At the same time, other countries such as Australia, China, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and Singapore are pressing ahead with new climate or climate-adjacent legislation. Accordingly, global businesses face a fragmented map of legal risks and opportunities.
The geopolitical landscape is now dominated by concerns over defense, energy security, and the race on AI. We may be in an era where political concerns over the price and secure supply of energy are bigger drivers of the energy transition than environmental regulation.
Five major themes emerge from the Sustainability Outlook.
Theme 1: Security and strategic autonomy
Perhaps the most important thread running through these contributions is the increasing premium countries are placing on security of supply and strategic autonomy. Global tensions remain elevated, and many countries place increasing emphasis on sourcing goods, components, suppliers and energy domestically. This has had a marked effect on the legal and regulatory landscape across jurisdictions.
Heightened demand for energy security is driven by volatile energy prices, by supply shocks following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and by the significant energy demand from the rapid growth in data centers. These factors have catalyzed regulatory change. U.S. regulation in 2025 strongly favored domestic energy supply, with measures including the Unleashing American Energy and Beautiful Clean Coal executive orders seeking to bolster domestic production. Japan’s Seventh Basic Energy Plan, released in February 2025, marks a significant pivot from the decarbonisation-focused 2021 plan, elevating energy security as a central theme. Non-western countries with lingering exposure to Russian energy also took measures to boost domestic production. China, for example, brought its Energy Law into force in 2025, prioritizing energy security alongside emissions reduction.
In other areas, strategic autonomy has been a key policy driver. The Ukraine war has pushed defense to the top of European agendas, and EU policymakers recognized the need to build European defence capability, with the European Defence Industrial Strategy targeting 50% EU sourcing of defence equipment by 2030.
Chemicals policy is reflecting the same move toward strategic autonomy: jurisdictions are treating key chemical inputs as strategic commodities, tightening controls on high-risk substances while incentivizing onshoring of critical intermediates for batteries, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. In the EU, proposed reforms to the REACH chemicals regime underscore a dual track of supply security and hazard reduction that is reshaping sourcing strategies and reweighting markets toward domestically-produced, lower-risk alternatives.
But what does this mean for sustainability? In some jurisdictions, including China and the GCC, renewables build-out has played an important part in efforts to strengthen domestic capacity. In the U.S., by contrast, legislative emphasis at the federal level is still being placed on traditional sources of energy, as exemplified by 2025’s Unleashing American Energy and Beautiful Clean Coal executive orders.
Theme 2: Adjustment speed and centralism
Our analysis has also highlighted the need for businesses to act quickly in order to secure an advantage. Countries have sought to support the ambition for speed in various ways. In the GCC, flexible legal systems allow entities to move fast and deploy capital in pursuit of strategic objectives, which include decarbonisation. In the more rigid European legal architecture, faster permitting has emerged as a key enabler of accelerated capital allocation, with the EU Clean Industrial Deal delivering multiple reforms in this area. More time, however, will be needed before a conclusion can be reached on whether these reforms have been a success.
Centralism, including in procurement, benefits countries that can execute at scale. It gives statist systems an edge, as their governments often have the resources and positioning to act as first movers and primary buyers. China’s centralized procurement of clean energy equipment exemplifies this advantage. However, other economies are also viewing centralized procurement as a key element of the strategy, including in the EU, with joint procurement becoming a feature of EU defence. The ability to carry out purchases or push through changes centrally, at scale, is enabling countries to act fast—in sustainability, defence, and other areas. Indeed, the very fact that defence, once excluded from ESG frameworks, is now part of the sustainability conversation is testament to the pace of change in this area.
Theme 3: The rise of sustainability disclosures
Corporate disclosures are also a central battleground of the ESG debate.
Many countries have either pushed forward with, or rolled back, requirements for businesses to disclose ESG-related information publicly, and sometimes both. In the first category, Australia adopted new corporate disclosure standards in 2024, including AASB S2, a mandatory climate-related disclosure standard. Requirements are set to be phased in over financial years commencing on or after January 1, 2025 through to July 1, 2027, with the rules first applying to larger listed and other public interest entities. On the other side, climate rules have been rolled back in the U.S. (with the Securities and Exchange Commission voting to end its legal defence of the Climate Disclosure Rule in March 2025), and been recalibrated in the EU. As we explore in the Outlook, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and other aspects of its sustainable finance agenda continue to undergo revision amid pushback from industry and from politicians at home and abroad.
At a more micro level, many countries have placed increased requirements on businesses to provide more ESG-linked information as part of their day-to-day business operations, without necessarily requiring businesses to disclose such information publicly. For example, the recent introduction of the UK’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirement, and its proposed expansion in scope to new developments, requires businesses to disclose biodiversity information when making planning applications. Where these requirements and the public-facing disclosure obligations set out above operate, businesses often face higher compliance costs resulting from the need to build and maintain governance and monitoring structures to meet them.
Set against these disclosure dynamics, France’s 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law provides a complementary due diligence model: it imposes a corporate duty to identify and prevent severe human rights, environmental and health and safety risks across companies’ own activities, subsidiaries and certain suppliers, and it has served as a blueprint for Germany’s supply chain due diligence act and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Against this backdrop of evolving disclosure rules and emerging due diligence regimes, the EU’s Omnibus package seeks to ease mounting implementation strains flagged by businesses, foreign governments and Member States. It aligns with the agenda outlined in Mario Draghi’s September 2024 report on the Future of European Competitiveness, which calls for a lighter administrative burden, clearer sequencing, and greater regulatory predictability.
Theme 4: The centrality of the grid
Grid connectivity and efficiency have also been central to developments in the last 12 months. With demand for energy increasing rapidly in some areas due to the AI and data center boom, interconnection backlogs have become a key obstacle to economic growth, notably in the U.S..
Countries worldwide are pushing through law and regulation to address this problem. China’s Energy Law is designed to strengthen grid infrastructure, with policies promoting intelligent grid upgrades and the construction of smart microgrids. The U.S. and EU have advanced proposals for grid reforms. The European Grids package, for instance, announced by the European Commission in January 2025, is expected to require transparency in grid connection queues and faster permits for grid upgrades. This will continue to be a major area to watch, a key determinant in each country’s sustainability success story.
Theme 5: Sustainability as an economic driver
Some commentators view ESG requirements as a handbrake on growth, at least in the short term. Every penny spent on complying with regulation, so the argument goes, is one that is not spent on R&D or capital investment.
However, a striking feature in the contributions is how often sustainability emerges as a driver of growth. In the UK, for instance, the BNG requirement is likely to support investment in areas where the UK already has strengths, including consulting and data. In the GCC, large-scale renewables deployment has allowed surplus fossil fuels, previously burnt domestically, to be exported. In Singapore, low-carbon hydrogen is seen as a key area of focus, given its potential applications in aviation and maritime shipping—a reflection of the country’s role as a global transport hub. Law and regulation have played an important role in shaping the picture, whether as hard-edged catalysts for the development or strengthening of new industries (as with the UK’s BNG requirement) or as softer-edged responses to developments instigated by businesses themselves (as in Singapore).
Similarly, innovation and sustainability have advanced in tandem. COP 30 recognized multilateral finance as a critical pillar of the financing mix underpinning climate adaptation and mitigation. Recent developments underscore this. For example, the Asian Development Bank’s Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IF-CAP) uses first-loss guarantees from financing partners on portions of its sovereign loan portfolio to free up regulatory capital and expand climate lending capacity. Yet the scale of the financing challenge still demands further and faster progress.
Reflections: A central role for law and regulation?
Law and regulation do not exist in a vacuum: they inform and respond to external economic, social and political factors. 2025 has been no different. Key political drivers, including the ongoing fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and continued geopolitical tension over trade, have played a leading role in many of the issues we touch upon in the Outlook.
However, if politics has been a critical catalyst behind many of the themes in this Outlook, law and regulation have been an important aid for delivery. That said, different countries and regimes strike very contrasting balances between a regulation- or market-led approach to the decarbonisation transition.
With the law and regulation behind the transition just as contested globally as the politics, if not more so, businesses are starting to face requirements to behave in markedly different ways worldwide. As such, an important conclusion from this Outlook is that businesses that treat law and regulation with strategic focus—shaping business strategy, capital allocation, technology choices and supply-chain design—will be best placed to navigate the rules that will define competitiveness in a fractured but decarbonizing global economy.
