In a wide-ranging address, Alison Taylor explored the evolving landscape of corporate responsibility, arguing that businesses today face unprecedented scrutiny, shifting expectations, and a need for strategic clarity. Her opening remarks, drawn from the first chapter of her book and recent engagements with companies, outlined three major trends that have reshaped the relationship between corporations and society: the weaponization of transparency, the politicisation of business, and the personalisation of professional identity.

Alison began by framing the central paradox: “Business today is caught in a paradox: rising expectations alongside diminished trust.” She posed the fundamental question: “How on earth did we get here?” and proceeded to trace the roots of this tension through three interrelated developments.

The first trend, “transparency became a weapon,” reflects the shift from a media landscape dominated by a few gatekeepers to one where “anyone with a smartphone can capture corporate behavior, share it with journalists, or post it online.” This democratisation of visibility has placed companies in “a more dynamic, fraught, and interactive relationship between companies and a broader group of stakeholders.” Taylor noted that while transparency is generally seen as positive, it has also eroded corporate confidentiality. She described a sub-trend she calls “the shout coming from inside the house,” where employees increasingly leak internal information, coordinate on platforms like Slack, and challenge leadership directly. “Executives must behave as if everything they say or do could become public,” she said.

The second trend is the increasing politicisation of business. Alison acknowledged that business and politics have always been intertwined, but argued that “over the past decade, CEOs have become more willing to take public positions on issues once considered the domain of policymakers.” This shift began with climate change and expanded to other social issues, including corporate responses to geopolitical events like the invasion of Ukraine. In the U.S., where trust in government is low, Alison observed that “CEOs have been pushed to act as agents of societal change.” However, she noted that this activism has led to backlash and confusion about appropriate boundaries. “It’s common to hear that only business has the scale to tackle climate change,” she said, “but it doesn’t offer a coherent framework for how business should engage with policy or systemic issues.”

The third trend, “the professional became personal,” reflects changing expectations among younger workers. Alison contrasted her early career, where success meant “buying business clothes, sitting at a desk, doing what you’re told”, with today’s emphasis on purpose and values. “They want meaning and purpose,” she said of her students. “When they think about corporate ethics, they’re just as likely to mention climate change or racism as corruption or conflicts of interest.” This shift has coincided with rising mental health concerns and expectations that employers support employee wellbeing. Alison noted that companies are now “struggling to reset expectations and lead in ways that resonate with younger workers.”

Turning to the present, Alison described companies as “caught between a rock and a hard place.” In the U.S., she said, businesses face polarized pressures: “On one side, you have Republican-aligned voices saying ESG is ‘woke,’ a waste of time… On the other side, among the sustainability community, corporations feel constant pressure. Nothing they do or say is ever good enough.” She cited the example of Patagonia’s transfer of ownership to a nature-based charity, which was quickly met with criticism and accusations of greenhushing. “Even Patagonia couldn’t escape criticism. So what would be enough?” she asked.

Alison argued that companies are trapped between “minimalist and maximalist views of corporate responsibility,” and face difficult choices about where to focus. She also highlighted the international dimension of this tension, with businesses “caught between European expectations for sustainable business and American reversals.”

A key theme of her remarks was the unpredictability of reputational risk. Alison challenged the assumption that ethical behavior automatically leads to reputational gains. “Often, it’s the companies making the best efforts that face the most critique,” she said, citing Starbucks as an example. Despite being a leader in employee benefits and DEI, Starbucks has faced sustained pressure over labor rights. “If you can get Starbucks to move, it puts pressure on everyone else,” she explained.

Alison also noted the fragmentation of the activist landscape. Whereas companies once partnered with major NGOs to manage sustainability commitments, they now face pressure from “small, faceless groups launching hashtag campaigns on social media.” This shift has made the reputational landscape “more volatile.”

Addressing the ESG backlash, Alison acknowledged that some companies are using it as an opportunity to abandon overambitious goals. “Ten years ago, there was a trend of setting overambitious sustainability goals—net zero commitments with no clear path to get there,” she said. “Now, in 2025, many companies realize they won’t meet those targets. So it’s the perfect moment to drop them—and indulge in a bit of greenwashing.” However, she emphasized that “every company I speak to is still laser-focused on climate change. That debate is over.”

Taylor identified several areas of progress. Internal governance is evolving, with companies moving away from siloed functions and toward integrated decision-making. ESG reporting is increasingly housed under finance departments, and CEO-led task forces are becoming more common. She also highlighted a shift toward strategic focus, citing PepsiCo and Unilever as examples of companies narrowing their sustainability agendas to areas where they have direct leverage.

She praised Atlassian’s sustainability report for its honesty and clarity. “Here’s what we achieved last year. Here’s where we failed and why. Here’s what we’re doing next,” the report states. Alison argued that this kind of transparency builds trust.

Finally, she noted a shift in how the business case for ESG is framed. Rather than asking whether ESG drives profitability, companies are focusing on the ROI of specific practices. “That’s a more credible approach,” she said, while cautioning that it won’t eliminate controversy around ESG measurement.

In closing, Alison summarized the broader shift underway: “From overpromising and headline commitments to acknowledging systemic challenges and choosing battles… From misalignment to closing the gap between what companies say and what they do.”

Following Alison Taylor’s keynote, the panel discussion focused on how companies—particularly SMEs and suppliers—are navigating the pressures of corporate responsibility in practice. Panelists emphasized the tension between compliance and transformation, especially for businesses under pressure from larger clients or regulatory frameworks.

Ebru Carter highlighted the challenge of moving from a “compliance mindset to a transformational one,” noting that many smaller firms approach ESG as a checklist exercise to retain contracts rather than a strategic opportunity. “No one thinks about engaging their employees, NGOs, or communities,” they said, pointing to short-termism driven by supply chain demands.

Alison acknowledged this dynamic, recalling her work with suppliers and noting that while pressure from multinationals has driven adoption, it often lacks strategic depth. She suggested SMEs may have more freedom to focus on a few core issues, unlike large corporations facing scrutiny across dozens of fronts.

Mike Van Kauvenbergh suggested that ESG is still seen by many leaders as a “voluntary burden,” but attitudes shift when it’s reframed around shared value. Integrating ESG into core strategy—rather than treating it as a separate initiative—was seen as key to long-term continuity.

However, the panel warned that EU regulations like CSRD and CSDDD have created an “administrative overkill,” especially for smaller firms. This has dampened voluntary engagement and shifted focus to compliance.

The event “faculty” agreed that meaningful progress requires strategic focus, honest communication, and internal alignment. The panel concluded that while ESG adoption remains uneven, the path forward lies in embedding responsibility into business strategy—not treating it as an external obligation.

Following the panel discussion, the Q&A gradually moved to a broader discussion of the meaning and sources of ethical standards and how they can, ought, or neglect to be applied in corporations. Whereas time did not allow an alignment of views (is infinity lng enough?), there was a consensus that companies did need to have values and direction, based on stakeholder impact and the production of long-term value.