However, the negotiations fell short of agreeing on a binding roadmap to phase out fossil fuels or reverse deforestation. This conclusion reflects hesitancy among many nations to adopt steep commitments. Despite progress on adaptation and equity measures, there remain continued divisions on ambition.

The conference agenda also included some logistics; namely, who would host next year’s COP31? After a battle between delegations from Türkiye and Australia, it was announced that Türkiye will host, with Australia leading discussions.

Hosting as a Bid for Soft Power

The debate about hosting COP is about much more than logistics; it is a strategic move to protect and grow soft power through perceived sustainability leadership. Growing competition to host COP reflects the reputational and economic stakes for nations and their cities.

COP is seen as one of the most visible multilateral platforms for dialogue. Participants contribute to the global climate action narrative, build diplomatic alliances, and attract investment and coverage. These benefits are especially pronounced for the host country and city. Being a COP host serves as a stamp of influence and credibility as a player in sustainability discourse.

Brand Finance’s 2025 Global Soft Power Index found that sustainability-related attributes (environmental-, social- or governance-related) were responsible for driving 37% of national reputation. Perceived sustainability is also strongly correlated with strength in trade and international relations. Similarly, Brand Finance’s Global City Index finds an influential role for items like clean air, green spaces, renewable energy, liveability, and cultural appeal in determining city reputation. Notably strong performers include Copenhagen, Geneva, and Melbourne, which stand out for supporting a sustainability-influenced brand positioning with a broad range of actual commitments.

This contrasts with some of the cities who have bid to host COP where actual sustainability practice may not match the ambition for reputational improvement.

The competition for COP31 hosting rights narrowed down to Türkiye and Australia. In Australia’s case, there may have been a desire to reframe its climate reputation after years of criticism, particularly on energy diversification. The city of Adelaide bid for the hosting opportunity to signal domestic progress and a willingness to engage on climate globally.

For Türkiye, the nation could position itself as a bridge between the European and Asian approaches. Hosting COP in Antalya would strengthen regional leadership and diplomatic influence, and it could also be a way to showcase progress on the energy transition amid fossil fuel reliance.

Significance of a Bidding War

As climate finance and governance increasingly dominate the COP agenda, host cities have the chance to be viewed as the place where decisions are made about significant investment flows and where those investments grow.

At the same time, the outcomes of each year’s conference tend to be variable. COPs have their own reputation for being performative, when a large gathering and a lot of buzz do not amount to many tangible, concrete outcomes. Copenhagen is a standout example of where hosting COP may have had a detrimental impact on location brand given that the talks there have become a byword for discord and delay.

Given this, hosting a COP does not come without risk. Indeed, the jury is still out as to whether Belem and Brazil will have improved their reputations for sustainability via this year’s COP, given the relatively limited concrete outcomes and widely publicised criticisms of the sustainability of the preparation process.   

Conclusion

30 years of COPs have enabled the accumulation of sustainability-based soft power. Participants attend and declare their views to assert themselves as relevant players in global climate discourse, but also to project influence on the world stage. The intense contest for COP31, which saw a first of its kind mismatch between geographic and diplomatic host, indicates that sustainability branding continues to be important to cities and nations.

The sustainability space continues to experience shocks from anti-ESG rhetoric and legislative rollbacks in the U.S. Echoes of this stakeholder criticism and regulatory change are being felt overseas, as the EU revises its own guidance on corporate sustainability reporting requirements.

Do these changes affect, or reflect, the consumer mindset? Are European consumers softening on sustainability?

Our research suggests not. For the second year, Brand Finance finds that European consumers are far more discerning than the rest of the world when it comes to a brand’s commitment to sustainability.

In Brand Finance’s annual market research study, the Global Brand Equity Monitor, over 150,000 respondents are asked the extent to which they believe that a brand is committed to each pillar of ESG: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and governance.

There are statistically significant differences between the attitudes of European and non-European markets in all three categories of ESG. European respondents are less likely to agree that brands are committed to sustainability, as shown in Figure 1. Brand Finance research coverage includes 17 European markets and 24 non-European markets.

European respondents are 28% less likely than people living outside of Europe to agree that brands are committed to environmental sustainability. The difference for social sustainability is equally high (28%), and Europeans are 27% less likely to agree that brands are well-managed and governed.

We find that net agreement levels with brand sustainability commitments are significantly lower among European respondents. Additional analysis determines how sustainability perceptions differ between markets within Europe. Respondents from Austria, Switzerland, and Denmark were the most likely to disagree that a brand is committed to environmental sustainability, with around 20% of respondents in each country indicating disagreement. Danish respondents were particularly critical.

Conversely, respondents from the UK and Romania held the most favourable sustainability perceptions.

Europeans’ more discerning views on brands’ commitment to sustainability can be attributed to several factors. Overall, the European embrace of sustainability is strong and is borne out by public norms and behaviours.

The European Union (EU) is at the forefront of establishing rigorous, standardised corporate sustainability reporting. Its 2023 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) has taken effect, with large companies reporting under the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) in 2025. Smaller companies are expected to follow suit in 2026. This work mandates sustainability reporting and integrates it with financial reporting. Although EU-originated, CSRD applies to multinationals based on headcount, revenue, and assets in EU markets.

Governmental commitments to sustainability provide a formal backdrop to education and cultures that values sustainability. As a result, the European public is very attuned to sustainability and may bring a more critical eye to sustainability claims and/or values-aligned brands.

What does this mean for marketers?

European’s critical eyes and stringent regulation mean brands may need to adopt safer, more constrained narratives.

However, greenhushing is also a risk, as brands roll back their sustainability communications out of fear of criticism and backlash. Ideally, businesses should respond to regulations and stakeholder expectations with more consistent, effective, and authentic ESG communication, while also meeting compliance asks.

Brand Finance’s research highlights the importance of being attuned to the variation in stakeholder perceptions and expectations across geographies.

Sustainability perceptions are important to monitor, as these insights are applicable to growth strategies, regardless of how strongly an organisation considers sustainability as part of its brand identity.

Brand Finance Europe 500 2025 

Read our new report on the most valuable and strongest European brands

Against the backdrop of increased ESG regulation and disclosure expectations, voluntary certifications signal brands’ commitments to stakeholders, and by joining the scheme, brands strengthen a movement raising the bar for corporate responsibility.

What is B Corp?

B Corp is a comprehensive third-party sustainability certification that assesses corporate performance across environment, community, workers, customers, and governance. It champions a mindset shift beyond shareholder governance to stakeholder governance, where businesses are receptive to all groups influenced by their operations. Member firms are committed to changing how they do business and improving against the standards.

Beyond the technicalities, B Corp brands itself as a ‘force for good’, speaking to its high-ambition, active, and growing membership. The standards B Corps must certify against are intended to be a wider corporate guidebook for doing business better—and any company can use its certification assessment tool to gauge progress and map improvement areas.

Certifications signal who is walking the talk

Holding a credible sustainability certification should empower brands to communicate their supporting efforts confidently. The recognisable ‘Circle B’ seal denotes that the brand is a B Corp, which goes a long way: 58% of UK adults say they use certifications to make decisions about buying from and working for businesses. A voluntary certification signals:

1. The brand is trustworthy because its sustainability actions are validated
2. The brand is attractive because it is making a positive contribution through its sustainability efforts

Strategically, brand managers must connect their B Corp status to the broader communications approach and brand identity. The credential distinguishes the business’ performance as a cut above sector peers, which deserves recognition from stakeholders. As a B Corp, the brand is also better positioned to reach customers, partners, and investors who may increasingly consider engaging with and/or purchasing from a brand based on its sustainability credentials.

A seal grabs attention, but it does not tell a story. While some SMEs are founded with the intention of becoming certified B Corps, larger businesses have a longer legacy. Their stakeholders—investors, employees, partners, and customers need to know what B Corp status means to the brand and what has changed because of the certification.

Where does the brand intend to go? What are its values? How will it do better on environmental, social, human capital, and governance topics?

Another aspect of the brand-building effort includes championing what distinguishes the certified organisation; after all, striving for the certification is completely voluntary. What work has been done to get to this point? Why should the brand’s decision to make sustainability improvements and ‘do the right thing’ matter to a consumer?

Consumers can spot a certification logo, but without answers to these questions, they cannot meaningfully differentiate between a certified brand and its competitors on sustainability.   

Certifications make the case for upskilling

As brands share their goals and progress around sustainability, stakeholder expectations tend to grow. Certifications validate a brand’s sustainability efforts, but they do not prevent misrepresentation or miscommunication. Building internal sustainability literacy and upskilling communications and brand marketing teams is therefore crucial.

A sustainability team or working group carries most of the responsibility for ESG progress, but this team needs allies in adjacent departments such as supply chain, communications, legal, and finance to reach sustainability goals. And because certifications require increased transparency within and outside the organisation, internal stakeholders must be convinced that the journey is worthwhile.

Without informed and effective sustainability communications, the hard work that both led to and maintains certification status will not resonate with external stakeholders. Voluntary certification is not an endpoint; if treated as such, the brand will attract criticism.

Certifications keep brands accountable

Being perceived as committed to sustainability requires both strong ESG performance and clear, continuous messaging to stakeholders about it. Brands who lack consistency and/or evidence in communicating about their sustainability journey risk perceptions of inauthenticity. Similarly, brands who do not advance their sustainability commitments and performance against them, instead plateauing or waning, risk criticism for deprioritising sustainability. Both practices can damage reputation.

Despite being held to a higher level of performance requirements, brands with sustainability certifications are still susceptible to reputational risks and changes in their sustainability perceptions. B Corps and other sustainability certifications are arguably watched more closely for their missteps and can have their credentials weaponised against them.

Above all else, achieving a voluntary certification kicks off a new phase on a brand’s sustainability journey: one marked by greater organisational accountability, communications, and consequently, brand authority on sustainability.