Sustainability, security and competitiveness: why the Middle East matters to us much more than we think

Omnibus reduced obligations, not the economic value of sustainability

For many companies, especially SMEs and businesses that had been preparing for new ESG requirements, 2025 ended with a sense of relief. The perceived message was simple: if the scope of obligations is narrowing, then perhaps it is also possible to slow down on sustainability.

That reaction is understandable, but risky. Regulatory simplification has not removed the factors that make ESG economically relevant. It has not reduced energy volatility, made supply chains more stable, or eliminated information requests from banks, industrial clients, investors, and large lead firms. If anything, it has made one distinction even clearer, and many companies still need to internalize it: regulatory obligation is one thing, industrial convenience is another.

In other words, fewer obligations do not mean fewer risks. If anything, they mean more freedom to decide whether to move early, in an orderly way, or arrive late, when organizational and commercial costs are higher.

The Middle East reminds us how closely ESG and business security are connected

The tensions in the Middle East in March 2026, with attacks on energy infrastructure and major disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, brought back to the forefront something we often forget in calmer periods: a decisive part of companies’ economic security depends on factors outside their gates.

When strategic routes are disrupted, when energy prices include a risk premium, and when logistics and raw materials become more uncertain, the problem is not only macroeconomic. It moves directly into companies’ income statements: tighter margins, greater planning difficulty, higher transport costs, liquidity pressure, delayed investments, and less predictable prices throughout the value chain.

From this perspective, ESG, if taken seriously, is not a reputational exercise but a way to read and manage concrete risks: dependence on imported fossil fuels, exposure to vulnerable suppliers, energy-intensive processes, lack of reliable data, and weak governance in crisis management. Companies that have worked on these issues in recent years are not immune to shocks today, but in many cases they are less exposed and react better.

Electrifying is not only about decarbonizing: it is about reducing vulnerability

One of the clearest examples is electrification. For years it was described almost exclusively as a climate lever. Today it is increasingly clear that it is also a lever of economic security. The reason is simple: a fossil commodity is purchased every day and fully exposed to geopolitical shocks; an electric technology is purchased once, depreciated over time, and can be combined with efficiency measures, self-generation, and smart load management.

For a company, this translates into very practical cases. A corporate fleet that begins to electrify reduces direct exposure to oil price spikes and, for mileage aligned with its operating profile, can improve the predictability of total operating cost. An office, commercial, or industrial building that replaces part of its gas-based thermal demand with heat pumps reduces dependence on an imported and volatile commodity. A photovoltaic roof designed for self-consumption, possibly supported by storage or demand response, does not eliminate energy risk, but it can meaningfully reduce it.

Of course, not everything can be electrified immediately, and not every business case is positive by definition. But the direction is clear: improving efficiency and electrifying means shifting part of the risk away from the daily purchase of fuels and toward plannable investments. In times of geopolitical instability, that has very concrete economic value.

There is also a systemic effect. According to Ember, as early as 2025 the global fleet of electric vehicles had already avoided oil consumption equivalent to about 70% of Iranian exports. Electrification alone does not remove geopolitical fragility, but it does begin to reduce the economic transmission power of fossil-fuel shocks.

Having ESG in order means more credit, more market access, less friction

This is where sustainability and competitive advantage overlap again. Many companies discover the value of ESG not when they read a European directive, but when they receive a questionnaire from a bank, a documentation request from an international client, or tender requirements that mention emissions, energy, anti-corruption policies, traceability, health and safety, equality, and training.

Those with even a minimal set of structured data can respond quickly, consistently, and credibly. Those without it often mobilize internal staff for weeks, reconstruct information incompletely, fill in different files for different counterparties, and project an image of organizational weakness. That too has a cost, even if it is rarely measured.

Concrete examples are numerous. A company that knows its own energy use and emissions can engage more effectively with credit institutions, which increasingly assess these dimensions as part of creditworthiness. A supplier with even a basic but clear governance framework on ethics, responsibility, and risk management has a better chance of remaining on the vendor list of structured clients.

This is why having ESG “in order” has tangible economic value. It reduces the risk of commercial exclusion. It cuts the time lost to fragmented requests. It improves the quality of the dialogue with banks and partners. And it allows companies to capture opportunities earlier, which become more expensive or less accessible for those who arrive late.

For many SMEs, the sensible first step is the VSME

In this context, it is not realistic to ask every company to behave like a large listed corporation, but it is necessary to adopt a realistic starting standard. In this respect, the VSME, the Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard for non-listed micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, is now one of the most interesting tools available.

Its main strength is precisely its pragmatic simplicity. It is voluntary, lighter than the full ESRS, does not require the heavy setup designed for large companies, and was created to help SMEs respond in an orderly way to requests from clients, banks, and investors. In addition, the European Commission has identified it as a reference point to limit the proliferation of inconsistent information requests across supply chains. For an entrepreneur, this means something very concrete: starting to build a common base of data, policies, and indicators without entering the jungle of complex reporting from the outset.

Pairing the VSME with a short initial training effort can make a real difference. Because the real risk, especially for SMEs, is not only doing too little or moving too late for lack of willingness. It is starting badly: collecting useless data, confusing different priorities, and chasing checklists with no link to the business. Good training helps companies understand which issues actually matter in their case, which data already exists, which actions make economic sense, and which first step delivers the most value with the least organizational friction.

A concrete first step for an SME

• map energy consumption, main cost drivers, and areas of vulnerability;
• collect a small set of reliable data on energy, emissions, governance, and the supply chain;
• understand which requests are already coming today from clients, banks, and partners;
• assess a VSME path supported by targeted initial training.

In short

The crises of recent weeks in the Middle East are reminding European companies that sustainability is not a luxury for stable times. It is a form of industrial preparation for unstable times.

Omnibus has reduced or postponed part of the obligations that many companies expected. But it has not reduced the economic value of being prepared. Companies that today put their compliance, ESG data, and risk-reduction priorities in order are not doing a favor to European bureaucracy: they are building a stronger, more credible, and more competitive business.

For many SMEs, starting from the VSME does not mean adding one more administrative requirement. It means taking the right first step to understand that sustainability, beyond compliance, can truly become a competitive advantage.

Moving from the theory of compliance to the practice of competitive advantage requires a multidisciplinary perspective. For this reason, Tupponi, De Marinis, Russo & Partners together with eNextGen have developed a consulting model that integrates geopolitical risk analysis, CBAM dynamics, and internationalization pathways with concrete energy-efficiency solutions.

For an SME today, the real risk is not only regulatory obligation, but also isolation from international trade flows. Through this collaboration, we offer companies the tools to navigate this transition, from ESG data mapping to the management of CBAM operations, ensuring that every step toward sustainability is also a step toward a broader and safer market.

Nicolò Golinucci PhD is co-founder and CEO of eNextGen, an official spin-off of Politecnico di Milano that quantifies sustainability and turns it into a competitive advantage for companies.