A Global Climate Match Where the West Bats, Bowls and Umpires

Children in India who played gully cricket in an earlier time will remember an unwritten rule. The boy who brought the bat often claimed double batting and lighter duties in the field, and matches ended the moment his mother called him home. Everyone accepted it. This was an early lesson in how power quietly shapes rules.

On a far larger stage, geopolitics and climate diplomacy follow a similar logic. Wealthy nations, especially the United States, and powerful grouping of countries like the European Union wield disproportionate influence in setting the terms of global climate negotiations.

Two decades ago, Western policymakers promoted the environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework as a way to make capitalism more humane and sustainable. Businesses around the world were urged to adopt these standards gradually in the name of a cleaner future. The West positioned itself as the architect of a new humane, but costlier, rulebook for business. Yet when it came to financing the transition to this model of responsible capitalism, that willingness faded.

Modern capitalism emerged in the West, and much of the environmental cost of its extractive growth underpinned Western prosperity, often at the expense of regions in the Global South. But as countries in these regions began to benefit within the same framework, the rules started to shift. What was once presented as a universal system was recast as unfair.

Now Washington has stepped back from global climate commitments and moved to repeal the ‘endangerment finding’ that underpins many of its climate laws, sending ripples through global emission control targets and industry planning. Europe, meanwhile, continues to advance policies such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which risks raising export costs for poorer nations.

Our March issue examines the geopolitics of the sustainability regime and argues that Western economic power is being deployed in ways that could unsettle emerging economies.

Price volatility, supply chain disruption and market access constraints are the most immediate ways geopolitics is impacting India Inc. The “Teri-Outlook Business Survey on Sustainability Leadership & 2030 Outlook” illustrates this point. Over 70% respondents say that geopolitics has moderate to significant influence on their company’s sustainability strategy for 2030. Decision-making must now contend not only with ESG objectives, but also with geopolitical realities.

The path to sustainability, however, is not paved. Even among India Inc’s sustainability leaders, technology gap is proving to be a formidable barrier, followed by policy uncertainty and limited access to green finance. Most organisations identify renewable energy integration as a top sectoral opportunity to fuel sustainability budget. However, a clear majority, 68% of respondents expect these investments to be modest at below 25% by 2030.

It's noteworthy that many companies want national road maps for decarbonisation. They underscore the need for clearer, sector-specific guidance. In simpler terms, India Inc needs a proverbial North Star.

When it comes to meeting the UN’s Social Devel-opment Goals, the government has put in place a central scoreboard—the National Indicator Framework. But nearly 40% of companies are not aware of NIF or not aligned with it, and those who are, feel it is too complex.

Overall, Indian companies seem mentally ready for green transition, but the physical pieces are still being built. For now, it’s like having a brand-new electric car but still waiting for the fast-charger to be installed in your garage.