# data[].attributes.body
Ana Lucia Dominguez

Emily Hurtado Ardila

Juanita Ramos Escobar

7B

# data[].attributes.body
En Estados Unidos, la política ambiental es aplicada tanto por el gobierno federal como por los gobiernos estatales y a menudo tiene como objetivo monitorear e influir en las acciones de empresas e individuos para proteger el medio ambiente.

# data[].attributes.body
Agencia de Protección Ambiental de Estados Unidos (EPA)

(EPA, sigla en inglés)

Protege la salud de los seres humanos, el medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. Previene y controla la contaminación del aire y el agua mediante el desarrollo de estándares para la calidad del aire y las emisiones de automóviles, programas para asegurar la limpieza del agua e información sobre la salud ambiental.

# data[].attributes.body
aire limpio, agua limpia y promocion e inversion en energias limpias un primer paso

a) Ley de Aire Limpio (Clean Air Act)

b) Ley de Agua Limpia (Clean Water Act)

.

c) Inflation Reduction Act (2022)

# data[].attributes.body
Esta ley regula las emisiones de contaminantes atmosféricos con el fin de proteger la salud humana y el medio ambiente. Ha sido fundamental para mejorar la calidad del aire en Estados Unidos.

es una ley federal de los Estados Unidos que regula las emisiones atmosféricas de fuentes fijas y móviles. La ley, administrada por la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE. UU. (EPA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
por Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente - 17 marzo, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La Ley de Aire Limpio de los Estados Unidos cumple 50 años: ¿El aire es mejor medio siglo después?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La contaminación del aire interior y exterior provoca más de 7 millones de muertes en todo el mundo cada año. Para crear conciencia sobre la amenaza que representa la contaminación del aire para nuestra salud y el planeta, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, Climate and Clean Air Coalitiony la Organización Mundial de la Salud lanzó la campaña BreatheLife para apoyar a las comunidades y a los líderes mundiales en la implementación de soluciones que reduzcan la contaminación del aire para un futuro más saludable y sostenible.

# data[].attributes.body
Casi la mitad de la población estadounidense vive con niveles insalubres de contaminación atmosférica.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Más de 150 millones de personas respiran aire contaminado en Estados Unidos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los Ángeles es la ciudad con la peor contaminación por ozono del país, mientras que Bakersfield es el área metropolitana más contaminada por partículas en el aire

# data[].attributes.body
Regula el vertido de contaminantes en cuerpos de agua y establece estándares de calidad para el agua potable. Su objetivo es mantener ríos y lagos limpios para uso humano, agrícola y ecológico.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Después de celebrar la Semana del Agua Potable, nos sumergimos en una importante pieza de legislación que establece estándares de calidad para el agua potable de los Estados Unidos.
Desde un vaso de agua fría en casa después de hacer ejercicio hasta lavarse las manos en un aeropuerto de todo el país, esperamos que el agua potable sea una forma de vida. Sin embargo, antes de la década de 1970, los estados tenían diferentes regulaciones sobre la cantidad de agua y pocas sobre su calidad. Coincidiendo con el movimiento ecologista de la década de 1970, se produjeron más avances en la tecnología de purificación del agua, así como evidencia científica sobre los daños de las fuentes de agua contaminadas. Después de varios años de preparación, el presidente Gerald Ford firmó la Ley de Agua Limpia (Safe Drinking Water Act or SDWA) en 1974.

Agua potable limpia para todos

La SDWA estableció un marco regulatorio para proteger la calidad del agua para salvaguardar la salud pública. La ley se centra en todas las aguas real o potencialmente diseñadas para uso potable, tanto superficiales como subterráneas. Con su aprobación, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de Estados Unidos (EPA) podría fijar los estándares mínimos para regular el agua potable y fijar los requisitos para lo que se considera un "sistema público de agua": las entidades obligadas a cumplir con la ley. La EPA establece estos estándares imponiendo regulaciones sobre contaminantes que son perjudiciales para la salud pública. Por ejemplo, el arsénico, una sustancia química relacionada con múltiples cánceres, tiene un estándar de agua potable de 10 partes por mil millones.

Además de limitar la contaminación microbiana (como E. coli) y la contaminación química (como el arsénico), la ley también puede reducir la corrosión de las tuberías de agua y ha contribuido al desarrollo de toda una población de profesionales del agua.

Desafíos hoy

A pesar de un proceso de aplicación a veces complicado, hay pruebas claras del impacto monumental de esta legislación. La calidad del agua potable en los Estados Unidos ha mejorado constantemente desde la aprobación de la ley. Ahora los sistemas de agua enfrentan otros desafíos además de la calidad del agua: infraestructura obsoleta, disponibilidad de agua y un proceso lento para actualizar los contaminantes del agua potable. Además, las personas que utilizan agua potable de pozos privados o sistemas pequeños pueden estar en riesgo si su agua no se monitoreado periódicamente.

De todos modos, todos podemos hacer nuestra parte para proteger el agua potable. Una cosa que podemos hacer es utilizar y almacenar los productos químicos correctamente. En el condado de Marion, hay asistencia gratuita y confidencial para ayudar a las empresas a cumplir con las leyes locales. Los propietarios de viviendas pueden consultar estos consejos para proteger el agua potable y los propietarios de pozos privados pueden consultar wellowner.org para obtener información importante sobre el mantenimiento y las pruebas de pozos. Cualquiera puede comunicarse con su legislador para enfatizar la necesidad de una inversión continua en el monitoreo y las regulaciones de la calidad del agua.

Al cerrar la Semana del Agua Potable, recordemos también a los innumerables profesionales del agua que trabajan detrás de escena todos los días para brindarnos agua segura.
Recursos y lecturas adicionales https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023WR035172
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/safe-drinking-water-act-1974-and-its-role-providing-access-safe-drinking-water-united-states/2017-10
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/national-benefits-analysis-drinking-water-regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
¿Qué es la Ley de Agua Limpia (Safe Drinking Water Act)? - MCWEC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La Ley de Agua Limpia estableció un marco regulatorio para proteger la calidad del agua para salvaguardar la salud pública. ¿Cuáles son sus inquilinos? ¿Cuáles son algunos de los desafíos que enfrentamos hoy?

# data[].attributes.body
La calidad del agua del grifo es una preocupación creciente en Estados Unidos, donde una encuesta de Gallup en 2022 reveló que el 57 por ciento de los estadounidenses están más preocupados por el agua potable que por otros problemas ambientales como el calentamiento global o la contaminación del aire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Los estados de Estados Unidos con la mejor y peor agua del grifo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Un estudio detalló esta cuestión en base a diversos factores de suma importancia.

# data[].attributes.body
Aunque tiene un enfoque económico, incluye importantes inversiones para combatir el cambio climático. Promueve la energía solar, eólica y vehículos eléctricos, destinando más de 370 mil millones de dólares a políticas ambientales.

# data[].attributes.body
Principales medidas: energías verdes

La ley incluye más de 60 mil millones de dólares​​​​​​​ para mantener la fabricación de energías verdes en EEUU a lo largo de toda la cadena de suministro de tecnologías de energía renovables y transporte.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Principales medidas de la Ley IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) sobre transición energética

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La Ley de Reducción de la Inflación (IRA) buscar combatir el cambio climático por medio de la reducción de emisiones y la promoción de las energías verdes.

# data[].attributes.body
Reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.

Fomentar el uso de fuentes de energía renovables.

Mejorar la calidad del aire y del agua.

Incentivar la producción y consumo sostenibles.

Proteger la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas.

Involucrar a la ciudadanía en prácticas más responsables.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
mejora del medio ambiente en estados unidos

# data[].attributes.body
ODS 6: Agua limpia y saneamiento

ODS 7: Energia asequible y no contaminante.

ODS 11: Ciudades y comunidades sostenibles.

ODS 13: Acción por el clima.

ODS 15: Vida de ecosistemas terrestres.

# data[].attributes.body
En marzo de 2025, Estados Unidos rechazó formalmente los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de la ONU, un conjunto de 17 objetivos globales para abordar los desafíos económicos, sociales y ambientales. Esta decisión estadounidense marca un cambio significativo respecto al apoyo bipartidista previo a los marcos multilaterales de sostenibilidad. Este informe examina este cambio de política y sus posibles implicaciones para las iniciativas de sostenibilidad corporativa y el panorama ambiental, social y de gobernanza (ESG).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In March 2025, the US formally rejected the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a set of 17 global objectives to address economic, social, environmental challenges. The US decision marks a significant departure from previous bipartisan support for multilateral sustainability frameworks. This report examines this policy shift and its potential implications for corporate sustainability efforts and the environment, social & governance (ESG) landscape.

Key Insights

The US withdrawal of support for the SDGs reflects a broader shift toward a sovereignty-first, transactional foreign policy, weakening global momentum for multilateral development efforts at a time when SDG progress remains off track.

As many US companies align with the SDGs, the impact of the US federal pullback on ESG strategies may be limited. Corporate sustainability efforts are driven more by business strategy, market forces, and stakeholder expectations than by voluntary global frameworks.

The US withdrawal from the SDGs may accelerate the fragmentation and politicization of the global sustainability landscape, underscoring the need for companies to anchor their ESG efforts in business value, legal defensibility, and region-specific regulatory realities.

The UN SDGs, adopted in 2015, establish 17 global objectives to address economic, social, and environmental challenges by 2030. Building on the Millennium Development Goals, they provide a broader, integrated framework applicable to both developed and developing economies. Each SDG is supported by specific targets and measurable indicators, totaling 169 targets and 247 indicators, to track progress and accountability. As a voluntary, nonbinding initiative with engagement from governments, businesses, and civil society, the SDGs have significantly influenced global development and sustainability initiatives over the past decade.

Shifting US Policy on Multilateralism and Sustainable Development

On March 4, 2025, the US announced that it will no longer maintain its commitment to the UN SDGs, reflecting a shift in its approach to multilateral development initiatives. In a statement to the UN General Assembly, Edward Heartney, counselor for economic and social affairs at the US Mission to the UN, outlined the administration's concerns, describing the SDGs as an expansion of "soft global governance" that, in its view, encroaches on national sovereignty. This marks a departure from previous US positions, as prior administrations supported SDG initiatives as part of broader global cooperation efforts.

Without US participation, the SDGs may face reduced political momentum, financial support, and diplomatic engagement. The US decision also comes at a time when progress toward the SDGs is already falling short. A 2024 UN report found that only 17% of SDG targets were on track to meet their 2030 goals (Figure 1), while nearly half showed minimal or moderate progress and over one-third had stalled or regressed. This lack of progress reflects several complex global challenges, including:

Economic constraints: Global economic uncertainty (including inflationary pressures and shifting investor priorities) has curtailed financing for SDG initiatives, while unsustainable debt levels have limited the ability of many developing countries to invest in SDG-related infrastructure.

Geopolitical challenges: Wars, civil unrest, and political instability (e.g., in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa) have disrupted SDG progress, a trend exacerbated by supply chain shocks stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Environmental pressures: Increasing climate-related disasters are reversing gains in poverty reduction, food security, and infrastructure resilience in vulnerable regions.

Fragmented coordination: The SDGs require cross-sectoral collaboration but misalignment between national governments, local authorities, international organizations, and the private sector creates inefficiencies and duplication of efforts.

Changing US approach to multilateralism and sustainable development

Beyond the SDGs, the announcement reflects broader themes in the new US administration's foreign policy priorities, including a focus on limiting UN influence, streamlining multilateral commitments, and emphasizing national sovereignty in global governance. The statement also signals a shift in US diplomatic language on development, advocating for a transition from "sustainable development" to "responsible and long-term development," with an emphasis on economic mobility. This shift is not simply rhetorical: it signals a departure from multilateral development frameworks that emphasize environmental and social sustainability toward an approach focused on economic growth, self-reliance, and private-sector-led investment.

At a geopolitical level, the US position also reflects concerns about China's growing influence in UN-led sustainability and human rights discussions. This extends beyond rhetoric to a broader recalibration of US engagement with multilateral institutions, emphasizing transactional, interest-driven cooperation over broad international agreements. If this trajectory continues, the new US administration is likely to prioritize bilateral and regional partnerships over multilateral commitments, seek greater influence in institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and push for reforms that align global development financing with its strategic and economic priorities. Restructuring efforts-including downsizing of the US Agency for International Development and a reduced US role in UN agencies such as the World Health Organization-may further reshape international development assistance.

For corporate leaders in international markets, this shift suggests a policy environment where multilateral funding streams may become less predictable, US foreign aid and development finance may place greater emphasis on private-sector partnerships, and US and EU regulatory approaches to global sustainability standards may diverge further. Businesses operating in emerging markets should anticipate an evolving landscape where economic development initiatives are increasingly shaped by shifting geopolitical dynamics rather than consensus-driven global frameworks.

Implications for Corporate Sustainability and ESG Efforts

The US government's policy shift contrasts with a tendency for many US public companies to align aspects of their sustainability efforts with the SDGs (Figures 2a and 2b). Corporate alignment has generally focused on SDGs that are most relevant to business strategy and material ESG issues. For example, PepsiCo has invested in initiatives supporting SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through sustainable agriculture, food security, and nutrition programs.

However, in practice, the US government policy shift is unlikely to have a significant direct impact on corporate ESG strategies. While the SDGs have provided a broad, aspirational framework, their voluntary nature and expansive scope have meant they often function more as a reference point for sustainability communications rather than a central driver of business decision-making. While many firms reference the SDGs in sustainability reports and investor communications, the goals are not typically used as a primary operational or strategic framework. Several factors have contributed to this:

Broad and abstract scope: The SDGs encompass 17 goals and 169 targets, covering a wide range of economic, social, and environmental issues. This broad mandate has made it challenging for companies to translate them into specific, measurable, and actionable business priorities. Instead, businesses have typically focused on a subset of SDGs aligned with their core operations-for example, clean energy commitments in the utilities sector or gender equality initiatives in consumer-facing industries.

Lack of standardized metrics: Unlike financial reporting or regulated ESG disclosures, SDG commitments are voluntary, with no standardized mechanism for tracking progress or ensuring accountability. As a result, companies have adopted SDGs selectively, leading to varied and often noncomparable reporting practices across industries.

Market-driven sustainability prevails: Ultimately, most corporate sustainability efforts are shaped by core business strategy, market conditions, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory environments rather than broad global frameworks. Industry-specific factors-such as consumer demand, investor pressure, and competitive positioning-have played a more significant role in shaping sustainability priorities than voluntary UN initiatives.

Implications of the US withdrawal for the corporate sustainability landscape

The US withdrawal from the SDGs is unlikely to significantly alter corporate ESG priorities, as most businesses already shape their sustainability strategies based on financial, operational, and regulatory considerations rather than UN-led initiatives. However, the decision reflects and may accelerate broader shifts in the legal and political landscape for corporate sustainability in the US.

Notably, the US statement to the UN as originally prepared called for "a clear and overdue course correction on gender and climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs." This aligns with the new administration's early moves to shift climate and energy policy-emphasizing deregulation and increased fossil fuel production while reducing support for renewable energy initiatives-and to intensify legal and political scrutiny of diversity, equity & inclusion initiatives in both the public and private sectors. As a result, the US pullback from the SDGs likely signals continued pressure on certain aspects of corporate sustainability efforts and investments.

At the same time, the US position highlights growing divergence in global sustainability regulations. While Europe continues to expand mandatory ESG disclosure requirements-such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive -the new US administration has deprioritized federal climate disclosure rules, favoring deregulation and corporate autonomy instead. This evolving regulatory landscape creates a more fragmented and complex environment for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, requiring them to navigate varying and sometimes conflicting sustainability mandates.

In this shifting landscape, company leaders should ensure sustainability and ESG efforts remain anchored in:

Business value and competitive advantage: ESG initiatives should be directly tied to financial performance, operational efficiency, and market positioning to ensure they support long-term business success rather than being perceived as peripheral commitments.

Legal defensibility and regulatory compliance: As regulatory scrutiny increases, ESG programs must be structured to align with evolving disclosure requirements, withstand legal challenges, and mitigate potential litigation or enforcement risks.

Regional differences in sustainability expectations: Companies must adapt their ESG strategies to reflect diverse regulatory, cultural, and political landscapes, recognizing that expectations-and even legal requirements-can vary significantly across jurisdictions.

This article is based on corporate disclosure data from The Conference Board Benchmarking platform, powered by ESGAUGE
1 The 17 SDGs are:

1. No Poverty: Reduce extreme poverty and ensure economic opportunities for all.

2. Zero Hunger: Improve food security, nutrition, and sustainable agriculture.

3. Good Health and Well-Being: Strengthen health care systems and address major diseases.

4. Quality Education: Expand access to education and improve learning outcomes.

5. Gender Equality: Eliminate gender-based discrimination and improve opportunities for women.

6. Clean Water and Sanitation: Ensure safe water access and improved sanitation infrastructure.

7. Affordable and Clean Energy: Expand renewable energy and improve energy efficiency.

8. Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promote employment, labor rights, and inclusive growth.

9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: Strengthen infrastructure, industrialization, and technological progress.

10. Reduced Inequalities: Address disparities in income and opportunities across populations.

11. Sustainable Cities and Communities: Improve urban resilience, housing, and sustainable development.

12. Responsible Consumption and Production: Increase resource efficiency and sustainable supply chains.

13. Climate Action: Reduce emissions, strengthen resilience, and align policies with climate goals.

14. Life Below Water: Protect marine ecosystems and regulate ocean resource use.

15. Life on Land: Conserve biodiversity, forests, and land ecosystems.

16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: Strengthen governance, reduce corruption, and enhance legal frameworks.

17. Partnerships for the Goals: Mobilize financial resources, technology, and global cooperation for SDG achievement. (go back)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainability Without the SDGs: US Policy Shifts and Corporate ESG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In March 2025, the US formally rejected the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a set of 17 global objectives to address economic, social, environmental challenges. The US decision marks a significant departure from previous bipartisan support for multilateral sustainability frameworks. This report examines this policy shift and its potential implications for corporate sustainability efforts and the [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Aun que Estados Unidos en marzo decidio no seguir las regulaciones de la ODS si trabaja en pro de tener un mejor plante y junto a la EPA manejan politicas internas para contrarestar el cambio climatico