{"id":11521,"date":"2026-08-21T11:38:20","date_gmt":"2026-08-21T09:38:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/?p=11521"},"modified":"2026-08-21T12:41:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T10:41:41","slug":"politically-resilient-climate-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/politically-resilient-climate-strategy\/","title":{"rendered":"How politically resilient is your climate strategy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">You usually build a climate strategy on assumptions about emissions, regulation, and energy prices. But the biggest uncertainty of the coming years lies elsewhere: in politics. Energy, raw materials, and technology have become security issues, and that changes the pace and direction of the energy transition. What does that mean for your plan? And how do you build a strategy that holds up no matter who is in power? A recent scientific article on nationalism and climate policy lays bare the mechanism. We draw four lessons from it for organizations that want their climate ambitions to still be standing five years from now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"572\" src=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie-1024x572.webp\" alt=\"Businessman looks out from an office over wind turbines under a sky that is half clouded and half sunny\" class=\"wp-image-11514\" srcset=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie-1024x572.webp 1024w, https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie-300x168.webp 300w, https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie-768x429.webp 768w, https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie-1536x858.webp 1536w, https:\/\/empact.nu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/politiek-bestendige-klimaatstrategie.webp 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Nationalism as a brake on climate policy: what the research shows<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The tone has changed since 2022. Governments talk about energy independence, strategic autonomy, and critical raw materials. Subsidies are shifting to national industry, export restrictions on raw materials are increasing, and technology has become an arena of competition between countries. Every company that draws up a <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/climate-transition-plan-a-roadmap-toward-the-future\/\">climate transition plan<\/a> implicitly counts on a particular political future. The question is whether that future will actually arrive. We wrote about that uncertain environment earlier in <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/keeping-course-during-political-storms\/\">Keeping course during political storms<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This spring, Frontiers in Political Science published the article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/journals\/political-science\/articles\/10.3389\/fpos.2026.1839079\/full\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Climate obstruction and nationalism: a conceptual map<\/a> (Conversi et al., 2026), written by Daniele Conversi and eight colleagues, including Yogi Hale Hendlin of Erasmus University Rotterdam. Their thesis: political and economic elites use nationalism to delay or water down climate policy. They distinguish four forms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n<li><strong>Resource nationalism.<\/strong> Raw materials belong to the nation and serve national development. Think of the race for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>Energy nationalism.<\/strong> Domestic energy is national security. Think of \u2018Polish coal\u2019 or \u2018Russian gas\u2019 as part of the national identity.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>Techno-nationalism.<\/strong> Control over technology is geopolitical power. Think of export restrictions on chips and the race to produce solar panels and batteries.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>Fossil fascism.<\/strong> The extreme variant, in which the protection of fossil interests merges with authoritarian nationalism and the suppression of dissent.<\/li>\n\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under each of those flags, the same thing happens: economic interests are presented as the interest of the country, and climate measures as a threat to jobs, sovereignty, or security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is an outspoken piece by a single research group, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cssn.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Climate Social Science Network<\/a>, that deliberately highlights only the obstructive side of nationalism. The authors themselves acknowledge that the same national reflex can also work in favor of green policy. But you recognize the mechanisms they describe as soon as you follow the news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Four mechanisms, four lessons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first three mechanisms each touch a different part of your climate strategy: energy nationalism affects your energy choices, resource and techno-nationalism affect your supply chain. The fourth form is not a business issue, but it does underline the overarching conclusion of the article: the route of the transition is less fixed than we assume. And that affects how you stress-test and anchor your plan. In this article we make that concrete:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n<li>energy nationalism cuts both ways;<\/li>\n\n\n<li>raw materials and technology are your hidden dependency;<\/li>\n\n\n<li>plan for multiple political futures;<\/li>\n\n\n<li>anchor your goals where politics cannot reach them.<\/li>\n\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Lesson 1: energy nationalism cuts both ways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The argument that domestic energy is national security protects coal mining in Poland. That same argument is the reason solar and wind accelerated in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe after 2022. Nobody wanted to depend on Russian gas anymore. The European <a href=\"https:\/\/commission.europa.eu\/strategy-and-policy\/priorities-2019-2024\/european-green-deal\/repowereu-affordable-secure-and-sustainable-energy-europe_en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">REPowerEU plan<\/a> explicitly linked energy security and sustainability. The argument does not pick a side; it reinforces the direction a country is already heading in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What does that mean for you? Base your climate transition plan not only on <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/how-do-you-measure-an-organizations-carbon-emissions\/\">emissions<\/a> and regulation, but also on dependency, security of supply, and cost control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Example. <\/strong>A food producer wants to replace its gas-fired steam boilers with electric heat pumps. Defended with \u2018this is how we meet our 2030 targets\u2019, that investment comes under pressure as soon as the subsidy disappears or policy shifts. Defended with \u2018this is how we become less dependent on a gas price that increased tenfold in 2022, and on suppliers outside Europe\u2019, the same investment stands in virtually every political scenario. The same decision, a stronger foundation. That ties in with what we wrote earlier about <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/the-financial-value-of-esg-six-concrete-benefits-for-organizations\/\">the financial value of ESG<\/a>: sustainability that also has a sound business rationale endures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Lesson 2: raw materials and technology are your hidden dependency<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The energy transition runs on hardware: solar panels, batteries, electrolyzers, wind turbines. And that hardware, plus the raw materials inside it, largely comes from a handful of countries. Resource nationalism and techno-nationalism are not theory here, but daily practice. If your transition plan is built entirely on that supply, you have built in a hidden risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Example. <\/strong>In 2023, China restricted the export of gallium and germanium, two metals needed for chips and solar cells. In 2025, restrictions followed on rare earth metals and the magnets made from them, indispensable in wind turbines and electric motors. European manufacturers that were not prepared saw lead times increase and prices rise. The EU responded with the Critical Raw Materials Act, but building up its own mining and processing takes years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So map out which countries, suppliers, materials, and technologies your transition plan depends on. An <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/a-more-sustainable-value-chain-5-steps-to-really-make-an-impact\/\">analysis of your value chain<\/a> often gives a good first picture. Spread your suppliers where possible and take a serious look at reuse. Circularity is not just an environmental argument here, but also a way to reduce risk. Read more about the <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/circular-economy\/\">circular economy<\/a> and about <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/the-business-case-for-circular-economy-from-cost-to-profit-model\/\">the business case for circularity<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Lesson 3: plan for multiple political futures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Many transition plans assume a single future: policy gets stricter, CO2 gets more expensive through the <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/ets-effective-climate-instrument-or-administrative-ballast\/\">ETS<\/a>, renewable energy gets cheaper. A plausible scenario. But not the only one. The article by Conversi shows that the political wind can also turn. A plan that only works if the world behaves the way you hope is not a strategy but a wish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Example. <\/strong>Anyone who built a reporting team for the CSRD in 2023 counted on a law that would apply to thousands of Dutch companies. With <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/omnibus-i-is-a-reality-what-does-this-mean-for-your-organization\/\">Omnibus I<\/a>, the scope was sharply reduced and deadlines shifted. Those who had linked their reporting to their own steering could simply carry on. The same goes for the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement in early 2025: for a company with American sites, the playing field changed overnight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So stress-test your plan under at least three scenarios: policy accelerates, policy slows down, policy fragments by region. In an earlier insight we wrote about <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/less-choice-stress-with-impact-scenarios\/\">impact scenarios<\/a> as a way to test choices. This is the moment to apply that method to geopolitical risk as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Lesson 4: anchor your goals where politics cannot reach them<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The article is about politics outside the organization. Inside the organization, the same thing plays out. A new board. A disappointing year. An activist shareholder. A climate strategy that only lives within the sustainability department does not survive the first round of budget cuts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Example. <\/strong>In 2024, Shell dropped an interim target for 2035 and weakened its ambition for carbon intensity, citing changed market conditions and the demand for gas. Whatever you think of that, it shows how quickly goals move when they are not locked into the core of the business. You see the opposite at organizations where climate goals are part of executive pay, of investment criteria, and of the regular quarterly reporting. There, a change of course is not a matter of a press release, but of a decision that has to pass the same scrutiny as any other strategic decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So set climate goals at board level, link them to investment decisions and remuneration, and report on them as if they were financial figures. We described how to approach that in <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/insights\/implementing-esg-in-your-organization-in-10-steps-to-lasting-change\/\">implementing ESG in ten steps<\/a> and on our page about <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/governance\/\">governance<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A climate strategy that can take a hit<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The article by Conversi and colleagues will not convince everyone, and it does not have to. What it does do is hold up a mirror: the route of the transition is less fixed than our plans assume. That does not call for less ambition, but for ambition with a stronger foundation: in the business case, in the supply chain, in the scenarios, and in the boardroom. No wishful thinking, but a climate strategy that stands firm when the political wind turns, and that makes more impact as soon as the wind is at your back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At Empact, we help organizations develop an <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/esg-strategy\/\">ESG strategy<\/a> and a climate transition plan that survives political shifts. Read more about our approach to <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/climate\/\">climate<\/a> or meet <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/our-consultants\/\">our consultants<\/a>. Curious how your plan scores under different scenarios? Feel free to <a href=\"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/contact\/\">contact<\/a> us. Let\u2019s make impact together.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Geopolitics increasingly sets the pace of the energy transition. Four lessons for a climate strategy that survives political shifts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":11514,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[257,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights","category-inzichten"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11521"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11521\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11522,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11521\/revisions\/11522"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empact.nu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}