Sustainability politics are shifting in unexpected ways. While the United States under the Trump administration is rolling back climate pledges, Beijing has taken the opposite path: strengthening its commitment to emissions cuts and renewable energy. For many observers, this shift is striking. The world’s largest coal consumer is now positioning itself as a champion of the green transition, at least in its stated policies.
The Middle East, too, is investing heavily in renewables and positioning itself as a future green energy hub. Against this backdrop, Washington looks increasingly like the outlier.
For close to a decade, we have been working daily with SMEs navigating sustainability regulations in Europe. Our perspective is shaped not only by tracking global policy announcements but also by seeing how these shifts land in real supply chains and reporting obligations. From that vantage point, China’s trajectory matters far more than headlines suggest.
Ambition with contradictions
China has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10% from its 2030 peak by 2035 (a reduction of roughly 700 to 1,000 million tonnes of CO₂, depending on the trajectory) (AP News). Alongside this pledge comes the largest build-out of wind, solar, and smart grid infrastructure in history (World Economic Forum). Yet contradictions remain. Even as renewables expand, new coal plants continue to receive approvals across multiple provinces (Climate Action Tracker). The government’s pragmatic approach can be summed up simply: build renewables first and cut coal later. For businesses watching China closely, the timing of that “later” is critical.
Waste and circularity as industrial policy
As of 2025, China expects all cities to have waste sorting systems in place and aims for a 60% resource recovery rate for bulk solid waste (Daxue Consulting). Circularity is no longer aspirational; it is becoming hard policy. From our work with clients who source materials from Asia, we know this will soon translate into new auditing requirements, traceability measures, and reporting expectations in Europe. SMEs need to anticipate these shifts early, not react to them late.
ESG pressure from both directions
Chinese regulators are tightening disclosure rules for listed companies (JunHe Law Firm). But for exporters, the sharper pressure comes from Europe. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is already in force (European Commission), and supply chain due diligence laws are advancing quickly (EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive). China is also accelerating green finance. The issuance of green bonds and carbon-neutrality bonds has grown rapidly, making the country one of the world’s largest green finance markets. For SMEs, this means supply chain partners may gain new incentives to align with international sustainability standards. In our experience helping SMEs adapt to CSRD and ESRS reporting, we often see suppliers in China implementing ESG practices faster for European customers than for their own domestic regulators. This paradox is real, and it affects the credibility and comparability of ESG data in supply chains.
Uneven enforcement, real consequences
From steel mills to data centers, renewable quotas are being introduced. Some sectors are already required to run on 80% renewable power (Reuters). State-owned enterprises face tighter scrutiny for environmental breaches. But enforcement varies widely by province. Some companies are rigorously audited while others escape notice entirely. For European SMEs, this inconsistency is a risk factor when selecting or evaluating suppliers.
Why this matters for SMEs
For European SMEs, these developments are not abstract geopolitics. They directly influence material costs, supply chain resilience, and compliance obligations. Many companies in Europe have long argued that strict ESG rules put them at a disadvantage compared to Chinese competitors who face fewer requirements. That gap is narrowing.
As the U.S. retreats, China advances, and Europe hesitates, the sustainability map is being redrawn. Businesses that treat these shifts as “someone else’s problem” will be left behind.
