At the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), researchers Chiara Rathnow, Sarosh Asad, Philip Steinberg, and Björn Mitzinneck study the dynamics of C-suite decisions relating to climate policy. They reason that CEO climate activism is not merely a reflection of individual values, but also of the broader legitimacy of sustainability agendas and governance-related factors, such as ownership structures and board composition. These complicated dynamics are increasingly relevant, especially in the exemplary context of the US’ second exit (after re-entry) from the Paris Climate Agreement.

When the world gathered in Belém for COP30 this November, one absence was impossible to miss: the United States government did not send an official delegation. For the first time in three decades of UN climate talks, the world’s largest historical emitter left its seat at the negotiating table empty. Less obvious, but just as important, was another silence: the lack of outspoken corporate leaders who once cast themselves as climate champions.

The contrast with 2017 could hardly be sharper. When President Trump first announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, corporate responses were swift. Many CEOs from leading firms publicly condemned the move, high-profile captains of industry resigned from presidential advisory councils, and coalitions such as “We Are Still In” signaled that influential voices of Ccorporate America saw climate action as both a moral obligation and a strategic necessity. When Trump, upon returning to office in January 2025, again initiated US withdrawal – with the exit scheduled for January 2026 – NGOs, state and local government leaders, and some companies voiced criticism, but public push-back from CEOs of major corporations was much more muted.

What Research Tells Us About the Change in CEO Activism

What changed? Prior research on CEO sociopolitical activism suggests that executives not only speak out on contentious issues because of personal conviction, but also after assessing whether key stakeholders will reward or punish them. CEO ideology matters, but only alongside the views of employees, investors, and customers. When these audiences broadly support a stance, activism is more likely; when they are polarized, the perceived risks rise sharply. Recent years have seen an increase in strong reactions to CEO activism: companies that took visible positions on LGBTQ+ rights or racial justice have faced organized boycotts and political attacks, signaling to corporate leaders that unpredictable commercial costs can ensue from high-profile activism. Climate has increasingly been drawn into the same culture-war dynamics.

Since 2017, several Republican-led states in the US have introduced anti-ESG legislation and investigations targeting large asset managers and banks for their climate policies. Climate-focused investment funds have seen outflows, some financial institutions have watered down or re-branded climate commitments under political pressure, and investor support for environmental shareholder resolutions has declined. Trump’s return to the White House accelerated political pressure and backlash against ESG and climate policy, making public opposition riskier for CEOs who depend on regulatory goodwill.

It is also important to remember that CEOs are not free agents. They operate within a dense web of constraints: boards, dominant investors, lenders, regulators, employees, customers, competitors, and the media. Average CEO tenure at large listed companies is only around seven to nine years, and there are signs that tenures are shortening again. Boards are increasingly willing to replace leaders who are perceived as out of step with shareholder expectations or political realities. In such a context, many CEOs may strategically avoid public confrontation over climate policy – even if their personal views differ. CEO climate activism is therefore not simply a reflection of individual values; it is a governance outcome shaped by ownership structures, board composition, and the broader legitimacy of sustainability agendas.

What is studied at FEB

At FEB, Rathnow, Asad, Steinberg, and Mitzinneck are working to understand these dynamics more systematically. In an ongoing project, they study the influence of governance features on CEO activism and corporate environmental commitments around the US’ exit from the Paris Agreement. Using longitudinal data on S&P 500 (stock market indexed) firms, they examine when CEOs chose to speak out – or remain silent – in response to the withdrawal announcements, and how this behavior relates to board characteristics, ownership patterns, and firms’ commitment to carbon emission reduction. Rathnow, Asad, Steinberg, and Mitzinneck build on manually coded measures of CEO activism from social and traditional media (such as Tweets and public media coverage). Their goal is not to name and shame individual executives, but to clarify the conditions under which corporate leaders can credibly and sustainably support ambitious climate policy – and when they are likely to retreat into what some observers call “strategic silence”.

Why it matters

COP30 has made the costs of political retreat visible: when a major emitter steps back, others must fill the gap. The same is true for corporate voices. The researchers believe that if we still expect CEOs to play a constructive role in decarbonization, we need a better understanding of governance arrangements and institutional conditions that can sustain climate leadership. With their research, Rathnow, Asad, Steinberg, and Mitzinneck aim to contribute to this understanding.

More information

Questions? Please contact Philip Steinberg

Further reading, selected research:

Hambrick, D.C., & Wowak, A.J. (2021). CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder alignment model. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 33-59.

Rathnow, C.C., Asad, S., Steinberg, P.J., Mitzinneck, B.C. Governance drivers of CEO Activism: The case of the U.S.’ exit of the Paris Agreement. presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Copenhagen (August 2025).

Wowak, A. J., & Busenbark, J. R. (2024). Why do some conservative CEOs publicly support liberal causes? Organizational ideology, managerial discretion, and CEO sociopolitical activism. Organization Science, 35(4), 1388-1408.