In the race toward a more sustainable and equitable future, progress is often only celebrated when it feels voluntary. When sustainable policies are mandatory, we hear “they only did that because they had to.” But the truth is, they did it.
In a world where many companies face the same requirements but still manage to delay, dodge, or dilute them, meaningful compliance isn’t the default and shouldn’t be taken for granted. It’s a reflection of operational focus, internal alignment, and long-term thinking.
This misunderstanding is especially common in regions with strong climate and social regulations, places like California or the European Union, where sustainability efforts are often dismissed as legal requirements. But meeting those requirements is far from a passive effort. It takes strategic investment, cross-functional coordination, and in many cases, cultural transformation.
In short: it’s hard work, and not everyone is doing it.
Regulation sets a foundation, not a finish line
When regulation exists, it creates baseline expectations, but it doesn’t guarantee meaningful implementation. There’s a difference between doing the bare minimum and building systems that actually support sustained, auditable progress. Even in jurisdictions with strong rules, companies vary in their responses. Some aim just to “check the box,” while others use compliance as a foundation for deeper operational transformation.
In California, for example, SB 253 requires large companies to report their scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, with independent assurance for scopes 1 and 2. While some companies are building sophisticated data systems and integrating emissions tracking into business strategy, others are doing the minimum just to stay compliant.
The same pattern is emerging in the social space. Under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), companies will be required to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights and environmental harms across their supply chains. Like SB 253, it raises the bar, but how companies choose to meet it will vary widely.
Outside of regulation, many companies make voluntary sustainability commitments, such as net-zero pledges, that can be ambitious but often lack transparency and enforceability. These goals are frequently shaped by investor expectations or reputational risk rather than legal mandates, which means they’re not always as “voluntary” as they appear. But without clear implementation plans, strong governance, or external oversight, even the best-intentioned commitments can end up serving more as signals to stakeholders than as engines of measurable progress.
There’s nothing wrong with ambition. Voluntary goals can drive innovation and reflect a company’s priorities. But when the only accountability comes from public perception or investor sentiment, progress is less certain and more vulnerable to shifting priorities. That’s why work happening under regulation deserves more recognition. It’s structured, verifiable, and more likely to result in a sustained change—yet it’s too often dismissed as “just compliance.”
In reality, the people making that progress possible are solving some of the most complex sustainability challenges companies face, and their impact is no less meaningful just because it’s required. That’s especially true in industries where the stakes are the highest.
The hardest work often happens in the most criticized sectors
High-emissions industries—like oil and gas, cement, steel, chemicals, industrial agriculture, and apparel—are often at the center of climate and human rights criticism, and for good reason. These sectors carry significant risks, from carbon intensity and environmental degradation to labor exploitation, supply chain opacity, and community harm. But what often gets lost in that conversation is this: some of the most important sustainability work happening today is being led by the people inside those very industries.
These are engineers refining methane detection tools, environmental specialists developing carbon capture systems, and compliance teams improving emissions reporting protocols. It’s also safety officers monitoring workforce protections, legal teams mapping human rights risks, and procurement teams building more ethical supply chains. Across organizations, individual teams are doing complex, often technical work that directly contributes to reducing emissions, mitigating human rights risks, and advancing long-term sustainability—often within systems not originally built for low-carbon or socially responsible outcomes, while under intense regulatory scrutiny.
Their efforts are demanding, often invisible to the public, and absolutely essential. If these sectors don’t decarbonize and don’t improve labor and supply chain practices, no amount of voluntary action elsewhere will be enough. That’s why the individuals driving compliance, transparency, and innovation within these organizations aren’t just contributors to sustainability progress—they’re indispensable to it.
The work happening inside these systems deserves recognition. These industries warrant scrutiny, and there are plenty of people within them delivering tangible progress and advancing real change.
Mandatory requirements are raising the bar
Newer regulatory frameworks—such as those coming out of California and the EU—are among the most advanced in the world, requiring climate disclosures, emissions reductions, labor protections, and supply chain transparency that go far beyond what regulatory bodies have required in the past. In the EU, companies are preparing for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which mandates double materiality assessments, third-party assurance, and detailed disclosures tied to environmental and social performance. In California, SB 253 and SB 261 require climate disclosures and risk assessments that no other state in the U.S. has required before.
In the past—and in most other places around the world—ESG reporting has often been voluntary, vaguely defined, or loosely enforced. Many countries have climate targets on paper but no enforcement mechanisms or clear industry pathways for meeting them. Even among large multinationals, it’s common to see sustainability reports that are heavy on ambition but light on data precisely because the pressure to go deeper simply doesn’t exist everywhere.
Under many of today’s regulatory frameworks, these “data-light” sustainability reports simply do not pass muster. Requirements under directives like the CSRD compel companies to meet a minimum standard of verification, ensuring that reports have the data to back up their claims—which is good news for investors, regulators, other stakeholders, and reporting companies themselves.
Consider the case of Allbirds, a company that faced a 2021 lawsuit alleging misleading sustainability claims. The lawsuit accused Allbirds of using selective carbon footprint calculations that excluded significant supply chains impacts, leading to allegations of greenwashing. Although the case was ultimately dismissed, it served as a warning: ambitious sustainability narratives, when not grounded in robust data, can lead to public scrutiny, legal challenges, and reputational risk—even for companies with strong branding and public goodwill.
That’s what makes progress under regulation so meaningful. When companies succeed in meeting the world’s toughest standards, they’re not just complying with a rock-bottom minimum, they’re delivering results that we’ve never before seen at such a high standard and on such a wide scale.
This matters not just for credibility but for momentum. The infrastructure your team is building—data systems, governance processes, cross-functional accountability—is putting your organization in a stronger position than peers operating without those expectations. In a fragmented global landscape, that kind of internal capability is a competitive advantage, and it deserves to be seen that way.
Why this work matters beyond compliance
The systems being built to meet regulatory requirements—data infrastructure, assurance processes, emissions inventories, supplier screening protocols—aren’t just about checking boxes. They’re shaping how your company is understood and evaluated by the outside world.
Investors use this data to assess long-term risk. Rating agencies use it to score ESG performance. Customers and consumers, who are increasingly alert to greenwashing, use it to evaluate brand credibility, product responsibility, and ethical supply chains. Regulators use it to enforce standards and shape future policy. What gets reported isn’t just a reflection of compliance; it’s a reflection of operational maturity, transparency, and readiness.
That’s why the quality of reporting, and the credibility of the progress behind it, matters so much. When sustainability data is structured, verifiable, and aligned with regulatory standards, it doesn’t just fill a requirement. It builds trust, informs strategy, and helps the organization standard apart in a crowded, increasingly scrutinized landscape.
That’s why work happening under regulation deserves more recognition. It’s structured, verifiable, and more likely to result in a sustained change—yet it’s too often dismissed as “just compliance.”
Required progress is still progress
Required progress is still progress, and in many cases it’s the most visible, verifiable, and lasting progress that an organization can show. The individuals building data systems, improving controls, managing assurance processes, or embedding new requirements into operations aren’t just meeting expectations, they’re laying the foundation for real, reportable impact. In a landscape where voluntary goals can shift and public promises can fade, it’s this kind of structured, verified, regulations-aligned progress that gives sustainability reporting its credibility—and it deserves to be captured, not overlooked.
ADEC ESG provides fully-integrated sustainability solutions to organizations leading global, sustainable change. From reporting and disclosure to regulatory support services, our experts work alongside clients like you to deliver tailored, actionable strategies that strengthen sustainability programs and align with evolving global standards. Whether navigating TCFD, CSRD, or California’s SB 253 and 261, contact our team to learn more about how we can help you achieve your sustainability goals.
This blog provides general information and does not constitute the rendering of legal, economic, business, or other professional services or advice. Consult with your advisors regarding the applicability of this content to your specific circumstances.
