Lorraine Spradley Wilson, Senior Advisor, Council on Global Competition and Innovation – CGCI
As geopolitical risks intensify and the global balance of power shifts, the imperative for the U.S. to outcompete strategic rivals has grown more urgent. Private capital is being called upon to help shore up resilience in semiconductors, manufacturing advancements, critical minerals, defense technology, and other sectors vital to national security. But in the rush to mobilize investment, a critical toolset is often overlooked: sustainability.
Sustainability is not just about ESG reporting or climate disclosures. At its best, it offers a rigorous, metrics-driven framework for evaluating long-term risk, stakeholder impact, and organizational performance. These are the same elements that define successful national security investments: strategic foresight, resilience under stress, and systems-level thinking. The intersection is not only intuitive, but overdue.
From Frameworks to Foresight
During my tenure as a Chief Sustainability Officer at a data management platform designed for the private markets, I developed reporting frameworks utilized by thousands of private companies. The goal was to move beyond vague commitments and develop usable systems that could measure, compare, and improve performance across environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions.
Although ESG and sustainability frameworks have faced criticism, often regarding inconsistent standards, regulatory complexity, and questions about real-world impact, this scrutiny has been a catalyst for improvement. In response, these frameworks have evolved to become more robust, transparent, and adaptable. The process of addressing these challenges has sharpened the tools needed to rigorously assess risk, build resilience, and evaluate long-term value, capabilities that are equally essential in national security investing.
In essence, the evolution of ESG frameworks under pressure has produced methodologies that are well-suited to the complexities and demands of national security. Today, as a Senior Advisor to the Council on Global Competition and Innovation – CGCI, I advocate for applying this refined, metrics-driven logic to national security investing, when and where appropriate.
CGCI’s Methodology Framework is rooted in defining eight critical sectors where investment has both economic and strategic implications: AI and quantum computing, energy security, biotech and biomanufacturing, food security and agtech, critical minerals, manufacturing advancements and supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, space, and defense, and semiconductors and microelectronics. For each sector, the methodology examines key indicators such as supply chain dependencies and foreign ownership risk. These are not unlike materiality maps in sustainability, where relevance, risk, and measurability converge.
Data, Metrics, and Accountability
The sustainability field offers decades of hard-won lessons in how to move from narrative to measurement. Frameworks, such as those from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), all attempt to bring coherence to what can otherwise be a fractured reporting ecosystem.
That same structure can benefit national security-oriented investing. CGCI asks difficult questions regarding a company’s strategic alignment with national interest and its ability to support resilient supply chains. For example, rather than merely labeling a semiconductor firm as high-risk or high-reward, it asks: Is it enabling domestic chip sovereignty? This is the thinking sustainability has championed for years, moving beyond binary labels and into contextual, forward-looking analysis.
Sustainability Practitioners Reconsider Defense and So Should We
Recently, The Wall Street Journal spotlighted how the sustainability community is rethinking long-standing exclusions of defense stocks in light of the Russia-Ukraine war. For decades, many ESG funds have automatically screened out companies involved in the manufacture of weapons and defense contractors, a process known as, ‘negative screening’. But that binary view has begun to shift. As Ukraine defends itself against unprovoked aggression, many investors now recognize that defense, when exercised by democratic states, is a form of protection, not just of territory, but of values.
This reassessment reflects a broader recalibration that is needed in sustainability investing. It’s no longer enough to apply static screens or exclusionary checklists. Instead, investors must ask more pointed questions: Does the company create long-term public benefit? In a world where authoritarian regimes have weaponized supply chains, finance, and even agriculture, the lines between sustainability, resilience, and security have blurred. Investors must adapt accordingly.
The Role of Training and Capacity Building
Too often, investors lack the tools to understand the geopolitical implications of their portfolios. Conversely, policymakers would benefit from more capital markets literacy to engage private firms more effectively. Bridging these disciplines requires new skill sets. Companies deploying sustainability education often do so across multiple formats, ranging from in-person conversations to online training. These same principles of education, alignment, and continuous improvement that are embraced by sustainability practitioners can and should be brought into the national security capital markets conversation.
A Call for Integration
Rather than seeing sustainability and national security as distinct domains, we should treat them as mutually reinforcing. National security depends on economic strength, democratic resilience, and technological leadership, all of which are shaped by how capital is allocated. Likewise, sustainable investing gains legitimacy when it grapples with the realities of geopolitics, risk, and the creation of long-term value.
By applying the rigor of sustainability frameworks to national security investing, we not only enhance capital stewardship but also strengthen the democratic systems that those investments are meant to defend.



