Key takeaways:

• • • Ways of achieving growth has changed 鈥� Sustainable growth now depends less on raw revenue and more on improving income per partner through smarter leverage, intentional service mix, and disciplined pricing.

    • Proactive firms will be better positioned 鈥� Firms that adopt data-driven pricing, bundled offerings, and subscription models will be better positioned to communicate value, raise fees confidently, and protect margins.

    • Differentiators are shifting 鈥� Leadership depth, culture, and succession planning are emerging as decisive differentiators as demographics shift, private equity reshapes the tax market, and next-generation partners step into control.

Tax, audit & accounting firms are still growing, but not all that growth is reaching the bottom line 鈥� indeed, 2026 is shaping up as a separate or be separated moment for many tax firm leaders. To sustain income per partner while the market shifts, firm leaders need to be far more intentional about how they grow, price, staff, and position their tax practices.

Here are five important ways that tax firm leaders can ensure their bottom-line growth keep pace with their top-line revenue:

1. Be deliberate about how you grow

Revenue is rising, but margins are under pressure. For example, for firms with revenue of more than $2 million, revenue grew 7.9%, yet income per equity partner (IPP) increased only 3.2%. This may imply that although firms are bringing in more money, the remaining profits available to distribute to equity partners isn鈥檛 growing at the same rate. This could mean that it鈥檚 costing firms more to generate more revenue possibly because expenses are eating into margins.

Meanwhile, 13.9% of total growth for firms whose revenue is more than $2 million now comes from mergers, and for firms with revenue of more than $20 million, more than one-fifth of growth is merger-driven.

For growth strategy, leaders should clarify their organic growth plans in light of this robust M&A drive, deciding when acquisitions are truly about capacity, specialization, or geography and when they are merely propping up lagging organic growth.

Leaders need to protect IPP metrics by focusing relentlessly on revenue per partner and revenue per person as primary levers, rather than chasing top-line growth for its own sake. Leaders also need to build optionality 鈥� with private equity, mega-firm consolidators, and independents all active, factors such as succession, capital, and ownership design have become core strategic decisions that can no longer be left to chance.

2. Treat pricing as a growth discipline

In the 成人VR视频 Institute’s pricing report for tax, audit & accounting firms, 64% of decision-makers said their firms saw revenue increases, but only 45% reported increased profits 鈥� a clear indication of margin compression. Further, just about 1-in-5 professionals said they feel 鈥渉ighly confident鈥� that their firm鈥檚 current pricing reflects the expertise of its professionals.

To be sure, key pricing work now involves moving beyond what the market will bear. While hourly billing still dominates (according to the report firms said over 40% of client engagements are billed on an hourly basis) 鈥� value-aligned methods such as fixed fees, subscriptions, and bundled packages are strongly associated with higher pricing confidence and a firm’s greater ability to raise fees.

To excel in this area, tax firm leaders need to use data rather than their gut. Although only 30% of respondents said their firm regularly benchmark their pricing against competitors, leaders overwhelmingly say better market intelligence would increase pricing confidence. Also, firms should expand subscription and bundle pricing options, since respondents form subscription-billing firms report significantly higher confidence that their pricing reflects value. Indeed, many firms using bundled packages have raised prices 10% to 24% or more over the past two years.

3. Build a capacity model that scales

The Rosenberg data is blunt: The fastest path to higher income per partner is not logging more partner hours 鈥� it is using smart leverage and stronger rates. Elite tax firms (those with IPP above $800,000) generate roughly $3.9 million in revenue per equity partner and maintain staff-to-partner ratios of around 17:1.

Several capacity dynamics matter in practice. Leverage drives profitability, for example, and those firms that have staff-to-partner ratios above 10 report IPP roughly double that of firms with ratios below 3, even though they may carry higher salary percentages.

Further, outsourcing has become mainstream. More than 4-in-10 firms (42%) with more than $2 million in revenue now outsource full-time equivalent (FTEs) employees, a figure that rises to 63% among firms with more than $ 20 million dollars. Interestingly, turnover has eased to about 11%, the lowest for the industry in years, but expectations have shifted as firms intentionally reduce average billable hours per staff member to prioritize sustainable workloads.

In fact, the key growth question is no longer Can we find the work? but rather Can we design a capacity model 鈥� onshore, offshore, AI-enabled 鈥� that supports higher rates without burning out our people?

4. Formalize strategy, marketing & service mix

Firms with written strategic plans earn about 4.5% more IPP than those without, according to the data, and firms with a formal marketing plan enjoy about 9% higher IPP. The most profitable firms are also more intentional about service mix, tilting toward advisory and financial services.

Growth-enabling practices start with written strategic and marketing plans. Firms that document these plans consistently outperform their peers, particularly when navigating private equity interest, AI adoption, and succession decisions. Many leading tax firms are deliberately shifting from compliance to advisory, reducing their reliance on commodity tax compliance and expanding into higher-value advisory work to drive stronger profitability. These firms are also packaging and communicating value more effectively by bundling compliance and advisory services into tiered packages, which in turn gives them greater ability to raise fees and justify premium positioning in the market.

5. Invest in leadership, culture & succession

Growth without leadership depth is fragile, especially in the tax profession in which the average partner age has remained high. Most recently, however, the average partner age has dipped slightly to about 52 years old as more retirements occur. And female partners now account for roughly one-quarter of partner groups overall, showing progress but also a persistent equity gap.

For many firms, succession remains a primary concern, and leadership-related growth priorities begin with treating succession as strategy, not an HR project. More firms are revisiting buy-in levels, which average around $133,000, and are experimenting with non-equity roles and alternative practice structures to create more flexible pathways to ownership. At the same time, leaders must protect and modernize their firm culture, recognizing that poorly managed PE transactions, rigid return-to-office policies, and underinvestment in technology-forward talent can quickly erode the very engines of growth they depend on.

Additionally, firms are elevating the managing partner role. In larger practices, managing partners鈥� chargeable hours are now meaningfully lower, reflecting an intentional shift toward having that role work on the business 鈥� strategy, talent, pricing, and M&A 鈥� rather than in it.

For tax firm leaders, these five considerations form a practical checklist for 2026 planning. Grounding each strategic initiative in data and taking visible action can help ensure that the next wave of growth shows up not just in revenue, but in sustainable, rising income per partner.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s pricing report for tax, audit & accounting firms, here

Key takeaways:

• • • Poverty is a prime driver of child exploitation 鈥� Poverty drives more than half of child labor cases, with girls comprising 64% of affected children.

    • Companies can act to fight child labor 鈥� Companies must critically examine their purchasing practices, include lower-tier suppliers in risk assessments, establish multiple detection methods beyond audits, and fund independent remediation mechanisms to effectively combat child labor.

    • The Centre’s Action Hubs offers help 鈥� The Hub pools resources among brands, suppliers, civil society, and governments to create sustainable, locally driven solutions that achieve measurable results in child protection and remediation.

Child labor remains a persistent global crisis and affects an estimated 138 million children worldwide, according to the latest estimates by . Despite international commitments, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to end child labor by 2025, progress has fallen short and left millions deprived of their fundamental rights to safety, education, and protection.

While often framed as a human rights violation, child labor is also a pressing business issue. Companies are increasingly expected to ensure ethical supply chains, and their reputations, compliance with regulations, and supply chain resilience all hinge on addressing this challenge.

Yet, , the calls for moving beyond pledges and instead pursue collaboration toward real action. Overly ambitious goals and zero tolerance policies have sometimes backfired, and when this occurs, it pushes child labor further underground rather than eliminating it.

One of the main causes of child labor is poverty. In fact, more than half of the children affected cite it as the primary reason for working, according to the Centre. And almost two-thirds (64%) of the Centre鈥檚 child labor cases are girls. Other hidden challenges include cuts to social services, shifting migration policies, and a lack of local remediation capacity, especially in countries like the United States, where child labor persists due to inadequate support systems and limited transparency.

Companies can take action to reduce child labor

Companies can take several actions to fight against child labor in their supply chains, and the first of which requires them to honestly acknowledge its existence and take targeted, practical steps toward prevention and remediation. Indeed, businesses know that they have a vital role to play in tackling child labor for ethical reasons, especially since consumer expectations, especially among Gen Z consumers, and new regulations increasingly require transparency and real action.

Child labor remains a persistent global crisis and affects an estimated 138 million children worldwide.

To effectively prevent and remediate child labor, companies must critically examine their own practices. The Centre recommends that company leaders ask themselves critical questions, such as:

• • • Are purchasing practices enabling fair wages?
    • Are lower-tier supplies included in the company鈥檚 risk assessments and are there sufficient long-term budgets for due diligence?
    • Do suppliers understand and the company鈥檚 expectations around children鈥檚 rights?
    • Are multiple detection methods being used beyond audits?

鈥淥ne of the first steps to close the gap between rhetoric and practice is acknowledging the intrinsic link between informal lower-tier actors and formal supply chains,鈥� explains Ines Kaempfer, CEO of the Centre. 鈥淥nce that is fully acknowledged and recognized, the case to engage and invest in lower-tiers becomes glaringly clear. The most severe human rights violations and deprived children are those in lower-tier and informal settings, trapped in generational poverty with little hope of breaking the cycle if approaches don鈥檛 change. We also know that engaging can seem extremely challenging, but that cannot keep us from taking action. There are innovative programs, partnerships and tools available 鈥� it is up to businesses to take the resolve and engage.鈥�

In addition, companies must move beyond policy to establish comprehensive actionable mechanisms that can monitor risks in sourcing countries and adapt how companies monitor complex supply chains. Robust remediation mechanisms should be funded and managed by independent experts to ensure priority is given to children鈥檚 rights over commercial interests.

Enlisting outside support

Providing transparent reporting and collaborating with local stakeholders are other key actions that corporations can take to ensure sustainable, child-centered solutions throughout the supply chain. For example, companies can take a lead role in 鈥� a Centre initiative that promotes collaboration among multiple stakeholders to address systemic child labor risks 鈥� by becoming funding partners, which enables the scaling of prevention and remediation efforts for child labor in high-risk supply chains.

Companies also can nominate their suppliers, including those in lower tiers, to participate in Action Hub activities. By engaging and supporting suppliers to implement change-making programs and participate in training, companies can strengthen local capacity. Finally, companies in these Hubs also can proactively join stakeholder meetings, share best practices, and advocate for transparency and collaboration within their own industry.

Key lessons highlight the need for companies to engage in local capacity building, sustained funding, and strong stakeholder collaboration to address the unique challenges of informal and lower-tier supply chains.

The Centre has played a central role in activating recent Hubs in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with new ones planned in Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka in the coming months. These Hubs unite brands, suppliers, civil society, and local governments to pool resources, provide training, and create sustainable remediation systems. For example, the Action Hub in Bangladesh has integrated 87 child labor cases in the ready-made garment industry into remediation and enabled 42 young workers to access decent work.

In the DRC Hub, which focused on the country鈥檚 mining industry, has supported more than 82 children in remediation and built a strong local network of eight civil society organizations for long-term impact. And in Malaysia, despite sudden funding cuts, the Hub has remained operational with private sector support. Currently, 18 children are in the remediation program, with 42 case managers having been trained, and 46 community focal points having been established from country鈥檚 palm oil planting communities.

Key lessons learned from the Centre鈥檚 Action Hubs highlight the need for companies to engage in local capacity building, sustained funding, and strong stakeholder collaboration to address the unique challenges of informal and lower-tier supply chains. While there is no single solution to ending child labor, the Action Hubs proves that decisive, collaborative action can drive meaningful changes.

Businesses must move beyond pledges and take responsibility for their supply chains by investing in prevention, remediation, and honest transparency about the challenges they face. Now is the time to turn commitments into real progress by building resilient, ethical supply chains that protect children鈥檚 rights and create a safer, more just future for them.

You can find more about child labor and exploitation here

Key Insights:

• • • Confidence in automation 鈥� A majority organizations in Mexico that are involved in trade activities with the U.S. are confident in using technology to enhance compliance automation, though there is room for growth in automating classification workflows for imports and exports.

    • Qualified employees are crucial 鈥� Mexican trade professionals recognize qualified employees as the most crucial factor for sustained industry growth, alongside the implementation of technology and automation of processes.

    • Assessing risks to trade routes 鈥� Mexican companies are actively using technology to assess risks and opportunities in trade routes, while also relying on manual processes and specific information purchases. Many companies have also implemented production, risk, and financial protocols to navigate current trade volatility.

So far this year, tariffs have become a major hurdle for companies engaged in international trade, regardless of size, sector, or home base. Indeed, today鈥檚 trading environment is highly volatile, driven by new tariffs imposed by the United States and subsequent countermeasures coming from other nations. This shifting landscape is disrupting supply chains, raising costs, and compelling businesses to overhaul their global trading strategies.

For Mexico, the new actions imposed by the Trump Administration are particularly impactful. , with a robust exchange of goods and services that supports millions of jobs and fosters economic growth on both sides of the border. In that sense, Trump鈥檚 tariffs have the potential to affect multiple industries and businesses in the country that export or import goods to or from the U.S.

Recent reports by the 成人VR视频 Institute on the impact of tariffs 鈥� one offering a global perspective and one 鈥� have shed light on how companies are responding, providing relevant insights on the rising importance of technology and strategic adaptation in the present unstable context.

The Mexican perspective

The provides a focused view of how Mexican companies are managing the rising costs, supply chain disruptions, and price volatility brought by the changes. The report is based on a survey of 50 Mexican trade professionals, and the results underscore their strong emphasis on technology adoption and risk management.

• • • Technology integration 鈥� In the realm of compliance automation, a significant 90% of respondents expressed confidence in the role of technology to streamline their compliance processes. A notable 86% said their organizations have already harnessed predictive technology to screen customers, suppliers, and partners, effectively mitigating risks associated with import and export operations. Moreover, 68% of respondents said their organizations were leveraging predictive technology to identify opportunities for qualifying goods under Free Trade Agreements. However, there remains a substantial opportunity for growth in the automation of classification workflows for imports and exports, with only 28% saying their organization is currently utilizing technology in this area.
    • Drivers of sustained growth 鈥� Mexican trade professionals have identified several key drivers that are crucial for sustaining industry growth. Foremost among these is the presence of qualified employees, with 74% of respondents considering them the most essential element for success. In addition, 58% highlighted the importance of technology implementation, and 38% cited the automation of processes both as necessary components for achieving long-term growth.
    • Adapting to volatility 鈥� Mexican companies are proactively identifying risks and opportunities for cost optimization in trade routes, as well as establishing robust protocols to navigate volatility. While 72% of respondents said their organizations use technology for risk-opportunity assessment, 66% said they still undergo manual and operative processes, and 28% said they buy specific information. To adapt to the constant changes, organizations in Mexico have implemented production (72%), risk (58%) and financial (44%) protocols, according to these trade professionals.

How Mexican companies can thrive amid tariffs

Worldwide respondents from the global 2025 Tariffs Survey suggested diverse strategies to mitigate the impact of these tariffs, such as expanding to multiple production venues, examining the best trade lanes, and seeking more regionally based suppliers.

In addition to these valid methods, companies in Mexico must focus on flexibility, especially in their supply chain, which can be achieved through partnerships with technology and service experts. Trade professionals also need to stay current on any tariff trends or developments, so monitoring trusted media and government sources for updates and regulatory changes is vital in order to remain informed. Professionals in Mexico also need to evaluate their trade routes, production areas, and supply partners to identify potential impacts from any ongoing developments.

Further, investing in business intelligence tools could allow companies to analyze real-time data, ensuring that their decisions are based on current and accurate information. Regular cross-departmental meetings with other corporate teams 鈥� such as those in tax and legal 鈥� are crucial for aligning a company鈥檚 strategies cohesively.

By implementing these actions, businesses involved in U.S.-Mexico trade activities can better manage the commercial challenges.

A disrupted future

Companies around the globe are grappling with increasing costs, disrupted supply chains, and regulatory uncertainty. However, those embracing the actions outlined above will be better positioned to weather the tariff storm. Automation, predictive analytics, and robust risk management are becoming essential tools, alongside strategic initiatives like supply chain diversification and leveraging trade agreements.

Mexico, with its close ties in trade with the U.S., could suffer greatly from these changes. Therefore, trade professionals in Mexico should keep in mind that timely planning, technology, and flexibility will be crucial aspects for successfully guiding their companies through the current complex environment.

You can access here

Key insights:

• • • Traditional board oversight models are outdated 鈥� Amid multiple crises threats, corporate boards that still rely on legacy governance approaches risk falling behind as today鈥檚 interconnected crises demand proactive and adaptive oversight.

    • Questioning assumptions about growth 鈥� Boards must continually challenge their assumptions about growth and risk utilizing four key strategies, including red team exercises, translating trends into strategic trade-offs, embedding sustainability anticipation, and linking culture with capital.

    • Sustainability is a central filter for all board decisions 鈥� Boards that proactively integrate sustainability into their culture, risk management, and strategic planning are better positioned to thrive amid regulatory pressures, climate risks, and stakeholder expectations in a volatile global environment.

Last year, corporate boards demonstrated greater readiness to address sustainability issues with significant financial implications, especially compared to their preparedness in 2018, according to the . For example, Environment, Social & Governance (ESG) board committees among Fortune 100听companies increased to 89 in 2024, compared to 22 in 2018.

At the same time, it is hard to know if this progress is adequate. As climate shocks become more severe, AI transforms industries, and stakeholder expectations evolve, corporate boards of directors are encountering a dynamic business environment that contains multilayered risks.

Boards operating in the traditional oversight models may soon find themselves struggling as the governance tactics of the past prove inadequate in the face of these newer changes.听Furthermore, the future operating environment for companies is becoming increasingly complex, with a heightened risk of polycrises, in which multiple, interconnected crises converge to create unprecedented challenges.

Moreover, boards of directors as fiduciary stewards of companies鈥� strategies are now expected, by regulators, investors, and stakeholders, to demonstrate fluency in climate and sustainability issues. In fact, more than 50 jurisdictions have introduced requirements or expectations for directors to possess climate-related competence. This profound shift requires boards to take a much more aggressive, forward-looking orientation in which every operating assumption is questioned.

In this context, sustainability is no longer a peripheral concern, but rather a central filter through which every decision must pass, as companies must navigate the intricate relationships between environmental, social, and economic factors to ensure long-term resilience and success. This reality means that boards must take proactive and integrated approaches to effective governance and oversight. Indeed, those that prioritize sustainability, risk management, and strategic adaptability are more likely to thrive in a world characterized by uncertainty, interdependence, and accelerating change.

Embracing re-evaluation strategies

To meet these new expectations in an ever-changing business landscape fraught with multi-faceted risks, boards must also question their assumptions about growth and the lens through which they are examining systemic risks. A board also needs to understand where it is prioritizing short-term wins at the expense of long-term viability.

These four key strategies can help directors prompt a critical re-evaluation of their growth assumptions and framework they use for assessing systemic risks 鈥� they can also help directors determine whether the board is prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability:

1. Execute 鈥渞ed team鈥� exercises

Boards often find themselves surrounded by confirmation bias because they rely on trusted advisors and management teams who often share familiar viewpoints. This environment can stifle innovation and obscure systemic risks. A red team exercise can help break this cycle by inviting a diverse group of external experts and internal challengers to pressure-test assumptions about growth, systemic risks, supply resilience, reputation, and the company鈥檚 license to operate. Such exercises encourage directors to confront uncomfortable truths and explore alternative scenarios.

Too many organizations still operate as if ESG and value-creation are in conflict when, in fact, they are not. Running red team exercises in the board room can better align their strategies with sustainable goals to better spur innovation while maintaining operational resilience as priorities.

2. Translate trends into strategic trade-offs

Boards must be adept at discerning emerging trends to better inform the difficult strategic听decisions about what to pursue and what to forego. Asking tough questions that frame trends as choices is an effective mechanism to analyze trade-offs. For example, 鈥淒o we invest in short-term returns with high-carbon lock-in, or reallocate capital toward regenerative business models that preserve long-term viability?鈥� is a common trade-off question that many companies across industries are asking. By engaging in debates about real dilemmas rather than passive updates, directors can make informed decisions that balance immediate gains with future sustainability.

3. Build 鈥渟ustainability anticipation鈥� into board culture

To lead effectively in an uncertain future, boards must build sustainability foresight into their culture. An effective means of doing so is embedding sustainability anticipation into every board committee鈥檚 mandate. Tools such as dynamic scenario planning, transition-readiness metrics, and real-time materiality assessments that address emerging risks can help boards to anticipate and adapt to future challenges.

4. Link culture and capital

Most companies view sustainability as just a function rather than a filter for every business decision. This is why linking culture and capital at the board level is an essential step in making boards genuine hubs of foresight. Indeed, pulse surveys, stakeholder feedback, and behavioral data are necessary sources boards can use to make sure that sustainability is a foundational principle across all business decisions and used as a lens for value creation.

Looking ahead

The time for passive governance is over. By adopting these strategies, boards can navigate the complexities of today’s business environment for long-term viability for tomorrow. As the risks of interconnected crises 鈥� polycrises 鈥� intensify, making sustainability a fundamental criterion for every business choice is crucial for companies and can provide a profitable operating path in the years to come.

You can find out more about how companies are addressing the challenge of sustainability here

Key takeaways:

• • • Frame sustainability as future-proofing the business 鈥� Corporate leaders should characterize sustainability investments in this way to better communicate their value and importance to stakeholders.

    • Strong governance enables clear sustainability messaging 鈥� Effective board oversight and governance can help companies maintain internal clarity and emphasize their commitment to sustainability.

    • Prioritize present action over future ambitions 鈥� Focusing on current sustainability actions and progress can aid corporate leaders in building credibility and trust with stakeholders, rather than just making long-term promises.

Sustainability leaders find themselves at a crossroads in a volatile landscape. While the urgency for climate action and responsible business has never been greater, the external environment is rife with uncertainty, politicization, and hostility. Indeed, the challenge for corporate leaders is how can they keep internal momentum, communicate with credibility, and maintain resilience in the face of skepticism and shifting regulatory winds?

At Reuters Events鈥� recent , sustainability professionals came to learn how their peers are approaching sustainability action and corporate communications during this tumultuous time. Community played a big part in the learning as attendees were organized into buddy groups categorized by their primary learning objectives, such how best to communicate with stakeholders with varying interests or how to navigate changing regulatory and compliance rules.

Across the board, attendees learned the essential tenets for effective sustainability actions and messaging. Indeed, a key insight heard multiple times from the event鈥檚 speakers was the success of characterizing sustainability investments as future-proofing the business in an environment in which the only certainty is uncertainty.

Elements for sustainability messaging & engagement

Achieving clear and impactful sustainability messaging, coupled with genuine engagement, necessitates a strategic approach grounded in several fundamental elements, including:

Rethinking sustainability to focus on how it secures future performance 鈥� By aligning communication and action to withstand external shocks 鈥� be they political, regulatory, or reputational 鈥� leaders can take the first step in future-proofing company operations. This lies at the heart of strategic sustainability activities and starts by reinforcing sustainability鈥檚 connection to the company鈥檚 core purpose and ensuring that every team member understands why these actions are being taken. Indeed, in the words of one speaker: 鈥淕aining buy-in is easier when it is closely tied to purpose.鈥� If a sustainability activity does not tie into the company鈥檚 purpose, it is time to rethink it.

To put this into practice, leaders should convey a consistent internal message that sustainability is not a passing trend but rather a vital strategy for long-term value and risk management. As one executive noted: 鈥淐lients are willing to pay for future proofing and resilience.鈥�

This future-ready mindset also means that leaders should seek to build agility and adaptability into their companies鈥� operations. And today, given the current politicized atmosphere, companies face a challenge in operating in a “volatile and even polarized” environment, said Jennifer Duran of , adding that this only underscores the need for “value protection” and a “resilience-building program.”

Enabling internal clarity through strong governance 鈥� In the words of one executive: 鈥淪trong governance is the foundation for steadfast commitment to sustainability.鈥� Clear messaging is easier when there is effective board oversight and strong governance with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, going from the C-Suite down to individual contributors.

When the external conversation grows noisy or hostile, internal clarity 鈥� from the board, the C-Suite, and the operational managers 鈥� becomes the organization鈥檚 shield. As boards grapple with key issues, sustainability is an effective strategic lens to consider, and during these debates, the cost and the return on investment (ROI) is often a major component. That said, several conference speakers highlighted another ROI 鈥� the risk of inaction 鈥� upon which chief sustainability officers must consistently keep their boards focused.

Building trust through data, transparency & accountability 鈥� Robust, actionable data is the foundation of credible sustainability communication. Stakeholders expect transparency not just on companies鈥� successes, but also on their challenges and setbacks. 鈥淚t is important to keep every stakeholder on the same page and invite them to engage more,鈥� said Dave Stangis of Apollo Global Management.

Internally, sustainability is a team sport. 鈥淕etting people on board and keeping them on board鈥� is the key to embedding sustainability across the organization, said Estee Lauder鈥檚 Al Iannuzzi. For example, consistent efforts to collect data from data owners while reminding them of the important role the data plays is key to operationalizing sustainability data for transparent and accountable reporting.

However, the biggest data challenge, according to several speakers, is the reliability of data coming from the supply chain, particularly partners based overseas. While there is no magic pill to solve this problem, embedding the requirement in vendor agreements that suppliers have to share data is a useful way of operationalizing this area of data collection.

Engagement & communication actions in hostile times

Sustainability executives shared their best lessons learned to ensure their corporate sustainability strategies remain funded and move forward during this tumultuous time, including:

Prioritize action now over ambitions in the future 鈥� In an era of skepticism, ambitious long-term promises, such as like 2050 net zero targets, can sound hollow because of the long time frame. Effective sustainability messaging involves the urgency of now, because stakeholders 鈥� whether employees, customers, or regulators 鈥� want to know what the company is doing today.

Executives from pharmaceutical giant Novartis and tech heavyweight Ericsson highlighted the power of storytelling that鈥檚 rooted in current action. The key message from both companies was: 鈥淒on鈥檛 focus on 2050, communicate what you are doing now.鈥�

Urging 鈥渁ctions over commitments,鈥� Sonya Gafsi Oblisk of Whole Foods Market echoed this attitude as well. 鈥淲e can impact change and lead change every day, and small actions across the stakeholder board is the way to get there.鈥�

Institute audience-centric, authentic messaging 鈥� Authenticity and transparency, rooted in the specific needs and context of each audience, are non-negotiable in both effective engagement and sustainability messaging. When speaking with investors, framing sustainability risks as business issues are crucial. Mindy Lubber of framed the challenge succinctly: 鈥淐limate issues, water issues are business issues 鈥� climate change is a fundamental risk to our economy.鈥�

Establish strength in numbers for collaboration & advocacy 鈥� Success in sustainability communications in a politicized environment is sometimes achieved through strength in numbers. Indeed, industry coalitions and trade associations offer credibility in a hostile political environment. 鈥淲e have to collaborate, and we need to make coalitions,鈥� said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate advisor. 鈥淭hat is how change works.鈥� Likewise, working together on standards, advocacy, and best practice-sharing not only amplifies the message but also provides a buffer against sector-specific backlash, other attendees said.

Communication as a tool for resilience

Insights from the Reuters Events鈥� Responsible Business USA 2025 conference made it clear that framing sustainability through the lens of resiliency is now mission-critical for sustainability leaders. By anchoring messaging in purpose, focusing on present action, and collaborating broadly, companies can weather any potential backlash while building lasting value.

鈥淚f you鈥檙e not adopting change, you are succumbing to it,鈥� Kenvue鈥檚 Duran explained, adding that sustainability leaders should let their communication be a tool for resilience, not retreat in order to keep pushing forward, together, toward a sustainable future.

You can find more information in our Sustainability Resource Center here

Key points:

• • • C-Suite priorities 鈥� C-Suite leaders are prioritizing customer satisfaction and retention as key measures of business success.

    • Leveraging internal metrics 鈥斕�Most corporate function teams currently emphasize internal efficiency metrics over customer-centric outcomes when adopting new technologies like GenAI.

    • Aligning functions with company goals 鈥斕�C-Suites are calling on their legal, tax, and risk departments to align technology strategies with customer-focused goals, such as investment in improved data flows and integrated workflows.

At their core, the purpose of all corporate functions (sometimes called enabling functions) should be to provide the outcomes that their business leadership needs. Sometimes those are simple problems, and sometimes they can be bet-the-company disasters. However, for in-house legal, tax, and corporate risk & fraud departments alike, company success should be the primary goal.

That then begs the natural question: What does success actually mean? Companies want to make money, while not spending too much money, and they want to accomplish their legal and financial goals in the most efficient and cost-effective ways possible. And by and large, enabling functions have become attuned to those realities, increasingly leveraging technology to perform work quicker, cheaper, and with more overall efficiency.

In reality, however, the definition of success is more complicated. Clients want a strong bottom line, of course, but according to the recent 2025 C-Suite Survey from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI), there is another goal that鈥檚 top of mind among C-Suite leaders: customer satisfaction and retention. And unless legal, tax and corporate risk & fraud departments are aligning themselves to customer goals 鈥� and even more crucially, aligning their technology needs to customer goals 鈥� then they may not be achieving true success for their organization.

C-Suite definitions of success: Customer focus

It鈥檚 no surprise that C-Suites are focused on customers, of course; but there may be a misalignment between how much C-Suites want their business functions to focus on customers, and how much customer-focus those functions are actually doing. Past versions of the C-Suite Survey have found that while C-Suite leaders say they want their legal and tax departments to be more focused on customer-centric initiatives, legal and tax departments in actuality are more focused on risk mitigation tactics 鈥� even more so than their C-Suites desire.

This year鈥檚 version of the C-Suite Survey reveals similar priorities. While the financial bottom line remains paramount, most C-Suite leaders are also defining success directly via their customers. About two-thirds of C-Suite executives said they now include customer satisfaction in their definition of success, and more than half said they consider customer retention metrics.

Interestingly, this customer-centric focus does not only play out in conceptual definitions of success, or even primarily in the metrics surrounding success in the organization. Yet, this focus on customers directly impacts how C-Suites view their internal functions鈥� impact to the overall objectives of the company.

For example, when asked the extent to which certain functions contribute to the overall objectives of the company, in-house departments such as risk, legal, and tax all performed admirably, with more than half of C-Suite leaders saying they believe those departments to either significantly or moderately contribute to company objectives. Yet, the C-Suite still views some functions鈥� contributions with much more enthusiasm, with almost all (94%) of C-Suite respondents saying their customer success function 鈥� which often includes customer on-boarding, retention, marketing, and relationship management 鈥� significantly or moderately contributes to the overall objectives of the company.

Notably, however, it鈥檚 not just customers that catches the C-Suites鈥� attention. Ranking second is the technology function, which 90% of respondents say significantly or moderately contributes to overall company objectives. The fact that these two functions are seen as the top contributors (along with operations) is not an accident. Customer success and technology are increasingly intrinsically linked, with many C-Suite technology initiatives aimed directly at enhancing customer experience. As companies heavily invest in technology, they increasingly see their investment echoing what they believe customers want at the same time.

As legal, tax, and risk & fraud departments embark on their own technology journeys, it鈥檚 important for them to link technology initiatives to company objectives at large. And increasingly, that means not only thinking internally about technology use, but externally as well.

What it means for in-house departments of the future

When many professional services approach technology, particularly newer technologies such as generative AI (GenAI) and agentic AI, they often approach use cases that emphasize internal efficiency over any sort of external touchpoints.

For example, look at how these in-house departments defined success within TRI鈥檚 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report. Just less than one-third of corporate respondents said their departments currently were measuring return on investment (ROI) of GenAI tools in the first place, meaning that many departments have no idea how GenAI initiatives are performing or even how that connects to the rest of the business. Further, among those respondents that said their departments were collecting ROI metrics, internal metrics (cost savings, employee usage, employee satisfaction) are far outpacing any external metrics (client satisfaction, external revenue generation, new business won) within most departments.

Of course, many enabling functions would argue that they鈥檙e inherently internal, and that they should not be expected to interface with customers. However, respondents to the C-Suite Survey would likely counter that if legal, tax, and risk departments want to contribute to company success, they should be more focused on customers 鈥� that鈥檚 how C-Suite leaders are defining business success overall, after all.

So, what does a customer-centric technology strategy look like for corporate functions? A look into how C-Suites believe these functions are constrained may shed some light.

C-Suite respondents identified a number of different constraints on enabling functions, ranging from compliance & regulatory issues to the alignment of risk appetite. With respect to technology, however, one stands out: A need for more effective data and information flows. In fact, a majority (52%) of C-Suite respondents said they believe ineffective data flows are significantly or moderately inhibiting enabling functions.

This is one example in which legal, tax, and risk functions can bolster not only internal efficiency, but align with customer-facing business needs as well. Bolstered data collection abilities and creating more integrated workflows allows for quicker and more accurate answers to customers, more complete financial information for reports and tax returns, and better overall decision-making around customer initiatives with more comprehensive data in mind.

There are other ways for enabling functions to be customer-centric with their technology as well, of course; but the overall goal is to be actively contributing to the C-Suite鈥檚 idea of success, and that means keeping customers top of mind when developing a technology strategy.

鈥淚t is clear that C-Suite leaders have established priorities for their businesses and measures for success. It is equally clear that many of the enabling functions could do a better job of working towards these broader corporate objectives,鈥� the report states. 鈥淚n digital transformation and AI, C-Suite leaders may have found the tools to mitigate or perhaps remove constraints from the organization鈥檚 enabling functions, ultimately helping those functions make more substantive contributions toward the organization鈥檚 overarching goals.鈥�

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听2025 C-Suite Survey听here

One of the major tailwinds that could positively impact the data volume challenge 鈥� and the data challenge more broadly 鈥� is AI adoption at an early stage for sustainability reporting. Nearly 90% of respondents to the Outlook research said they expect AI to have a material impact on sustainability reporting, compared to 67% who said the same in .

For those organizations which already are using AI, it is revolutionizing sustainability reporting by enhancing data collection, monitoring, and analysis processes. With the capability of efficiently managing vast datasets to help to improve the accuracy and reliability of sustainability reports, these technologies automate resource-intensive tasks and create additional bandwidth for sustainability professionals to focus on strategic sustainability initiatives.

You can join us for , produced by Reuters Events, on June 23-24

In fact, leading organizations which have more ambitious reporting scopes are likely to have transitioned away from storing sustainability data manually and instead embraced technology tools to assist with data collection, analysis, and reporting. Interestingly, leaders of these organizations are also more likely to anticipate AI having a significant impact on reporting practices, which is most likely attributable to them having already experienced using technology in their sustainability data processes. Indeed, half are already using AI to support sustainability reporting, according to Reuters Events research.

In addition, emissions reporting is another area in which the use of AI is increasing efficiency and effectiveness. More specifically, 37% of respondents from organizations reporting Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with assurance are already leveraging AI in their reporting processes, while just 22% said they are currently using AI to support reporting today without external assurance.

Another primary use case is utilizing AI in materiality assessments. This is also an area that respondents say is a priority for investment over the next three years, although it is not as popular as it was in last year鈥檚 study. There is at least some indication that sustainability practitioners believe the technology is not yet mature enough for widespread use.

AI won鈥檛 solve data and reporting challenges completely

As organizations increasingly integrate AI into sustainability reporting, they encounter several challenges that must be addressed to realize the technology’s full potential. Data quality and the cost of integrating new technology into existing systems are two key areas of concern. In fact, 50% of respondents in the Reuters Events research highlighted data quality as a significant concern. Poor data quality can undermine the accuracy of AI-driven insights, and as a result, it is crucial for organizations to invest in robust data governance practices.

Additionally, integrating AI technologies can be costly and complex. Indeed, it requires careful planning and execution to ensure seamless functionality within existing systems. External assurance becomes vital in this context, providing independent verification of data accuracy and bolstering confidence in AI-driven reports. Organizations must prioritize these considerations to harness AI effectively, ensuring that sustainability reporting is both reliable and insightful. This approach will help overcome obstacles and drive meaningful progress in sustainability practice.

Technology seen as a key driver of efficiency

While AI is not expected to impact sustainability reporting for a while, technology is still seen as a key enabler for CSRD compliance. The popularity and adoption of reporting-related tools continues to evolve over time. According to the chart below, the top three tools in 2025 and those that are expected to be most popular in 2028 are internal data solutions, supplier surveys and audits, and data platforms for environment, social & governance (ESG) initiatives.

Procuring the right tool or technology can be critical for organizations that want to become more efficient and effective in their sustainability reporting, but so often this comes down to selecting the right vendor. In fact, sustainability practitioners are most likely to be driven by cost when it comes to selecting vendors. More than three-quarters (76%) of respondents identified cost as a key selection criterion for vendors, a greater share than the 61% of respondents who did so in last year鈥檚 survey.

This is why it is essential to balance investing in AI-enabled technology solutions, improving data governance, and seeking external assurance to ensure data accuracy and integrity. This process involves developing comprehensive strategies for managing data volume and quality, in order to bolster confidence in AI-driven reports and facilitate seamless integration within existing systems.

The EU’s Omnibus proposals have undeniably influenced CSRD strategies. As data management challenges persist, AI adoption presents a promising solution but only when accompanied by effective governance, assurance, cost effectiveness, and proper vendor selection.

You can find more about the challenges around Sustainability here

Indeed, the environmental data silo is a prime example of this issue, says , an ESG and Sustainability Advocate and author of the book, ESG Mindset. 鈥淔or a while now, sustainability offices have been collecting activity greenhouse gas emissions data from across the business and in some cases, going outside the business and getting data from suppliers, Sekol says. 鈥淲hile this data is valuable for compliance purposes, it remains inaccessible to others in the business who may need it for analysis and decision-making.鈥�

This challenge of many isolated data islands also offers a huge opportunity, explains Sekol. 鈥淲e’re at this unique point where one office is collecting data from across the company 鈥� and the last time this happened was when accounting rules were created,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ack then, data was handwritten in ledgers and manually collected. As we enter this new round of ESG accounting, we have digitized much of the company’s activity data and that of the company value chain. Now we have data solutions that can help bring together business data.鈥�

In fact, many corporate sustainability offices may have insightful data on emissions, water, waste, plastics, energy, and more, but it all remains locked away. This inaccessibility of these data silos creates a significant challenge for businesses looking to integrate sustainability data into their overall operations and decision-making processes.

Data lakehouses as a solution

The current state of data complexity across enterprises is characterized by a multitude of disconnected systems that often contain information that is unreachable. 鈥淭he evolution of data management technologies 鈥� including data lakes and data warehouses 鈥� has contributed to this complexity,鈥� Sekol adds.

Data lakes and data warehouses are both storage systems for big data but differ in significant ways. Data lakes are repositories designed to store large volumes of raw data in its original form; and data warehouses are repositories that stores processed and structured data that has been optimized for analysis.

As organizations grapple with the growing importance of sustainability and ESG data, the limitations of current data management strategies become more apparent.

鈥淲hile data warehouses offered structured storage for quantitative data, they were limited in handling unstructured information. Data lakes emerged to address this gap by allowing for the storage of diverse data types.鈥�

However, both solutions have led to data sprawl, redundancy, and security concerns. The proliferation of purpose-built applications and the practice of extracting and copying data for various business units have further exacerbated the situation. Although API networks have been used to facilitate data access and break down some barriers, this approach is increasingly insufficient for future needs because of the risk of outdated information getting copied when data is used by business functions at different times.

As organizations grapple with the growing importance of sustainability and ESG data, the limitations of current data management strategies become more apparent. This highlights the need for more integrated and flexible solutions that can seamlessly combine structured and unstructured data while maintaining security and governance in one repository.

Thus, data lakehouses have emerged as a powerful solution to address the growing challenges of hard-to-reach data across organizations, including for organizations鈥� sustainability functions. A data lakehouse is an innovative data management architecture that combines the best features of data warehouses and data lakes, offering the structure, performance, and data management features of data warehouses while maintaining the flexibility, scalability, and low-cost storage of data lakes. A key advantage to the data lakehouses approach is that it is applicable to structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data. This versatility allows for more comprehensive data analysis, including advanced analytics and machine learning capabilities.

How you can build the business case

The collaboration among IT, sustainability offices, and other business functions is crucial for securing and democratizing access to sustainability information. For example, sustainability professionals recognize that environmental data is an asset for multiple uses across the business as well as being a new type of data silo.

As a sustainability professional seeking to unlock the possibility of multiple uses by multiple functions, you should start by engaging with IT to understand the current data infrastructure. IT understands how to protect data while enabling secure collaboration across the company and the current landscape of tools that could help in enabling broader access to information across internal functions. You should discuss the need for secure, centralized data storage that allows for collaboration across departments while maintaining data integrity and security. Additionally, you should familiarize yourself with concepts like application abstraction and data integration to better communicate your needs to IT professionals, Sekol recommends.

When approaching these conversations, you should lead with the business needs rather than sustainability goals alone.

Next, reach out sales, marketing, finance, and other functions to understand their priorities and data needs. Look for opportunities in which sustainability data can provide valuable insights for their operations.

When approaching these conversations, you should lead with the business needs rather than sustainability goals alone. It is helpful to identify intersections between the business function鈥檚 goals and materiality issues or stakeholder concerns. These use cases could be easy wins that could demonstrate how integrated data can address both sustainability objectives and core business challenges.

Sekol also advises you to be prepared to discuss the potential benefits of a data lakehouse approach, such as improved data quality, reduced redundancy, and enhanced analytics capabilities. By bridging the gap between sustainability data and broader business insights, you can build a stronger case for investment in modern data infrastructure that serves multiple organizational needs.

The key to unlocking sustainable business growth lies in breaking down data silos and integrating sustainability data into overall operations and decision-making processes. By adopting innovative data management solutions 鈥� such as data lakehouses 鈥� and fostering partnerships across business functions, companies can harness the power of sustainability data and upgrade their technology architecture at the same time.

You can find more about the challenges that organizations face with sustainability here

The CSDDD enforces mandatory compliance, moving beyond voluntary guidelines to ensure businesses uphold human rights and environmental standards and do not cause or contribute to potential or actual adverse impacts through their own activities or those directly linked to their supply chain operations.

The directive will also underpin the EU鈥檚 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and both will coexist cohesively, in that the CSDDD requires due diligence duty and the CSRD the reporting obligation. The EU Commission has already initiated against member states that fail to incorporate the directives into their national laws.

Consequences of CSDDD

As Prof. of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights explains, mandatory due diligence both for companies that fall within the scope of the CSDDD and for those that do not. Some of these challenges include:

• • • Supply chain complexity 鈥� Ensuring compliance throughout intricate global supply chains can be particularly daunting. Companies often need to allocate substantial resources to monitor and manage their suppliers’ practices. This increased demand for oversight can lead to significant supply chain disruptions, impacting companies鈥� ability to maintain consistent and reliable operations.
    • Challenges in emerging markets 鈥� While higher standards can boost economic performance, in regions with weak rule of law like in Southeast Asia, compliance can prove challenging. Retail brands, for instance, might opt to leave certain markets or terminate relationships with suppliers in regions in which compliance becomes too difficult due to the high costs involved with conducting audits, ensuring traceability, and reporting.
    • Legal and reputational risks 鈥� Companies, especially chemical manufacturers, can be caught off-guard by new regulations, leading to non-compliance and legal issues. When was updated to include certain chemicals commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, many retail companies did not have the necessary documentation or were unaware that their products contained these chemicals. As a result, companies had to pull products off the shelves and update labels, even as they faced numerous lawsuits for non-compliance. A similar scenario took place when passed in 2006 and left international manufacturers unprepared, preventing them selling products in the EU markets.

Actions for companies to mitigate CSDDD compliance challenges

Companies are already implementing third-party software solutions to support supply chain due diligence practices and reporting of environmental, social & governance (ESG) factors. Indeed, using tools driven by generative AI (GenAI) will alleviate the work of risk & compliance professionals by freeing up resources from repetitive tasks, speeding up key processes of data collection from suppliers, and automating risk assessment, according to the Future of Professionals Report 2024, published earlier this year by 成人VR视频.

There are other areas that GenAI is disrupting across the ESG management and reporting landscape, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2024 State of Corporate ESG, including:

Enhancing due diligence with AI-driven solutions 鈥� Companies are implementing advanced due diligence solutions to meet expanding regulatory requirements by leveraging granular and timely data on specific risk factors like biodiversity and human rights. These solutions provide disaggregated scores, enabling targeted risk assessments and procurement optimization.

By utilizing AI-driven databases that screen millions of documents daily, businesses can customize risk metrics to align with their priorities, streamlining due diligence processes for financing, investment decisions, and supply chain management. 鈥淎I will help give us the capability of having much more information and knowledge about new suppliers,鈥� said a data compliance manager at a premium automotive manufacturer in the Corporate ESG report. 鈥淭his will help us shorten the procurement process, which in some cases is taking 14 to 15 months… but could be shortened to 3 to 4 months.鈥�

Automating social compliance audits 鈥擜I can automate, streamline, and scale the social audit process, allowing for data collection from a broader and more diverse sample group compared to traditional in-person interviews. This significantly reduces costs for the reporting company and its business partners but also minimizes biases associated with human subjectivity. Real-time data collection enables continuous monitoring of workplace conditions, ensuring swift detection and resolution of any non-compliance issues, resulting in improved supplier performances.

Revolutionizing compliance 鈥� GenAI tools have the potential to revolutionize the role of chief risk & compliance officers by offering chat-based responses to questions about regulatory requirements. These tools also can integrate into existing systems, and continuously monitor global regulatory databases to send automated alerts about updates or changes that might impact operations. This allows companies to prepare for various outcomes and develop strategies to mitigate risks effectively by automating the compliance management process, from updating product labels to maintaining accurate records.

Conclusion

The CSDDD represents a pivotal shift in corporate responsibility by demanding rigorous adherence to human rights and environmental standards. While challenges like supply chain complexity and regional compliance persist, innovative solutions such as AI-driven tools are empowering businesses to streamline due diligence and enhance ESG management.

By embracing these technologies, companies can not only navigate the complexities of the directive itself but also foster sustainable practices that safeguard their operations and reputation. As the CSDDD and CSRD work in harmony, these directives pave the way for a more accountable and transparent business landscape, setting a new standard for corporate sustainability.

You can find more on the challenges of corporate compliance here.

Given the scope of forced labor, governments, companies, consumers, and workers in mature markets play vital roles in alleviating human suffering, safeguarding human rights, and eliminating crimes of human exploitation. To collectively urge for action, highlighted the necessity of a multi-pronged approach to combat forced labor in global supply chains around the world. The study was led by , Senior Adviser of Social Impact and Human Rights at 成人VR视频.

Defining forced labor

Forced labor, as defined by the ILO, encompasses situations in which individuals are coerced into working through the abuse of vulnerability, isolation, deception, intimidation, and threats, and often includes physical and sexual violence, excessive overtime, abusive living conditions, withholding of wages, debt bondage, retention of identity documents, abusive working conditions, and restriction of movement.

In addition, a range of goods are produced with the use of forced labor. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor currently lists 159 goods from 78 countries on its forced labor list, including:

• • • agricultural goods such as sugar cane, cotton, coffee, tobacco, cattle, rice, and fish;
    • manufacturing goods including bricks, garments, textiles, footwear, carpets, and fireworks; and
    • mined or quarried goods including most commonly gold, coal, and diamonds.

Laws in mature markets aim to reduce forced labor

Laws to eliminate forced labor have been growing in jurisdictions around the world over the last decade. Most recently, Canada’s modern slavery law went into effect in early 2024 and requires certain entities to file annual reports on their efforts to identify, address, and prevent forced labor and child labor.

The United Kingdom passed in 2015 that required large businesses to publish an annual statement on their website about their efforts to prevent modern slavery in their businesses and supply chains.听The statement must include information about areas of risk, steps taken to address the risk, and training available to staff.

In addition, The European Union is taking multi-pronged approach to combatting forced labor by examining what goods within its borders are made with forced labor , and by passing mandated supply chain due diligence requirements effective in 2028. The objective of those new requirement is to compel companies to identify and address human rights impacts and potential violations in their operations, subsidiaries, and supply chains.

In the United States, The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which became effective in June 2022, prohibited goods that are mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang, China from being sold in the US. From June 2022 to October 2023, U.S. Customs has seized goods worth $2.096 billion due to violations of the UFLPA.

Corporate policies underscore good governance

According to the Dr. Jay Golden, Director of Syracuse University鈥檚 , which conducted the field study in Thailand and Malaysia, many companies had adopted policies to address forced labor. For example, the study found that corporations leveraged codes of conduct to place responsibility for mitigating forced labor among their suppliers, while others were utilizing audits as an enforcement mechanism. In the latter cases, an auditor physically attends a work site 鈥� anywhere from a farm or factory to an office 鈥� to assess the conditions on the ground.

Further, in a separate study, Sedex, a global network dedicated to identifying and eliminating forced labor cases, suggested that these tools do work, noting that found multiple indicators of forced labor.

One of the steps that could be employed more often, however, is conducting a human rights impact assessment to help identify actual and potential human rights violations across a company鈥檚 enterprise and value chain. Conducting this exercise enables management to identify the biggest gaps in a company鈥檚 operations and could help to effectively prioritize resources to address the most pressing areas of improvement.

Investors and consumers could do more

At the same time, corporate action can only go so far. The Dynamic Sustainability Lab study highlighted several factors that underscore how investors and consumers can step up. For example, US investors could play a critical role in influencing companies to examine forced labor in their supply chains through incentives to companies whose governance practices minimize suppliers鈥� risk of using forced labor.

Also, findings from the field survey indicated that consumers play an important role in influencing companies through purchasing decisions but noted that there is lack of consumer awareness of forced labor risks. Consumers committing to their values by declining to purchase goods tainted by forced labor and checking if sustainable products are free of forced labor are two recommended actions from the study. The latter is likely to improve as apps and tools 鈥� such as , an app from the U.S. Labor Department that tracks child and forced labor 鈥� begin to make it easier for consumers to do on-the-spot queries by product name, maker, or brand to see how sustainable that product is.

Ultimately, eradicating forced labor requires a collective effort from governments, companies, consumers, and workers to prioritize ethical practices, transparency, and accountability throughout corporations鈥� global supply chains. Indeed, raising awareness, implementing effective policies, and making informed choices 鈥� all suggested by the Dynamic Sustainability Lab鈥檚 field study 鈥� could make possible a future in which no individual is subjected to the horrors of forced labor and human trafficking.

You can find out more about here.