From Compliance to Strategy — Why Georgia’s Sustainability Agenda Still Misses the Point

In the Harvard Business Review article “Getting Strategic About Sustainability”, Jason Jay, Kate Isaacs, and Hong Linh Nguyen argue that sustainability can no longer remain a matter of compliance — it must become part of how companies and governments think strategically. Yet, in Georgia, sustainability remains a performative commitment — something declared in policy documents but rarely embedded in real economic decisions.

Through the business value lens, Georgia’s “green economy” still struggles to attract serious investment. Around 80% of the country’s electricity generation remains dependent on hydropower, while solar and wind projects — though growing — are still small-scale. The green hydrogen pilot project in Batumi (launched in 2025 with KfW support) is more a signal than a transformation. Initiatives like this matter, but in HBR’s framework they belong to the “survival” rather than “transformation” phase. Many Georgian firms continue to view sustainability as a cost rather than a competitive advantage — and that mindset stifles innovation.

From the stakeholder perspective, Georgia’s progress depends heavily on international aid rather than domestic commitment. The EU’s Green Deal and EU4Climate programmes have become the main drivers of climate reform, while the government’s own environmental expenditure remains at only 0.4% of the national budget. This is symbolic at best. Despite a €4.4 million EU-UN project launched to promote circular economy and waste reduction, there is still little alignment between the state, business, and the public. Sustainability remains “somebody else’s agenda,” not a shared national goal.

Viewed through the science and technology lens, Georgia’s ambitions outpace its capabilities. The Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) sets targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35% by 2030 and increase the share of renewables to 27.4%. But these targets lack a coherent roadmap or financial mechanism. Universities and research centres are not yet generating applied knowledge in energy efficiency, green innovation, or circular manufacturing. In the private sector, the rhetoric of innovation far exceeds its actual pace. The NECP reads more like a declaration than an implementation plan.

Finally, the purpose lens reveals the fundamental weakness of Georgia’s green vision. The country’s Low Emission Development Strategy (LT-LEDS, 2023) aims for a carbon-neutral economy by 2050, requiring roughly $22 billion in investment. But the strategy lacks binding mechanisms, clear governance, or a sense of local ownership. Georgia’s green agenda is still donor-driven — shaped by external partners rather than internal consensus. The Ministry of Economy treats green energy mainly as an export opportunity, not as the nucleus of domestic modernization. Sustainability, in this light, looks more like economic opportunism than a genuine development paradigm.

Georgia today stands at what HBR’s authors call the stage of “headline strategy” — where institutions talk about responsibility but avoid the deep process changes that make it real. The country’s sustainability architecture remains fragmented across externally funded projects, without a unifying national vision. To move forward, sustainability must evolve from being a diplomatic talking point into a coherent economic model — one that aligns investment, education, and environment within a single strategic framework.

This article is based on the original “Getting Strategic About Sustainability” (Harvard Business Review, January–February 2025) and prepared by BTUAI, using data from the Stockholm Environment Institute, World Bank, IRENA, EU4Climate, and Georgia’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (2023–2025).