From Slogan to System: Avoiding ESG Fatigue in Indonesia
In recent years, the term ESG has become increasingly familiar in Indonesian corporate boardrooms. Environmental, Social, Governance is no longer a topic exclusive to global forums, but has entered annual reports, investor presentations, and public communications materials.
The Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) is pushing for the integration of sustainability aspects, the Financial Services Authority (OJK) is strengthening reporting obligations, and large companies are racing to declare commitments to net-zero or decarbonisation.
But amid that intensity, a question that is rarely asked honestly emerges: is the public becoming tired of ESG?
In several Western countries, the term ESG fatigue has become a serious topic of discussion. Increasingly complex regulation and political pressure have made some business players more cautious. ESG is no longer automatically praised; it must be proven. Indonesia has not yet reached that point. At the institutional level, ESG is strengthening rather than weakening.
Sustainability reporting has become more systematic, global supply chain pressure is more tangible, and global investors are increasingly incorporating sustainability aspects into their analyses. Yet in practice, subtler signs begin to appear.
We are increasingly hearing phrases such as ‘Towards Net Zero 2060’, ‘Committed to Sustainability’, or ‘Supporting a Green Economy’. There is nothing wrong with those phrases.
The problem arises when simple questions receive no clear answers: what is the emissions reduction this year? which investments have been truly redirected? which standards are being referenced? If all companies use the same language, where are the differentiators and the courage?
The public has actually never rejected sustainability. They are simply tired of hearing promises that sound the same from one company to another.
In digital spaces, the younger generation is increasingly critical. They compare claims with reality. They revisit long-standing issues. They read not only the words but their consistency. When environmental incidents or labour issues occur, the sustainability narrative is immediately tested.
And the question is no longer ‘Does this company have a commitment?’, but ‘Is that commitment really changing its business decisions?’
Perhaps this is the point of reflection we need to acknowledge: is ESG being run as a transformation strategy, or merely as language that must appear in every presentation?
In legitimacy theory, trust arises from the alignment between performance and social expectations. When the language is too grand and the evidence too small, the gap slowly widens. Not because the public hates sustainability, but because they want to see tangible direction.
Indonesia has not yet reached the phase of total fatigue. Yet we stand at a crossroads. If ESG continues to be communicated as an elegant but generic slogan, fatigue will come as a form of quiet scepticism.
Conversely, if sustainability truly influences investment, governance, and the way companies make decisions, it will become a foundation for strong reputation.
For business leaders and communication practitioners, this phase is an important moment. Sustainability is no longer enough to be placed in the CSR unit or framed as an annual project.
It must be embedded in investment decisions, management incentive systems, and measurable performance indicators. Communications should not run faster than operations, but must not lag behind the changes that have already occurred.
Ultimately, perhaps the more honest question is not whether the public is tired of ESG, but whether we are bold enough to make ESG part of a real business strategy.
For true sustainability does not arise from repetition of terms, but from consistent decisions—even when those decisions are not always easy.
Emmy Kuswandari. Practitioner of strategic communications and Master’s student in Corporate Communications at Paramadina University.