Five Social Sustainability Trends that will Define 2026

In recent years, the sustainability conversation has been dominated by climate change. But 2026 is shaping up to be a year in which the “S” in ESG—the social dimension—takes on much greater prominence: transparency in social data, human rights due diligence (that is, the formal process of reviewing, identifying, and preventing risks to people across operations and the value chain), fairness in the green and digital transitions, and a far more responsible (and closely monitored) use of artificial intelligence.

In my view, these are the five major trends that will shape the social sustainability agenda in 2026.

1. From storytelling to data: toward standardized and mandatory social reporting

Until recently, many companies could talk about social impact without providing much evidence (the familiar example of “painting the wall” and taking a photo). That is changing quickly. Globally, reporting frameworks are moving toward comparable, auditable, and mandatory social data.

In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires thousands of companies to report under detailed standards, including the social dimension through the ESRS standards (S1–S4), which cover a company’s own workforce, workers in the value chain, affected communities, and consumers.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) notes that in countries such as Mexico, starting in 2026 non-financial issuers will be required to submit a sustainability report aligned with ISSB standards (the global benchmark that is setting the pace for how companies report environmental, social, and governance risks and impacts). These standards include social data—such as unionized and temporary workers—as part of annual reporting. It is worth emphasizing that these requirements will continue to expand; therefore, a strategy limited to basic compliance will not be sufficient.

A similar shift is taking place in Asia: beginning in 2026, China (including Hong Kong), Singapore, and Japan will introduce mandatory ESG reporting aligned with the ISSB, consolidating a global standard that also encompasses the social dimension. This is particularly important given that these economies are central hubs for supply chains, finance, and technological development.

To illustrate where things are headed, a good example is Deutsche Telekom, which since 2015 has published specific social indicators such as the KPIs “Community Contribution” (how much it invests) and “Beneficiaries” (who benefits and how), using the Business for Societal Impact (B4SI) methodology to measure both social inputs and impacts.
(https://report.telekom.com/cr-report/2024/social/social-engagement.html)

In short, social projects are no longer a narrative—they are a form of social accounting integrated into corporate reporting.

Recommendations for NGOs, consultancies, companies, and government:

• NGOs: Those that do not measure and report rigorously will be at a disadvantage compared with organizations that can demonstrate impact through data.

• Consultancies: Demand for support in measurement systems, indicator frameworks, and external assurance will grow. Companies are no longer looking for a romantic, reputation-driven social sustainability strategy, but for approaches aligned with international frameworks that can serve as financing instruments.

• Companies: Social sustainability teams must sit alongside Finance and Risk; this is no longer just about communications.

• Government: To attract responsible investment, it is critical to align local regulation with global frameworks (ISSB, ESRS). This requires updating disclosure requirements in capital markets, incorporating social indicators into public procurement, and developing the capacity to analyze and use this information in decision-making.

2. From “goodwill” to mandatory human rights due diligence

The second major trend is the shift from voluntary corporate social responsibility to mandatory human rights and labor conditions due diligence, particularly in supply chains.

In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)—which regulates corporate sustainability due diligence and has been in force since July 2024—requires large companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts in both their own operations and their value chains.

Although higher thresholds approved in late 2025 reduced the number of companies directly subject to these obligations, the underlying logic is clear: due diligence is no longer voluntary but a legal duty for the largest corporate groups, with contractual implications for all their suppliers.

This pressure does not come only from regulators. Organizations such as Amnesty International have shown that major electric vehicle manufacturers are not adequately complying with due diligence requirements in battery supply chains, particularly in the extraction of critical minerals (cobalt, lithium, etc.), increasing the risk of human rights abuses.

A reference case is Novo Nordisk, which publishes dedicated human rights due diligence reports describing its processes for identifying risks, updating policies, and engaging the board of directors on these issues. It is not alone: a growing number of global companies are integrating due diligence into their management systems and corporate governance.
https://www.novonordisk.com/content/dam/nncorp/global/en/sustainable-business/pdfs/esg-portal/2025/novo-nordisk-human-rights-report-2024.pdf

Recommendations for NGOs, consultancies, companies, and government:

• NGOs: There is a significant opportunity to become technical partners by providing local context, independent monitoring, and trusted grievance mechanisms for affected individuals and communities.

• Consultancies: Designing social (not just environmental) due diligence models will be one of the areas of greatest demand, particularly in complex supply chains.

• Companies: Ignoring due diligence is no longer only a reputational risk; it is also a regulatory and financial one that can close doors to international clients and investors.

• Government: Incorporating due diligence into national legal frameworks can align countries with evolving EU and global investor expectations. This includes integrating risk review obligations into corporate and securities laws, incorporating human rights criteria into public procurement, issuing clear guidelines for state-owned enterprises, and strengthening supervisory authorities so they can review and use this information. The goal is not merely to require more reporting, but to create a framework that rewards companies that manage their social risks effectively.

3. From philanthropy to measured and strategic social value

Another clear trend is the professionalization of social value measurement, moving beyond traditional philanthropy. It is no longer enough to say “we support a certain community”; today, companies are expected to demonstrate what changed, for whom, and with what level of efficiency as a result of their intervention.

Networks such as Business for Societal Impact (B4SI) have spent 30 years developing frameworks that help companies plan, measure, and communicate their social impact using common methodologies, enabling comparability and global benchmarking. Their approach helps organize information into inputs (what is invested), activities, outcomes, and the changes generated for people and communities.

To this we add the in-house favorite, the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology, which provides a powerful additional layer by translating outcomes into value (generally monetary) for different stakeholders. The most valuable aspect of SROI is not just the final number, but the process used to calculate it, as it forces organizations to define from the outset what they aim to transform through the intervention, who the key groups are, what changes they expect to achieve, and how they will verify that those changes actually occurred. In other words, it compels alignment among design, implementation, and measurement around a very clear theory of change.

B4SI’s 2024 annual report shows how hundreds of companies are moving from a logic of “scattered projects” to business-aligned social impact strategies, with metrics for inputs, outcomes, and changes generated in communities. In parallel, more and more organizations are incorporating SROI to complement this perspective with an assessment of the value generated per peso invested.

Recommendations for CSOs, consultancies, companies, and government

CSOs: Those that can speak the language of “measured social value” and participate in SROI exercises (by providing contextual information, evidence of real change, and community perceptions) will be far more attractive partners for companies and investors.

Consultancies: Integrating frameworks such as B4SI, SROI, and others into service offerings will be key to supporting companies and governments in the design, measurement, and communication of their social impact.

Companies: The social area must evolve from “executing projects” to managing portfolios of social investment with clear returns—both social and strategic. Methodologies such as SROI help prioritize projects that generate the greatest value for each peso invested.

Government: When designing social policy and public–private partnerships, these frameworks can be used to ensure that every public and private peso generates the maximum possible social value, and to justify resource allocation decisions with evidence.

4. The “just transition” as the heart of social sustainability

The fourth trend is that the social dimension is no longer seen as separate from the climate and technology agenda; there is increasing talk of “just transitions.” In other words, green and digital transitions that do not leave workers, territories, and communities behind.

UNDP has developed legal and public policy frameworks to integrate the just transition into development plans, ensuring that decarbonization and digitalization do not create new inequality gaps.

Recent reports show, however, that a major gap still exists: for example, less than 3% of international climate aid is specifically allocated to supporting just transitions for workers and communities that depend on carbon-intensive industries.

At the same time, major global investors are beginning to pay greater attention to the social dimension of the transition. BNP Paribas’ Just Transition Observatory underscores that a just transition must create decent work, reduce inequality, and distribute the benefits of the new low-carbon economy in an equitable way.

And how does this translate for companies?

For example, for a company that shuts down fossil fuel operations or automates processes with AI, the question is no longer only how it reduces emissions or improves efficiency, but also:

• What happens to the people and communities affected?

• Are there plans for reskilling, workforce transition, and new local productive models?

• Have workers and communities been included in the design of the transition?

All of this must be taken into account and addressed, because sooner or later customers, investors, regulators, or the community itself will ask these questions.

Recommendations for CSOs, consultancies, companies, and government

CSOs: They can play a central role in giving voice to affected workers and communities, and in co-designing just transition plans.

Consultancies: Integrating the “just transition” component into climate, energy, and digitalization projects will be increasingly in demand.

Companies: They must anticipate that investors and regulators will ask not only, “What are you doing for the climate?” but also, “How are you taking care of the people affected by this change?”

Government: It has the task of ensuring that the green and digital transition is not socially regressive. This involves, for example: incorporating the concept of just transition into national decarbonization plans and related initiatives; designing active employment and workforce transition policies for sectors and regions dependent on transforming industries (energy, manufacturing, transport, etc.); using public and international funds to create training programs, local entrepreneurship initiatives, and social protection in territories that may be affected; and, very importantly, opening formal spaces for social dialogue (companies, unions, communities, local governments) to agree on how these changes will be implemented.

In short: it is not only about passing climate laws, but about accompanying them with social policies that ensure no one is left behind in the transition.

5. Artificial intelligence: a new lever (and a new risk) for social sustainability

Artificial intelligence is becoming one of the most important — and ambivalent — drivers of social sustainability.

On the one hand, McKinsey’s 2024 report AI for Social Good: Improving Lives and Protecting the Planet shows how these technologies are already being used to advance multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including health, education, sustainable cities and financial inclusion.

In the corporate world, AI is used to improve risk assessment in supply chains, identify patterns of exclusion or inequality, and optimize social impact programs.

On the other hand, AI can also amplify biases in hiring processes, performance evaluations or access to credit, prompting new debates around ethics, governance and human rights in the use of these tools.

Recommendations for CSOs, consultancies, companies and government

CSOs: They need to develop judgment — and technical partnerships — to understand when AI empowers and when it excludes, especially in public services and social programs.

Consultancies: A key niche will emerge in designing ethical AI governance frameworks, with a focus on social impacts, not just technical compliance.

Companies: Any use of AI that affects people (HR, customers, suppliers) should be treated as a human rights and social sustainability issue, not merely one of efficiency.

Government: Regulating AI without incorporating criteria of equity, non-discrimination and social rights would be a missed opportunity. This is the moment to connect responsible AI agendas with the social sustainability agenda.

2026 as a turning-point year for the “S” in ESG

If there is one idea that ties these five trends together, it is a message that has echoed throughout 2025: social sustainability is no longer voluntary or narrative-driven; it is becoming strategic, regulated and measurable.

Keep these five points in mind:

• Social data is becoming standardized and incorporated into mandatory reporting.

• Human rights due diligence is moving from “commitment” to legal requirement.

• Social value creation is becoming professionalized and linked to business strategy.

• The just transition is emerging as the ethical filter for the climate and digital agenda.

• AI is becoming a new battleground where it will be decided whether technology narrows or widens social gaps.

For public, private and social actors in Latin America — and particularly in Mexico — this context opens up a major opportunity: those who move ahead of these trends will not only “comply,” they will lead.