In 2024, Eco-Business reported that chief sustainability officers (CSOs) were burning out under the weight of ever-expanding expectations, regulatory complexity and internal fragmentation.
That article captured a moment when sustainability leaders felt overwhelmed simply by the breadth of what was required of them - from climate strategy to stakeholder management, reporting and everything in between.
Fast forward to 2026, and burnout isn’t just persisting - it’s deepening, shaped by new pressures that weren’t as acute twelve months ago. The sustainability function isn’t merely broad; it’s now being dragged into constant reporting cycles, cross-functional battles for influence, and existential debates about the role’s future.
It’s one thing to feel stretched - it’s another to feel structurally unsupported. Here’s why CSO burnout isn’t getting better, and what it means for the sector moving forward.
Burnout isn’t a buzzword – It’s a profession-wide phenomenon
Burnout among sustainability professionals isn’t anecdotal. Research from Oxford Brookes Business School (2025) found that around 62 per cent of sustainability practitioners reported burnout in the past year, with nearly 70 per cent struggling to stay motivated - a striking sign that exhaustion has become systemic, not isolated.
That statistic isn’t surprising to those in the field. One of the defining features of sustainability work is that its success is often slow, diffuse, and hard to measure, while failure is immediate and visible. Professionals drawn to sustainability for impact and purpose now find themselves weighed down by ever-tightening reporting requirements, shifting standards, and a barrage of stakeholder demands that deplete time and morale.
What was once framed as a strategic leadership role has become, for many, an exercise in prioritisation under fire.
Emerging pressure #1: Perpetual reporting mode
A key reason burnout has intensified is that CSOs increasingly feel like they’re in “perpetual reporting mode” - constantly pulling data, justifying metrics, and responding to auditors, regulators, and rating agencies. According to recent reporting, many sustainability leaders say this leaves little time for transformation or value creation.
This shift is partly structural: disclosure mandates such as (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) CSRD in Europe, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) globally and evolving local standards require granular, auditable data at a pace that sustainability teams weren’t originally staffed or structured to deliver. But it has other effects too: sustainability becomes synonymous with data collection and compliance, rather than strategy or change. This is exactly the kind of work that quashes morale and amplifies exhaustion.
Emerging pressure #2: The accountability paradox
CSOs are held accountable for outcomes they don’t control. They’re often expected to drive cross-enterprise change - from procurement to operations - without any formal authority over those functions. A 2024 investigation found that many sustainability leaders feel pressured to know everything about every aspect of the business, even when they lack the mandate or support to influence outcomes.
This accountability paradox – responsible but not empowered – creates an almost impossible job.
Leaders are judged by progress on climate targets, supply-chain transformation, social impact, and governance performance, yet they frequently lack direct control over the levers that move those outcomes. This breeds a unique type of stress: one rooted not just in workload, but in organisational impotence.
Emerging Pressure #3: Greenwashing scrutiny and reputational risk
In 2025 and 2026, sustainability leaders are facing a new type of external pressure: intense scrutiny over public claims.
Regulators, investors and civil society have sharpened their critique of corporate climate and ESG promises. The backlash against greenwashing - and its quieter cousin, greenhushing – has put sustainability leaders under a spotlight where every public statement is a risk. CSOs are increasingly the face of corporate climate credibility, and as such are vulnerable to both legal exposure and reputational backlash if claims are later challenged.
This dynamic adds a layer of psychological pressure: it isn’t just about getting work done - it’s about never saying the wrong thing. This can make the role feel like walking a tightrope with no safety net.
Emerging pressure #4: Structural dilution of authority
Another relatively new driver of burnout is the shifting structure of sustainability leadership itself.
In recent years, many organisations have moved to integrate sustainability into other C-suite functions – most notably finance, risk, and operations – rather than maintain a standalone CSO reporting line. While this reflects the mainstreaming of environmental, social and governance (ESG), it also dilutes the authority and strategic clarity of sustainability leadership.
When sustainability oversight moves under a CFO, general counsel or operations chief without clear mandate or resourcing, sustainability leaders are left in ambiguous roles, tasked with coordination but without the power to compel change. This is organisational friction turned personal burnout.
Emerging pressure #5: Emotional toll of moral labour
Burnout in this field isn’t purely about workload – it’s about meaningful emotional investment.
Sustainability professionals are motivated by purpose. They are often driven by concern for ecology, equity, and justice - personal values that align with organisational goals. But when ambition meets organisational reality - slow decision-making, underinvestment, shifting priorities - the result isn’t just stress; it’s moral fatigue. Research shows that the emotional burden of grappling with global challenges while trying to operate within incremental corporate constraints contributes significantly to exhaustion.
This moral labour – caring deeply about outcomes that may be slow or opaque - amplifies burnout in ways that typical workload stress does not.
What this means for the profession
If the CSO role was hard in 2024, it is intensely demanding in 2026. The piling of reporting obligations, accountability without authority, reputational risk, and moral burden has created a burnout ecosystem that threatens not only individuals but the sustainability agenda itself.
Left unaddressed, this burnout crisis could lead to:
• Turnover at the leadership level, with experienced CSOs leaving for consulting or interim roles.
• Loss of institutional knowledge, as fewer professionals specialise long-term in sustainability leadership.
• Weakening of corporate climate action, if the people charged with transformation are too worn down to lead effectively.
These are not fringe risks – they strike at the core of corporate climate governance.
What organisations must do
Burnout among sustainability leaders is not inevitable. Several structural changes can help:
• Redefine the mandate and authority of CSOs
Give sustainability leaders decision rights, not just responsibility. Reporting structures should grant direct access to CEOs and boards, with clear accountability and resources.
• Invest in cross-enterprise literacy and support
Burnout stems partly from isolation. Organisations should embed sustainability capability across functions so CSOs are not lone translators between departments. This includes training finance, legal and operations on ESG fundamentals.
• Streamline reporting expectations
Rather than piling multiple frameworks and data requests atop sustainability teams, companies should invest in data infrastructure and internal controls that automate and organise reporting.
• Prioritise wellbeing and resilience training
Organisations must regard burnout as a strategic risk – not a personal failure. Board-level oversight of workforce well-being, rotational leadership roles, and access to coaching and peer networks can help.
The role must evolve – not just expand
The sustainability leadership burnout of 2026 looks very different from that of 2024. What has changed is not just magnitude, but the nature of the pressures: endless reporting, fractured authority, reputational minefields, and moral burden.
These pressures can only be addressed if organisations start treating sustainability leadership as strategic governance – not a catch-all portfolio for conflicting expectations. CSOs are not merely functional leads; they are stewards of organisational integrity in the climate era. Without appropriate authority, support, and resourcing, the role will remain not just challenging, but increasingly unsustainable in practice.
The question is no longer whether the role is hard. It’s whether businesses are prepared to make it sustainably doable – not just for the sake of the leaders, but for the sustainability outcomes the world desperately needs.
