# Why Sustainability Initiatives Lose Momentum in Corporations Research reveals how early cognitive biases derail long-term ESG goals. - **Source:** [Sloan Management Review](https://sloanreview.mit.edu) - **Published:** 2026-09-21 - **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/e582afb8-61b6-42e0-b0bb-d4f16d4894c8 ## The quiet erosion of ESG Corporate sustainability programs rarely fail dramatically but often lose impact through gradual softening of goals. Research tracking six startups found 50% collapsed due to early cognitive biases in framing profit-purpose relationships. Unlike public failures, this erosion manifests in daily decisions that increasingly align with pre-sustainability business norms while maintaining ESG rhetoric in official strategy documents. ## Two failure patterns emerge The study identified dual failure modes: idealistic teams over-committed to impact metrics without commercial viability, while pragmatic teams prioritized profitability with deferred purpose commitments that never materialized. Both approaches shared an 'either/or' mentality, contrasting with successful ventures that maintained 'both/and' paradox thinking throughout decision-making processes. ## Structural imprinting danger Early team composition and decisions create lasting architectural constraints through structural imprinting. The KPIs, reporting structures, and language established in a transformation's first 12-18 months persistently frame subsequent choices. Once locked in, these frameworks resist course-correction even when financial pressures or stakeholder feedback indicate problems. ## Cognitive diversity matters Successful teams deliberately incorporated members with conflicting perspectives on profit-purpose balance. One health-tech venture sustained productive tension between clinical rigor advocates and commercial pragmatists. This cognitive friction prevented early over-commitment to either extreme, allowing iterative adjustments based on market feedback. ## Reality check mechanisms High-performing teams instituted formal processes for external validation before structural lock-in occurred. They engaged advisory groups and customer panels during planning phases rather than seeking approval post-implementation. These 'inefficient' consultations provided crucial course-correction opportunities absent in failed ventures. ## Simplicity enables flexibility Paradoxically, teams comfortable with complex thinking maintained simplest viable initial architectures. They delayed feature commitments, developed minimal prototypes, and added scope only after stakeholder validation. Failed teams typically over-engineered early solutions before verifying market fit. ## Corporate translation challenges Established companies face amplified version of startup dilemmas. Sustainability functions reporting to C-suites must navigate existing power structures and quarterly pressures that reinforce pragmatic drift. Research suggests early team composition critically influences whether transformations maintain dual objectives or regress to business-as-usual. ## Asymmetric risk landscape Current economic conditions create unequal failure modes. While idealistic over-engineering remains possible, prevailing pressures favor pragmatic retreats from ambitious ESG goals. Without deliberate countermeasures, structural imprinting naturally tilts toward profitability at purpose's expense in most corporate environments. ## Three intervention levers The study recommends: 1) Staff transformation teams for cognitive dissent not consensus 2) Build pre-crisis reality checks into planning 3) Maintain minimal viable architecture. These practices help sustain 'both/and' thinking when external pressures demand 'either/or' choices between commercial and sustainability objectives. ## Lasting composition effects Early team dynamics establish trajectory-defining patterns. Homogeneous groups imprint one-dimensional logic into organizational DNA, while cognitively diverse teams bake in adaptability. For sustainability leaders, this means personnel decisions may outweigh strategy documents in determining long-term transformation outcomes. ## Sources covering this story - https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-sustainability-transformations-quietly-lose-their-edge/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._