What leaders do without an enforcer

This is article 3 of 3 in The Enforcer series. Here is article 2.

No one answer fits everyone

Part one of this series argued that sustainability collapsed because it relied on conviction rather than structure. Part two examined who could supply that structure now and found one pattern in every working example. The enforcer only holds when enforcing improves its own position, whether that position is a balance sheet, a legal right to operate, or a professional reputation.

That leaves a real gap for most readers. You are probably not Walmart. You probably don't have a court behind you the way Dutch nature reserves did. And you can't build your plan around a regulator whose commitments dissolve the moment political weather changes, or a voluntary standards body whose growth depends on not looking too closely at its members. So what do you actually do? The honest answer splits in two, depending on where you sit.

If you have real buying power in your market

Some readers do have genuine leverage over a supply chain, even at a fraction of Walmart's scale. If that's you, the 2006 scorecard is your template. Not because it was virtuous, but because of what it actually calculated. Walmart didn't ask suppliers to cut packaging to reduce landfill waste. It asked because less packaging meant lower shipping and handling costs for Walmart itself. The requirement worked because meeting it made Walmart money, not because it made Walmart look good.

So the question to ask isn't "should we require this of our suppliers?" It's "where in our own cost structure would a supplier requirement pay us back?" Packaging and shipping costs. Return rates. Input consistency. Liability exposure if a supplier's practices become your problem in a lawsuit or an audit. If you can't find that number, you don't yet have a scorecard. You have a mission statement, and mission statements are exactly what just collapsed across this industry.

If you don't have that kind of leverage

Most readers don't, and won't. That doesn't mean there's nothing to do. Only that the leverage has to come from a collective source rather than from your own purchasing power.

Industry associations and trade conferences are an underused version of this. Not as a venue to call for someone to take up a mantle, which is conviction again wearing a conference badge, but as a place to build a shared standard. I've seen this work before, in the manufacturing certifications I mentioned in part one. Smaller businesses adopted shared standards because it levelled the playing field. A competitor cutting corners on cost couldn't undercut a company that had to meet the same bar. That's a cold, self-interested reason to support an industry standard, and it survives leadership changes.

There's a second version of this that sustainability has never really tried, and it comes from a place most readers already trust. A great many professions — accounting, law, medicine, engineering, architecture — run on a credential a governing body can actually pull. A lawyer disbarred for an ethics violation cannot practise law anywhere in that jurisdiction. A doctor who loses a licence cannot see patients. The credential holds its value precisely because the body behind it is willing to take it away, and that willingness is self-interested too. One member's fraud, left unpunished, devalues every other credential in the field. Sustainability has never had anything like this. There is no body that can end an executive's or a consultant's ability to call themselves a sustainability professional for violating a written standard. Building that, even at industry level before it becomes law, is a more concrete ask than "be more sustainable," and it's the one lever on this list that individuals, not just companies, can push for directly.

Watch the insurance and lending markets in your own sector too. Part two showed both are narrower than they first appear: insurance on physical risk, lending mostly toothless. But narrow and toothless today isn't the same as narrow and toothless permanently. Wherever a lender or an insurer in your industry starts pricing a sustainability-related risk for real, that's an early enforcer worth aligning with before it's mandatory, not after.

Culture is a retention lever, not a slogan

There's a version of this that sounds like conviction and isn't. I led a plant years ago, when new owners decided our culture was now "safety first." We hated it. We complained through most of the transition. Our accident-free rate went from 95 percent to 99 percent, and the owners never once framed it as a values project. They framed it as lower claims and lower liability. The culture shift was the side effect, not the goal.

The same logic applies here. A sustainability requirement framed as a new culture goal gets the same scepticism conviction always gets. A sustainability requirement, framed honestly as a way to give a workforce something coherent to organise around and to cut the costs of turnover and disengagement that come from working somewhere with no clear direction, is a retention argument with numbers behind it. Say the second thing, not the first.

Where artificial intelligence actually helps, and where it doesn't

Most AI spending right now is producing nothing. A 2025 study from MIT's NANDA initiative found that 95 percent of generative AI pilots delivered no measurable financial impact. That's not a knock on the technology. It's what happens when you point a tool at a vague goal like "transformation" rather than a well-defined problem.

Mapping the operational impact of a supplier requirement across a company is a bounded problem. Which processes change, which teams are affected, what breaks if you sequence the rollout wrong, where the frustrations pile up that nobody thought to flag in the planning meeting. I've led cross-functional project teams without this kind of support, and the real cost was never the big risks everyone saw coming. It was the dozens of smaller ones nobody tracked, the idea raised in one meeting that never made it into the plan, the dependency two departments both assumed the other owned.

A cross-functional team using AI to keep track of that volume, the ideas, the iterations, the dependencies across departments, won't remove the friction of a major operational change. It will remove a meaningful share of it, the share that comes from things simply getting lost. That's a genuine use for the tool, not because AI understands your business better than your people do, but because your people are better at judgment than they are at holding a thousand moving details in their heads at once. Used this way, AI doesn't replace the human cross-functional team. It keeps that team from losing track of itself. One reminder goes with that. Start small, and learn to walk before you run. It's not AI that gets judged when this goes wrong. It's always the humans doing the work.

What this series adds up to

Sustainability didn't fail because people stopped caring. It failed because caring was the only thing holding it up, and caring doesn't survive shifts in the political weather. The fix isn't more conviction. It's finding, or where you have the standing to, building a reason for compliance that would survive even if nobody in the building believed in it at all.

That's a colder way to talk about this work than most people in the field are used to. It's also, on the evidence of the last four years, and on the evidence of the one place a court actually closed the door on non-compliance, the only version of the argument that has ever held.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.