The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
Listening to a recent Two Steps Forward podcast, I found myself unexpectedly riled up. Joel Makower and Solitaire Townsend were lamenting the lack of corporate thought leadership today. Where is it? Who’s doing it? Why aren’t companies stepping up more forcefully?
It was a provocative conversation — provocative enough that I found myself arguing back. Are we looking at the same landscape?
In today’s world, with so much going on in the sustainability space, even people in the same industry can see things so differently.
Their discussion nudged me to reflect on three decades of experience — including 25 years inside McDonald’s, several years at GreenBiz, and time since as an observer who still can’t quit reading CSR reports. From that vantage point, I see something different: not an absence of thought leadership, but a misunderstanding of where — and how — it shows up.
Why is business carrying the burden?
Let’s start with the elephant in the room. The primary responsibility for setting societal standards rests with governments. Yet in many parts of the world, governments are either absent or actively rolling back progress on climate, diversity, immigration and human rights.
I never imagined we’d see corporate diversity programs publicly attacked or immigrants treated with such open disdain. Yet here we are.
Business unquestionably has power and responsibility. But it’s frustrating to see government’s role waved away as if it’s irrelevant. Many of the most consequential sustainability advances I witnessed while at McDonald’s — in animal welfare, deforestation and sustainable agriculture — emerged precisely because regulation was weak, inconsistent or nonexistent.
Yes, companies stepped in. But they did so in a vacuum created by policy failure.
The Kite Insights paper that sparked the podcast, The Courage to Think Clearly, concludes that government has “lost the room” and business now holds the mic. Rather than accepting that as inevitable, we should be asking why civil society pressure on governments has weakened — and how to restore it.
Sustainability leaders are practicing thought leadership — just not loudly
In the podcast, Joel and Solitaire struggled to name corporate thought leaders beyond the usual suspects. I suspect that’s because the definition of thought leadership has become overly external: publishing op-eds, staking public positions, shaping the broader narrative.
That’s one form of leadership. It’s not the only one.
Much of today’s most consequential thought leadership is happening inside companies and across supply chains. Read leading sustainability reports and you’ll find ambitious commitments, measurable progress and serious engagement with complex issues.
What often gets overlooked is how hard it is to get a large organization aligned behind those statements. Sustainability leaders fight for budget and headcount. They negotiate internally, persuade skeptical business units, convene suppliers, collaborate with NGOs and keep momentum alive through constant friction.
That work may not trend on LinkedIn, but it’s deeply strategic. And it’s absolutely thought leadership.
The political line is real — and complicated
It’s reasonable — necessary, even — for companies to advocate for policies that affect their operations. Beyond that, the calculus becomes fraught. Most companies serve customers across the political spectrum. Openly aligning with one side risks alienating the other.
Polarization is real. Watching governments backslide on climate and social issues is distressing. But voters chose those leaders. If change is to come, it will require civic engagement and political will — not just corporate statements.
In the meantime, sustainability leaders still have a mandate: to lead within their organizations, grounded in science, facts and a clear-eyed understanding of risk and opportunity.
Action: The most durable form of thought leadership
Later in the podcast, the conversation shifted toward action — companies convening suppliers, setting standards, moving markets. On this, there’s broad agreement.
During my time at McDonald’s, I could’ve spent years publishing critiques of weak animal welfare regulation. Instead, we focused on changing our own practices. Working with suppliers and peers, we helped implement standards that ultimately influenced the broader industry.
That experience shaped my view: the most effective thought leadership often shows up as execution. For CSOs and their teams, the priority should be clear. Focus first on what advances your company’s goals and responsibilities. Lead internally. Move the needle. As progress accumulates, influence follows.
Pressure still matters — and so does perspective
External pressure from NGOs, academics and advocates remains essential. It signals that society cares. It pushes companies beyond their comfort zones.
But it’s also worth acknowledging the limits of external vantage points. Most critics don’t live inside large organizations, navigating tradeoffs and constraints daily. That doesn’t invalidate the critique — but it does mean change often looks slower and messier from the outside than it feels from within.
Companies can’t do everything. They can’t solve political dysfunction. But they can evolve — and many have.
Today’s CSOs are operating in an entirely different landscape, breaking new ground — sometimes loudly, sometimes quietly. Greenhushing aside, what matters most is action and progress. And from where I sit, that progress is real — and still accelerating.
