I’ve spent the past month examining how America’s business schools are adapting their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) teachings amid increasing political scrutiny and market realities. What I’ve discovered points to a significant shift in how tomorrow’s business leaders are being prepared for a complex corporate landscape.
Leading business schools across the country are quietly rebranding their ESG courses while maintaining the core sustainability concepts. At Wharton, professors have begun emphasizing “stakeholder capitalism” rather than explicit ESG terminology. Similarly, Harvard Business School has shifted toward discussing “sustainable business practices” and “long-term value creation” in their curriculum.
“We’re teaching the same fundamental concepts, but packaging them differently,” explains Dr. Sarah Kaplan, Director of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School. “The principles of responsible business haven’t changed, but the language we use to discuss them has evolved in response to the political environment.”
This linguistic pivot reflects broader tensions in the corporate world. According to recent data from the Financial Times, job postings mentioning ESG have declined 40% since 2022, while BlackRock, once the most vocal proponent of ESG investing, has seen approximately $13 billion withdrawn from its sustainable funds amid political backlash.
The transformation extends beyond mere semantics. Business schools are increasingly integrating sustainability concepts throughout their core curriculum rather than isolating them in dedicated ESG courses. Stanford Graduate School of Business now embeds climate risk assessment within traditional finance courses, while MIT’s Sloan School weaves social impact metrics into operations management classes.
This integration approach serves two purposes: it avoids political lightning rods while simultaneously signaling that responsible business practices aren’t optional add-ons but essential components of business strategy.
“Students still want these skills,” notes Professor James Richardson at Columbia Business School. “When we surveyed our incoming MBA class, over 70% indicated interest in sustainability-related careers, regardless of what we call the courses.”
Indeed, student demand remains robust. Applications to specialized master’s programs in sustainability have increased 38% since 2019, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council. Even as terminology shifts, the underlying interest in responsible business practices continues to grow.
The changing landscape has created uncomfortable tensions for faculty. Many professors described walking a tightrope between academic freedom and institutional risk management. One tenured professor at a leading Southern business school, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me: “I’ve been advised to avoid certain terminology in my syllabus while teaching exactly the same content. It feels like self-censorship, but I understand the political realities.”
These political pressures aren’t theoretical. Since 2022, state legislators in Florida, Texas, and elsewhere have introduced bills restricting ESG considerations in state pension investments. Meanwhile, attorneys general in multiple states have launched investigations into financial institutions over their climate commitments.
Market forces are simultaneously reshaping the conversation. A recent survey by PwC found that 82% of executives believe ESG initiatives create short-term costs but acknowledge their long-term value. This pragmatic view is reflected in updated business school curricula that emphasize the financial materiality of sustainability factors rather than values-based arguments.
“We’re focusing more on risk assessment and opportunity identification,” explains Professor Thomas Lyon of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. “Climate change and social inequality create tangible business challenges that future leaders need to understand, regardless of political perspective.”
The European experience offers an instructive contrast. At INSEAD and London Business School, ESG terminology remains prominent, bolstered by the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and other policy frameworks that institutionalize sustainability reporting.
Looking ahead, American business education appears to be converging on a more nuanced approach that emphasizes business fundamentals while acknowledging broader societal impacts. The Financial Times Global MBA Rankings show schools increasingly evaluated on their integration of sustainability across disciplines rather than standalone ESG offerings.
For students navigating this shifting landscape, the advice from career services offices has become more strategic. “We’re coaching students to translate their sustainability interests into business-centered language during interviews,” says Jennifer Johnson, career director at NYU Stern. “Discussing operational efficiency or risk management often resonates better than explicit ESG terminology.”
This evolution reflects the complex reality business leaders face: balancing shareholder expectations, regulatory requirements, political pressures, and genuine sustainability challenges. As one dean remarked to me, “Our job isn’t to tell students what to think about these issues, but to prepare them for the world they’ll actually lead in – not the one we might prefer.”
Whatever terminology prevails, the fundamental skills of measuring externalities, managing diverse stakeholder relationships, and considering long-term impacts remain essential components of business education. The language may evolve, but the underlying competencies continue to define effective leadership in an increasingly complex global economy.
