This article is part of Bain’s 2026 CEO Sustainability Report

Explore the report

Last year, we identified a “do-say gap”—a widening distance between what companies actually do to build more sustainable businesses and products and what they say about it publicly. They were quietly doing a lot, and that continues.

Now, a far more consequential divergence has emerged in sustainability transitions across industries. Investments and technologies that lower carbon and support the transition to a more sustainable economic ecosystem are moving forward at different paces. The next decade will bring even greater divergence.

Three strategic realities of this divergence provide a practical framework for CEOs as they navigate the next decade:

1. Transitions have diverged. CEOs must understand why and how past investments fell short of the desired results, and why winning investments paid off.
2. Conviction beats certainty. CEOs must identify the technologies relevant to their business and then build strong conviction on the speed at which those technologies will develop and the “gates” that must open for them to scale. This will be the foundation for investment decisions.  
3. Shape, monitor, or avoid. The companies that place the best-informed bets will use their conviction to turn a moment of divergence into a source of competitive advantage.

1. Transitions have diverged

The narrative that sustainability is in retreat is wrong. Over the last 10 years, roughly $17 trillion has been invested by private companies and governments in sustainable technologies globally. That’s approximately $4 trillion ahead of the pace expected in 2015.  

Investment accelerated fastest—15% per annum—from 2020 to 2023, hit a record $2.4 trillion in 2025, and is now growing at about 7% (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Those investments have concentrated, however. Over the past decade, nearly 90% of sustainable capital flowed into three sectors with proven economics and falling cost curves: green energy, buildings, and mobility (see Figure 2). Green energy alone absorbed 57% of total investment.

At the same time, important sectors with less clear economics received little investment. Agriculture, land use, and manufacturing and materials, which together account for roughly 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions, attracted less than 10% of investment. This imbalance is increasingly risky. As climate change disrupts agricultural production, for example, investment in the food transition is quickly becoming not just a sustainability imperative but a matter of food security.

Figure 2

The returns on capital have been sharply uneven. Vast amounts of money were invested in things like alternative proteins, hydrogen fuel cells, and battery champions, which so far have offered minimal or negative returns. On the other hand, with recently rising fossil fuel prices, renewable energy—which received the highest investments—has offered strong returns.

Environmental returns have been uneven too. In Europe, roughly $1.8 trillion invested in green energy helped cut energy sector emissions by 42% over the decade—a fantastic decarbonization success. But $450 billion invested in green mobility over the same period has produced a 1% net increase in mobility emissions so far.

Clearly, the transitions toward low-carbon and sustainable business have radically diverged. The past decade saw a small group of technologies—including solar, batteries, and EVs— shatter forecasts, while a long tail of underperformers mostly missed their projections, according to Bain’s Green Technology Performance Index, which tracks actual 2025 deployment levels against projections for 37 technologies (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Three critical gates: Technology, policy, behavior

What held back the technologies that didn’t perform?

For the most part, the vision wasn’t wrong. The issue was that one of three critical gates didn’t open. Climate transitions depend on technology, behavior, and policy, as identified by the IPCC. When one or more of these three falter, technologies struggle to reach positive economics and scale. One shut gate is enough to derail expectations.

Technology. A number of technologies have so far simply failed to scale economically. An insufficient supply of critical low-cost green hydrogen has made it impossible for manufacturers to produce affordable green steel at industrial scale. This has also hindered green ammonia and many zero-emission fuels. The disappointing performance of one technology—green hydrogen—has blocked entire transitions. In other cases, a technology just hasn’t been able to compete against alternatives. Battery electric vehicles have established such a decisive advantage on cost, infrastructure, and consumer adoption that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles remain niche.

Policy. Government support has sometimes been a necessary accelerator. In Scandinavia, where policy support was durable and strong enough to create genuine demand, heat pumps have become the leading form of heating. In most other markets, policy has been too fragmented and weak to create this kind of scale.

Behavior. Even a strong technology supported by policy will stall if users won’t adopt it. Landlords often hesitate to pay for energy efficiency renovations because tenants—not landlords—receive most of the energy savings. Alternative proteins haven’t found a taste, texture, and price attractive to a sufficient number of consumers.

Diagnosing which of the three gates is blocking progress is an important step. That will determine whether continued investment is rational, advocacy makes sense, or the company should exit. It’s the foundation on which CEOs can build conviction in future investment.

2. Conviction beats certainty

If companies and governments continue to invest in sustainability transitions at today’s pace, and that capital is well allocated, total funding in the next decade could surpass what is required according to the IEA’s 2.5°C scenario.

Since sustainable technologies mature at different speeds, policy evolves unevenly, and customer adoption varies, CEOs need a clear map of the technologies driving the transitions that matter most to their business. Reading the transition map correctly starts with understanding whether a given technology is relevant to your business and value chain, the speed at which it will develop, and the gates that must be open for it to scale. That will help build conviction about where and when to allocate capital.

Figure 4 provides one view of this map.

Figure 4

“Steady scalers” represents technologies—including solar, wind, and battery electric vehicles—that will continue their growth and be essential for decarbonization. For this group, regional trajectories may differ, but long-term direction is increasingly clear.

“Rapid accelerators” are technologies that could accelerate rapidly once key gates open. Green hydrogen, for example, has substantial long-term abatement potential but currently remains constrained by technology. A breakthrough in electrolyzer technology (such as capillary-fed electrolysis) together with access to cheap renewable electricity could unlock competitively priced green hydrogen. This, in turn, would enable a step change in green steel, fertilizers, shipping fuels, and other downstream applications, potentially disrupting whole sectors such as industrials, agriculture, and transport. For methane leak detection and repair (LDAR)—which is primarily constrained not by technology but by policy—stronger, consistently enforced regulation, particularly in the most polluting regions, would help it scale.

The “sector plays,” such as building energy efficiency or vertical farming, won’t reshape a broad swath of industries but could fundamentally alter competition within their respective sectors.

The CEO's challenge is not to predict the future with certainty. It is to read the map, build conviction, prepare for different future scenarios, and take investment positions accordingly. 

3. Shape, monitor, or avoid

For much of the last decade, when it came to sustainability, breadth of investment signaled commitment. Divergence challenges that logic. Competitive advantage now comes not from a broad portfolio but from concentrating capital in those transitions that matter most to your business and where you have conviction that critical gates will open sooner than the market expects.

For every relevant technology, leading companies make an explicit strategic choice based on the transition map. They invest to shape key transitions, monitor technologies that may become important, and avoid altogether those technologies that are unlikely to impact them.

Shape your transition. Where companies choose to lead, the greatest returns will come from investing with conviction before consensus forms. Leaders deploy capital where they believe technology, policy, or customer behavior will move faster than the broader market expects and then actively work to accelerate those shifts. Consider the active role Maersk is taking in green shipping. The company launched the world’s first methanol-capable container vessel in 2023 and collaborates with suppliers and ecosystem partners to address the limited availability of green fuels, one of shipping’s biggest bottlenecks. Rather than waiting for the market to mature, Maersk is helping create it.

Transitions rarely unfold exactly as expected. Costs can fall dramatically faster than forecast. Policy can reverse within a single election cycle. Customer preferences can shift rapidly, and competing technologies can emerge unexpectedly. Adaptability is important. Given continued uncertainty about fuel prices, availability, and regulation, Maersk buys dual-fuel ships that can operate with both conventional marine fuel and a lower-carbon alternative such as liquified natural gas (LNG) or methanol.

Monitor the transition. Some technologies are less relevant, or it may be unclear how quickly critical gates will open for them. Rather than commit significant capital prematurely, leading companies continuously monitor developments and prepare to move quickly once conviction strengthens. A dairy company unsure how quickly consumers will embrace plant-based dairy would monitor developments regularly and have plans in place to act when the market becomes attractive.

Avoid the transition. Building conviction also means knowing when not to invest. Many automakers stopped investing in fuel cell electric vehicles after it became clear that battery EVs were cheaper, had better infrastructure, and were preferred by consumers. When conviction shifted, capital followed.

Looking forward

The companies that outperform will not invest across every sustainability opportunity. They will continuously update their view of the important transitions, strengthen conviction faster than competitors, allocate capital with greater discipline, and adapt as conditions change.

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, one of the most ambitious economic transformations ever attempted has shown us both what is possible and how difficult transition is. Seventeen trillion dollars of investment helped avoid the worst-case warming scenario, yet progress has not been sufficient and has unfolded unevenly.

There is no place for blind optimism in sustainability. Neither is it correct to assume that entire transitions are stalling. Visionary pragmatists recognize this age of divergence for what it is: not a sign of failure but an opportunity to place the right bets for the future.

Read the Next Section

For Consumers, Sustainability Isn’t Gone, But It Is Changing 

Read our 2026 CEO Sustainability Report

EXPLORE THE FULL REPORT DOWNLOAD THE PDF

More from the report

• Navigating Sustainability in an Age of Divergence

• For Consumers, Sustainability Isn’t Gone, But It Is Changing

• The Energy Transition Runs Through Asia

• You’re Asking the Wrong Questions about Climate Resilience

• Make Better. Sell Better. Protect Better: How Sustainable AI Creates Value

• The New Investment Playbook for Sustainability