Why “One Size Fits All” Doesn’t Work in Sustainability: A Tale of Two Energy Companies

Even within the same industry, the sustainability priorities, risks, and responsibilities can look very different. Let me explain why, with a simple story from the energy world.

A Tale of Two Energy Companies

Let’s imagine two companies—both part of the energy sector:

Company A is a large oil and gas producer with decades of legacy infrastructure.

Company B is a fast-growing solar energy company expanding across emerging markets.

Both claim to be working toward net-zero goals. Both publish ESG reports. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that their sustainability challenges—and opportunities—are worlds apart.

Company A: The Fossil Fuel Giant 

Company A faces pressure from multiple fronts:

• Climate activists and investors are pushing for decarbonization and a transition away from fossil fuels.

• Stranded asset risks are looming as regulations tighten.

• Social license to operate is under threat, especially in ecologically sensitive areas.

• Governance challenges involve executive accountability, lobbying practices, and energy justice.

Their ESG strategy has to focus primarily on:

1. Reducing scope 1, 2, and especially scope 3 emissions

2. Developing transition plans with credible, time-bound targets

3. Engaging communities affected by legacy operations and environmental impact

Company B: The Solar Disruptor

At first glance, Company B might seem like a sustainability champion- but it has its own complex ESG realities:

• Its supply chain includes mineral extraction and panel manufacturing, often with limited traceability.

• It operates in rural areas, where community engagement and fair labor practices are essential.

• The end-of-life disposal of solar panels raises concerns about circularity and waste management.

Their ESG focus needs to be on:

1. Supply chain sustainability and ethical sourcing

2. Biodiversity and land-use planning for installations

3. Panel lifecycle management and circular economy innovation

Both companies sit under the “energy” umbrella, but their sustainability journeys are shaped by:

• Their starting point

• The impact they create

• The expectations of their stakeholders

• And the pathways available for change

This is why applying a generic ESG framework across all businesses doesn’t work. Each organization needs a materiality-driven, sector-sensitive, and context-aware approach to sustainability.

Kay Takeaways: Design for Relevance

In ESG, credibility comes from relevance. Your material topics must reflect your realities. Your metrics must speak to your impact. And your strategy must be tailored - not templated.

The most effective sustainability plans are those that are deeply embedded in an organization’s operating context, not just borrowed from a checklist.

As sustainability professionals, one's job is not just to push companies to report- but to help them find clarity and direction in a landscape full of complexity.

So the next time you hear “one-size-fits-all” in sustainability, pause and ask:

Whose size are we talking about? And whose impact are we ignoring?

What’s Your Take?

Have you come across companies applying generic ESG playbooks to complex sustainability issues? What are the risks, and how can we fix it? Let’s start a conversation.

#Sustainability #ESG #MaterialityMatters #GRI #EnergyTransition #SolarPower #FossilFuels #CircularEconomy #SustainableStrategy #NoOneSizeFitsAll #ImpactLeadership #NetZero