| Judging by the squeals of pain, the burden of reporting on sustainability performance is mounting. What started as a voluntary multi-stakeholder movement (I’m thinking Global Reporting Initiative here) has mushroomed into an alphabet soup of initiatives. Many are now effectively mandatory, thanks to UK and EU governments taking an interest, with the SEC joining the party. Some will say it’s a good thing, too. For years, non-financial reporting focused on good news stories or, latterly, on the elements companies chose to put into their sustainability strategies, while issues in the ‘too difficult’ box were neglected. The unintended consequence of more rigorous rules, however, is a shift towards a compliance approach with its concomitant mindset – what is the minimum needed? – in order to reduce regulatory risk. Functional responsibility then shifts from sustainability and stakeholder engagement to lawyers and accountants. (Full disclosure, my own professional background is the latter.) Our writers this month address this quandary head on. They offer sage advice on how to harness all this effort into strategic benefit. You can also check out our upcoming webinar series which runs in a similar vein. My worry, however, is we are reaching a tipping point, where the balance of sustainability managers’ efforts switch to disclosure and away from advancing performance. What’s needed in most companies, therefore, is an overt board-level decision to choose a different path. I know of one having done just that. Forward-thinking executives understand a compliance mindset is a costly, low reward route. The biggest risks here are not from reporting infractions but from strategic blind spots and missed opportunities for growth. And when it comes to reputation, the most vocal critics are not regulators but customers, some investors, and wider stakeholders. Mike Tuffrey | 
