

In all of them, sustainability ceases to be a global priority and becomes subordinate to the strategic interests of each bloc.

A new narrative direction

The big question that emerges from the report is not only whether the 2030 Agenda is on the way to failure, but also whether the narrative underpinning it has lost its capacity to mobilize. The cost narrative -sustainability as a burden- is gaining weight over the value narrative -sustainability as innovation, efficiency, progress and social legitimacy.

The question is not whether sustainability is profitable, but whether we can afford to ignore it in a world where systemic risks are unavoidable. In this context in which the routes charted may vary from one year to the next, redefining the course is not an option but a necessity. And leadership, more than certainties, requires direction.