Aiming to ‘lead in sustainability’ sets the bar lower than you think

The GRI’s outgoing chief policy officer, Peter Paul Van De Wijs, explains why corporate actions shouldn’t be benchmarked against peers’

Walk into almost any C-suite and you will hear it: “We want to be the leader.”

It sounds compelling. Business has long been measured in terms of leadership—market leaders, industry leaders, thought leaders. But when it comes to sustainability, “being the leader” is not a vision. It is, at best, an outcome.

In today’s polarised climate, even sustainability leadership itself is contested. Some see it as ideological overreach; others dismiss it as greenwashing. Simply aspiring to lead is inadequate—and risks being misunderstood, politicised, or ignored.

Leadership is a relative position

The flaw is that leadership is a comparative position, not a destination. A company claiming to be a ‘leader in ethics’ is not declaring that it is fully ethical. It is only saying it performs better than its peers. The bar is set externally, shifting as competitors advance or retreat.

That makes leadership a poor strategic objective. It is not ambitious enough (you only need to outpace rivals), not directional (it says nothing about the future you want to build), and not controllable (your status depends on others).

This became clear to me while preparing a corporate responsibility presentation for a company in the construction industry. The debate inside the company centred on whether it should be ‘the leader’ in sustainability. Yet the more compelling formulation was different: to be recognised for advancing a more ethical construction industry. That distinction mattered. The first was competitive positioning; the second was about shaping the future of the sector.

Recognition helps, but it’s still not a goal

Being recognised as a leader by stakeholders is more meaningful. Recognition validates that actions are credible and impactful. It builds trust, inspires employees, and can raise standards across an industry.

But recognition is still an after-the-fact indicator. It shows you are on the right path, but it does not define the path itself.

What matters is vision

As John Elkington already in 2016 argued in his report Breakthrough Business Models for the Business and Sustainable Development Commission, meeting systemic global challenges requires an exponential mindset – one that goes beyond incrementalism to drive transformative, vision-led change.

This has never been more relevant. Governments are divided, public trust is fragile, and companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire of culture wars over ESG. In such a context, being the leader is too small an aspiration.

What matters is vision: a clear articulation of the future you want to help create. Vision is not dependent on competitors. It provides clarity in uncertainty, motivates people with purpose, and offers resilience against shifting political narratives.

From Leadership to Future-Shaping Vision

The most credible companies no longer declare that they want to be the leader in sustainability. Instead, they commit to ambitions such as:

· Eliminating carbon from construction. Lendlease has pledged net-zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025 and absolute zero, without offsets, by 2040. It is one of the sector’s boldest commitments.

· Designing 100% circular products. IKEA has committed to being a fully circular business by 2030, designing only with renewable or recycled materials and expanding reuse systems.

· Creating workplaces where employees thrive. Cisco promotes a ‘conscious culture’ that emphasises inclusion, equity, and employee well-being, consistently ranking as a top employer.

These examples illustrate how vision translates into bold commitments.

Yet they also highlight a critical reality: there is often a gap between stated ambition and real-world progress. Lendlease must prove its rapid net-zero trajectory is achievable. IKEA continues to be questioned about its wood sourcing and how that can undermine its circularity promise. Cisco’s inclusive culture efforts have been challenged by mass layoffs and internal tensions.

Such contradictions do not invalidate the vision, but they underline the importance of accountability and transparency in closing the ambition–reality gap.

Conclusion

Executives should stop asking, “How do we lead in sustainability?” and instead ask, “What future do we want to create, and how will we get there—even when leadership itself is contested?”

Peter Paul Van De Wijs is the outgoing chief policy officer at the Global Reporting Initiative.