Health has overtaken climate change as the top ESG priority for investors, according to a new Berenberg survey reported by The Times, in a shift that says as much about the changing shape of sustainable finance as it does about the issues themselves. The survey of 200 fund managers found that 55% now see health as “very important” in investment decisions, while climate change, which ranked first in 2023 and 2024, has fallen to fifth place in 2026.
On the face of it, that looks like a sharp retreat from one of ESG’s defining themes. A closer reading suggests something more precise. The Times reported that business ethics, the circular economy, and human rights now all rank ahead of climate, while AI ethics, misinformation, and privacy are also rising concerns. The pattern points to investors favouring themes that are easier to explain, measure, and link to business risk than the broader, and now more politically loaded, ESG label.
Berenberg itself signalled that shift last year. In a November 2024 note, the bank argued that the early ESG boom had given way to a more difficult phase shaped by energy security, geopolitical tensions, and regulatory complexity. It pointed to the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the growing complexity of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, and stronger scrutiny of how sustainability claims are presented to clients. That context matters. This is not a simple story of climate losing relevance. It is a story about capital becoming more selective in how it frames sustainability.
The market backdrop supports that interpretation. Morningstar said global sustainable funds recorded USD84 billion in net outflows in 2025, the first full year of annual redemptions since it began tracking the segment in 2018, even though total assets edged above USD3.9 trillion on market gains. At the same time, regulators have tightened the language around sustainability products. ESMA said that, across nearly 1,000 shareholder notifications from the 25 largest EU asset managers, 64% of affected funds changed their names, mostly to avoid ESG-related terminology. In the UK, the FCA says products cannot use terms such as “sustainable”, “sustainability”, or “impact” in their names unless they use a label.
None of that means climate has dropped out of institutional portfolios. FTSE Russell’s 2025 asset-owner survey found that 85% of respondents identified climate change as a major concern, and that climate remained the top sustainability priority. As Stephanie Maier, global head of sustainable at FTSE Russell, put it: “Climate risk as one of the specific issues has increased to 85%.” The point is not that climate has ceased to matter, but that investors are now ranking it alongside a wider set of social, governance, and commercially legible themes.
Health fits that new mood neatly. It can be tied to ageing populations, medicines, devices, workforce productivity, and consumer spending patterns more directly than many broad ESG claims. The Global Wellness Institute said the wellness economy reached $6.8 trillion in 2024 and is forecast to hit $9.8 trillion by 2029.
For asset managers, boards, and listed companies, the bottom line is that while ESG is not disappearing, it is entering a harder-edged phase — narrower in theme and more demanding on evidence.
