When Energy Resilience Becomes Business Resilience
Brent crude breaching US$130 per barrel in early April 2026 is not merely a cash flow shock, but the end of an assumption. For decades, many held the old assumption that energy costs would remain relatively stable. That assumption has now collapsed, and with it, the definition of business resilience must be rewritten.
Disruption to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz—a channel carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply—has triggered what the International Energy Agency (IEA) calls the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Prices are expected to remain elevated throughout the first half of 2026 before gradually declining as supply normalises.
In Indonesia, the impact is unevenly distributed: energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, petrochemicals, transport, and agriculture are bearing the fastest pressure, whilst consumption-based sectors face a slower but persistent weakening of purchasing power.
In response, many companies are focusing on short-term measures such as maintaining margins, securing supply, and managing cash flow. These steps are sensible and necessary, but short-term responses alone are insufficient. As World Environment Day is observed amidst the energy crisis, the relevant question is no longer whether companies need to transition, but how quickly that transition can be executed without sacrificing business stability.
Having accompanied corporate clients in the financial sector for more than two decades, I have witnessed several energy cycles. From the 2008 crisis, the commodity price slump of 2014-2016, the shock in 2020, the post-Ukraine invasion surge in 2022, to the current energy crisis in 2026. One pattern emerges from every cycle: companies that enter a crisis with a diversified cost structure, flexible supply chains, and a healthy balance sheet tend to emerge stronger.
What differentiates this cycle is that the pressures are arriving simultaneously. The rise in energy prices hits margins precisely as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) begins to put a real price on the emissions embedded in export products such as steel, aluminium, and fertiliser. Based on Fastmarkets analysis, Indonesia faces one of the highest effective CBAM tariff rates in the world, reaching 154% of import value for affected sectors. Energy, long viewed as a relatively stable cost component, is now a strategic variable affecting profitability, supply chain stability, competitive positioning, and even access to financing.
The impact typically emerges gradually: margins slowly thinning, changes in global buyer criteria, order postponements, shifts in investor appetite. This gradual nature is precisely what often escapes attention. By the time it is noticed, the room for manoeuvre has narrowed.
Energy efficiency, source diversification, and emissions transparency are often framed as a sustainability agenda. Under current conditions, it is more accurate to call it a competitiveness discipline. Energy audits reduce cost exposure. Source diversification minimises supply disruption risk. Emissions transparency opens access to export markets that are now applying carbon pricing at the border. Each of these steps stands on its own economically, irrespective of any attached label.
Global capital flows are also shifting. A PwC report estimates that ESG-based assets under management will grow from US$18.4 trillion in 2021 to US$33.9 trillion in 2026, representing around 21.5% of total global AUM. The correct interpretation of this figure is not that ‘ESG is trending’, but that the pool of available capital for companies without a credible transition narrative is shrinking.
The assumption that ESG transition is an optional expense that can be deferred until margins improve is a misconception. Transition costs move in one direction: always up. The expanding application of carbon pricing, increasingly stringent disclosure obligations, financing standards requiring sustainability aspects, and pressure from buyers and investors are making the room to delay narrower year by year.
Companies that start early gain three advantages often invisible in short-term financial reports: the flexibility to adjust operations gradually without disrupting cash flow, access to broader and more efficient financing instruments like sustainability-linked loans, and better bargaining power when negotiating with global buyers who now incorporate sustainability criteria into long-term contracts.
The transition also does not always have to begin with large-scale projects. Energy audits, production efficiency improvements, emissions data transparency, and strengthened governance are the foundations that enable larger transformation at the next stage.
For many medium-sized companies and SMEs, capital gaps and technical capacity are real barriers. The argument that ‘transition is an opportunity’ must not obscure the fact that this transformation demands upfront investment whilst cash flows are under pressure. This is where the role of financial institutions becomes a prerequisite, not a complement. Indonesia’s energy transition funding needs are estimated to reach approximately US$280 billion by 2030, with only around 30% able to be met from the state budget. This gap can only be closed through collaboration between private capital, multilateral development institutions, and the financial sector. Banks and financial institutions serve as strategic partners, helping to navigate evolving regulatory dynamics, structuring financing suited to the pace of business transformation, and connecting entities.