ESG: FROM RHETORIC TO DATA - OPINION. JAN 14, 2026
- Ana Cunha-Busch
- Jan 13
- 3 min read
ESG: FROM RHETORIC TO DATA - OPINION.
By Claudia Andrade
For a long time, ESG occupied a comfortable place: that of discourse. Public commitments, extensive reports, good intentions. But the current political, regulatory, and financial situation is making it clear that this phase is coming to an end. What is emerging for 2026 is a scenario in which impact needs to be proven, monitored, and sustained over time—and not just declared.
I have been reflecting a lot on how technology, artificial intelligence, and especially telemetry are changing the game of ESG. Not as an aesthetic trend or buzzword, but as a real infrastructure of credibility. We are entering a moment in which socio-environmental impact is treated as strategic data, subject to audit, comparison, and decision-making. This profoundly changes how projects, companies, and public policies need to be structured.
Experts like George Serafeim of Harvard Business School are already warning that ESG only creates value when it's integrated into business strategy and supported by tangible data. This statement carries a direct provocation: how many impact commitments today can survive the scrutiny of real operational data?
This is where telemetry becomes central. By enabling the continuous monitoring of essential systems, resources, and services—water, energy, logistics, sanitation, social infrastructure—it transforms impact into something measurable, traceable, and actionable. It ceases to be a promise and becomes evidence. By 2026, this capability is likely to become not only a competitive differentiator but a prerequisite for access to capital, partnerships, and public policies.
When connected to artificial intelligence, this logic deepens. We're not just talking about measuring what has already happened, but about anticipating climate risks, identifying patterns of inefficiency, simulating scenarios, and guiding strategic decisions. Bernard Marr, a global expert in data strategy, often states that organizations that fail to connect AI, data, and sustainability will lose competitiveness. The financial market has already understood that impact is a variable of risk—and also of value.
Another trend gaining strength in 2026 is the advancement of risk-based climate and socio-environmental regulation, especially in the financial system. Banks, funds, and insurance companies are beginning to demand more robust evidence of environmental, social, and territorial management. This shifts ESG from the field of reputation to the field of governance and economic survival. It's no longer about "doing good," but about managing real risks.
Pressure against greenwashing and social washing is also growing. Generic reports and weak indicators tend to lose ground to metrics connected to operations and territory. In this context, monitoring, traceability, and independent verification technologies become essential to support the legitimacy of the discourse.
In the social field, this change is even more profound. The trend for 2026 points to a greater demand for measurable social impact, especially in projects related to water, sanitation, health, education, and basic infrastructure. Telemetry applied to these systems allows for measuring access, continuity, quality, and efficiency of services. Social impact is no longer merely narrative; it now engages with indicators, data, and governance—something increasingly demanded by funders, governments, and international organizations.
Another relevant movement is the integration of ESG, territory, and climate justice. It's not enough to reduce emissions or improve average indicators; it will be increasingly necessary to demonstrate who benefits and who is left behind. Territorial data, local monitoring, and contextual analysis become central to impact strategies.
John Elkington, creator of the Triple Bottom Line concept, often reminds us that sustainability is not about looking good, but about doing things differently. And doing things differently, in 2026, requires technology, transparency, and courage. Courage, including the courage to deal with data that doesn't always confirm institutional discourse.
Perhaps the big question of this new ESG cycle isn't whether technology, AI, and telemetry are part of the agenda. They already are. The real question is who is willing to use these tools to deepen impact—and who still prefers to avoid them to avoid exposing inconsistencies.
I leave this reflection as an invitation to read and discuss. Because, increasingly, the impact that is not measured tends to be questioned. And the impact that is monitored, cared for, and continuously improved ceases to be mere rhetoric and becomes a real commitment.
#SDGs 6, 9, and 13
@cauvic2
Comments