Months into the new administration, campus sustainability efforts continue to face heightened scrutiny and shifting political headwinds. For university leaders, the question isn’t whether this work still matters — it’s how to continue advancing it amid the risks and pressures. Some institutions have chosen to keep a lower profile. Others are rebranding or reframing their efforts to stay aligned with changing expectations. In this environment, strategy - not silence - is the key to staying on course.
Context: Sustainability under new pressures
Over the past two decades, sustainability has become a mainstream agenda item in higher education. Today, more than 500 institutions in North America participate in climate leadership networks such as Second Nature or AASHE’s STARS program, and many have made public pledges to reduce emissions, pursue net zero targets, or integrate sustainability principles into operations and investments.
But in 2025, the national policy environment has shifted. The Trump administration has used legal and political tools against universities, and federal support for climate initiatives has been scaled back, leading to growing political opposition to ESG or sustainability-aligned programming in some states.
For higher education leaders, this raises new questions: What are the risks and opportunities of continuing to prioritize sustainability? And if we decide to stay the course on current commitments, how can we do so in a way that reflects both strategic clarity and situational awareness?
Weighing the risks and benefits of staying the course
Staying committed to climate and sustainability goals amid political pushback carries both strategic benefits and risks for higher education institutions. While the balance varies by institution, geography, and governance structure, there are some common benefits and risks to consider.
Benefits
- Cost savings: On campus, sustainability often means efficiency-focused measures (e.g., retrofits, water conservation), all of which reduces long-term operational expenses and conserves critical financial resources.
- Reputational value: Students, faculty, and donors often expect environmental leadership. Surveys have found that sustainability is a factor in prospective students’ and faculty decision-making (e.g., 92% of students believe sustainable development is something universities should actively promote).
- Risk management: Climate-related physical risks (e.g., extreme heat, flooding, wildfire) are increasing. Resilience planning helps universities to manage exposure.
- Mission alignment: For many institutions, environmental stewardship is tied to stated values such as social responsibility, public service, or global engagement. Leaving sustainability behind can be perceived as leaving these core institutional values behind as well.
Risks
- Political blowback: Institutions in some states may face legislative scrutiny, media criticism, or budgetary consequences if sustainability work is framed as ideological.
- Funding exposure: Public and research universities in particular may find that certain climate-related programs become ineligible for state or federal grants.
- Narrative complexity: Even seemingly apolitical climate work (e.g., emissions tracking, building upgrades) is becoming politicized in certain contexts.
- Staff disruption: If public scrutiny grows, campus sustainability offices may experience staffing stress, turnover, or uncertainty about institutional support.
There is no universal formula. Some universities will find that political risk is minimal, but reputational risk is high; for others, the opposite may be true. Institutional leaders may benefit from scenario-based planning and cross-departmental risk mapping to assess exposure in a structured way.
How to stay the course
For institutions that decide to maintain momentum on sustainability, several considerations can help frame how to proceed strategically in this new environment.
Strategic framing
Many institutions have adjusted how they describe or position sustainability efforts. Terms like “energy resilience,” “infrastructure modernization,” or “efficiency planning” are now more resonant in politically diverse contexts than climate or ESG-specific language.
Governance Integration
Rather than siloing sustainability in a single office or position, some universities are integrating it into core business processes. For example:
- Embedding emissions considerations into capital planning.
- Including environmental risk in procurement and insurance decisions.
- Aligning sustainability metrics with financial or operational KPIs.
These approaches can help normalize sustainability efforts without making them targets of symbolic critique.
Focus on co-benefits
Programs that advance multiple goals tend to be more durable. Examples include:
- Building upgrades that lower emissions, reduce costs, and address deferred maintenance.
- Sustainable transportation options that reduce parking demand and support student wellness.
- Food systems initiatives that promote local sourcing, equity, and community engagement.
By linking climate goals to other institutional priorities, sustainability becomes less of a standalone statement and more of a systems solution.
Peer support and quiet collaboration
Some institutions are working through formal coalitions (e.g., UC3) or informal consortia to share strategies, resources, and benchmarks. These groups can offer peer-tested approaches for risk management, communications strategy, and implementation under pressure.
Key Questions for Higher Education Leaders
- What aspects of our sustainability strategy are core to our institutional mission?
- Where are our greatest risks — in terms of politics, funding, or reputation?
- Can we revise how we describe our goals without reducing their substance?
- Do we have governance and risk structures in place to manage scrutiny?
- How are peer institutions in similar contexts responding?
In this new environment, clarity, and strategy matter more than ever. If your institution is wrestling with how to adapt your sustainability efforts without losing momentum, we’d be glad to help.
Contact us to talk through how your peers are navigating similar questions and what approaches are proving effective.
Our people
Andrew Alesbury
Partner, Washington DC
Andrew supports real estate investors and other firms with large portfolios of physical assets to create sustainable strategies which integrate resilience and sustainable risk management into their business models and investment processes.
Ben Vatterott
Partner, San Francisco
Ben supports clients on a number of strategic topics such as setting net zero targets, embedding sustainability and emissions reduction into capital deployment, and capturing sustainable growth opportunities.
