Summer is traditionally the time to catch your breath. Fewer meetings, a quieter inbox, finally room for the topics that sit untouched all year. But for many sustainability managers, this pause feels different in 2026. Not because a major break has happened – but because the rules of the game have quietly changed. Growth has turned into consolidation. The spirit of a new beginning has turned into a new realism.

So how are the people and departments responsible for sustainability in companies really doing? The robust figures on this come predominantly from Germany and the DACH region. And they also show: sustainability management is not the same everywhere. In some respects, family businesses go their own way – more on this at the end of the article.

Summer Break? The Ground Has Shifted

For years, the headlines were similar: “Sustainability continues to gain importance.” More and more companies built up processes, budgets and positions, and the profession professionalised rapidly. In 2026, this picture has noticeably turned. The Omnibus procedure to adjust reporting obligations has led most companies to slow down or temporarily suspend their reporting process; 74% cite uncertain political and regulatory conditions as an obstacle. At the same time, macroeconomic uncertainty and geopolitical tensions are putting decision-makers under pressure.

The result is not a crisis but a shift – one that can also be read positively: as a profession that is growing up.

Growth Turns into Consolidation

In Germany, sustainability has arrived in companies and remains a top-management matter: in around seven out of ten companies, responsibility still lies at board or management level. But the momentum is fading. Almost six out of ten companies report that the topic is losing priority internally – a clear increase compared with the previous year. And around 83 per cent still lack a cost-covering business case. (Sustainability Transformation Monitor 2026, Germany)

How strongly this shift affects the departments themselves shows in the hard figures. In Germany, salaries, positions and budgets are pointing downwards at the same time for the first time in years:

  • €72,000 median gross annual salary for full-time sustainability managers – a decline of 5.3% and thus below the level before the Omnibus procedure.
  • –15% for career starters and –8.1% in large companies: the decline does not hit everyone equally.
  • Budgets are falling in all size classes – by up to 42% in small companies.

Source: Sustainability People Report 2026 (Germany).

The rest of the labour market stands in contrast: in Germany, nominal wages rose by 4.2% in 2025 and real wages by 1.9% (Destatis). In sustainability management, they are moving in the opposite direction. The trend is also reversing for positions: in large German companies, the median number of full-time equivalents is falling from 6.0 to 4.9. Those who built particularly large teams in 2025 have meanwhile reduced them again.

At the same time, the profile of the roles is changing. Generalists are on the rise, clearly defined specialisations are declining – around 62% now describe themselves as generalists. Anyone in demand in sustainability management has to be broadly positioned in terms of expertise. (Figures: Sustainability People Report 2026, Germany)

Not retreat, but maturity: anyone who stays in sustainability management today builds up skills and makes the value contribution more visible, instead of leaving the field.

Plenty of Ambition, Little Impact

The real pressure does not arise where ambition is lacking – but where it hits limits. Most companies in the DACH region fundamentally stick to their high sustainability ambitions, but this ambition is for the most part not matched by a correspondingly high degree of strategic involvement in key company decisions. Aspiration and impact are drifting apart. In line with this, around two in five companies are currently questioning their sustainability ambitions critically – rising costs, geopolitical uncertainty and volatile regulation are shifting the focus to short-term results targets. (Horváth CSO Study 2026, DACH)

When German sustainability managers are asked themselves about their biggest challenges, the same three topics come out on top: lack of relevance and acceptance within their own company, lack of budget and resources, and the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the Omnibus process. (Sustainability People Report 2026, Germany)

Behind this lies a fundamental shift. Sustainability has to change from a mandatory reporting programme into a demonstrable business case. There is less room for idealism – what counts is the numbers. And what regulation loses in pace is made up for by customers, banks and investors through the supply chain: only in a more uncoordinated way, as a wave of requests from different directions.

Austria: The Obligation Comes Later – and with Force

In Austria the tempo is the same – the obligation just comes later and, in return, with force. With the Sustainability Reporting Act (NaBeG), which entered into force in February 2026 and replaces the earlier NaDiVeG, the CSRD was transposed into Austrian law: for the time being, public-interest entities with more than 1,000 employees and more than EUR 450 million in turnover must report under the ESRS, for financial years with a balance sheet date on or after 19 February 2026, including external assurance. What many pioneers had begun voluntarily is thus now mandatory for them.

The second ESRS reporting season shows at the same time how practice is maturing: Austrian sustainability statements are becoming more compact – 143 pages on average instead of 168 – and external assurance is the rule: Europe-wide, 98% of the analysed statements were assured at least with limited assurance. At the same time, 95% of Austrian reports rely on estimates. The scope is therefore shrinking, and the real work lies in data quality. (KPMG “Real-time ESRS 2026: Austria 40”; EY CSRD Barometer 2026)

For sustainability departments, this means: more obligation, higher demands on data quality – and even less room for gut feeling.

The Mood Remains Stable

And yet: in Germany, the mood holds.

  • 58% of German sustainability managers rate their professional situation positively, only around 19% are dissatisfied.
  • The “Sustainability People Pulse”, the aggregated mood index of the report, reaches its highest value so far in the April 2026 survey, at around 55 out of 100 points.
  • Willingness to change jobs is falling: only 40% still plan to change employer within the next two years – compared with 49% in 2024.
  • And those who change stay loyal to the topic: 81% of those willing to change look for their next job in sustainability again.

Fear of losing one's job is getting quieter: around three quarters rate the continuity of their job as fairly to very secure. Those who feel uncertain do not wait but react actively – they build up skills (70%) and specifically strengthen the internal business case for sustainability (64%).

The picture is not entirely free of tension, however. Disappointment about a lack of progress in their own company remains the most common reason for thinking about changing jobs. And new in second place: lack of opportunities for advancement and development – a clear jump compared with the previous year. Where the relevance of the topic has to be renegotiated, career paths within the company also become scarcer.

All values in this section: Sustainability People Report 2026 (Germany).

What Sustainability Teams Should Take Away Now

This gives sustainability teams four starting points:

  1. Make the business case visible. Sustainability must demonstrably contribute to revenue or costs. Those who can quantify the value contribution negotiate relevance from a stronger position.
  2. Set up small but powerful. A compact, well-connected team with a clear mandate can move a large company.
  3. Use regulation as a lever. The data and insights from reporting are worth their weight in gold – for business development, risk minimisation and customer relationships.
  4. Invest in your own data basis. Ratings, customers and auditors demand evidence. A clean, complete and auditable data basis is the foundation on which all of this stands.

How NetCero Helps

The common thread through almost all findings is the same: sustainability is becoming a matter of proof – and without a reliable data basis, reporting, management and the business case remain fragmented (Horváth CSO Study 2026, DACH). This is exactly where NetCero comes in.

  • Audit-proof data basis – from source to report. Account for emissions by Scope 1, 2 and 3 in line with the GHG Protocol, record, review and approve data points in a structured way – every status change lands in the changelog in an audit-proof way, every figure remains traceable to the source document. Exactly the proof that ratings, customers and auditors demand.
  • Relief for small teams. Guided processes, hundreds of practical examples right at the data point and AI functions tailored to the reality of the company make ESG manageable even for colleagues from other fields – and data points can be clearly assigned to responsible people. More impact per head, where resources have become scarcer.
  • From report to management. Double materiality, measures and reduction targets are not only documented, but strategically planned, monitored and assessed – the basis for proving the business case for sustainability to management.

Practical. Pragmatic. Audit-proof. – NetCero makes sustainability provable: from data collection to the audit-proof statement.

Finally: A Look at Family Businesses

Closer to Production, Stronger in Proof

A special group shows how differently sustainability is practised: family businesses, the backbone of the economy. They are often at home in manufacturing, trade and construction. Together with sustainability people and EY, we examined how sustainability management works there. The result: the same in many respects, but clearly different in some.

  • Why does sustainability sit closer to production in family businesses?
  • Where does the budget difference come from when salary and mood are almost identical?
  • And what does this mean for all sustainability managers who take on responsibility in the Mittelstand?

The special report provides the data and practical context.

The report is available for download below.

Sources

  • Sustainability People Report 2026 (Germany) – sustainability people in cooperation with EY, Haufe and DKB. Salary and mood report for sustainability managers; survey April 2026. (Salaries, positions, budgets, role profile, job satisfaction, willingness to change jobs, biggest challenges.)
  • Sustainability Transformation Monitor 2026 (Germany) – Bertelsmann Stiftung, Stiftung Mercator, University of Hamburg and Peer School for Sustainable Development; 822 companies surveyed. (Anchoring as a top-management matter, internal loss of importance, missing business case.)
  • Horváth Chief Sustainability Officer Study 2026 (DACH) – more than 300 interviews with senior sustainability managers and CSOs, focus on the DACH region, conducted January to April 2026. (Ambition vs. strategic involvement, critical questioning of ambitions, data basis.)
  • KPMG “Real-time ESRS 2026: Austria 40” (Austria) – analysis of 40 published sustainability statements from the first reporting season 2025/26. (Maturity of reports, material topics.)
  • EY CSRD Barometer 2026 (Austria/EU) – analysis of around 200 sustainability statements for financial year 2025. (Maturity of reports, limited assurance as market standard.)
  • Sustainability Reporting Act (NaBeG) (Austria) – BGBl. I Nr. 6/2026, in force since 19 February 2026; transposes the CSRD into Austrian law and replaces the NaDiVeG.
  • Special analysis of family businesses 2026 (German-speaking region) – joint analysis by sustainability people and NetCero, filtered from the Sustainability People Report (published 17 September 2026). (Insights on family businesses: industries and thematic priorities.)