Ga naar de hoofdinhoud
From compliance to culture: why the two are inseparable
Many organizations treat compliance and culture as sequential steps in the sustainability journey – compliance first, culture later, or vice versa. But culture built without compliance intelligence lacks structure, and compliance without cultural embedding lacks impact. The two are inseparable.
Quick summary
- Speaking at ESG Congress 2026 in Berlin, Enhesa’s Paula Galbiatti Silveira argued that compliance and sustainability culture are not sequential stages but permanently interconnected forces that strengthen each other.
- Internal resistance to ESG, she suggested, is rarely a values problem. It is structural, rooted in ad hoc compliance processes and unclear accountability across functions like HR, procurement and legal.
- Organizations that use compliance as continuous intelligence, not just a reporting output, are better placed to move sustainability from obligation to genuine ownership across the business.
There is a persistent assumption in many organizations that compliance and sustainability culture sit at opposite ends of the same journey. Many organizations initially establish their sustainability strategies and targets as corporate value, driving actions based on the company’s risks and opportunities, and not because ‘the law mandates it’. In other organizations, compliance comes first — the legal minimum, the checklist, the audit trail — and culture comes later, once leadership has moved beyond the basics. According to Paula Galbiatti Silveira, Expert Services Manager at Enhesa, there is no right or wrong place to start. However, no matter where companies are in their sustainability journey, compliance and culture shouldn’t be seen as opposites, but complementary steps in the same journey.
Speaking at the ESG Congress 2026 in Berlin, Paula made the case that the organizations genuinely embedding sustainability into how they operate are not doing so by moving away from compliance. Compliance is a must; and companies can use their compliance structure to also drive cultural change and strategic decision-making. Compliance is an enabler, not a constraint
Compliance as a cultural force
A strong sustainability culture cannot be built without understanding applicable regulations and obligations, where the organization stands against them, and what is coming next. For companies operating across dozens of jurisdictions, simply identifying applicable requirements is already a complex task that involves a process, collaboration between different teams, and a system in place — and it must be continuous rather than periodic.
What is often underestimated is that compliance itself is a cultural force. Law not only responds to societal expectations but actively drives behavioral change. Sustainability regulatory developments are also a two-way street: investor demand for reliable ESG data and society’s urge for more sustainable production processes and products have produced regulatory responses that are now reshaping internal governance across industries, while mandatory sustainability requirements are pushing organizations towards decarbonization and social due diligence in their value chain.
Compliance is not a ‘check-the-box’ exercise. It is a structured process that touches the entire organization — legal, EHS, procurement, HR — and requires each team to see regulatory risk from its own angle but sharing the same corporate strategy and goal.
Overcoming internal resistance to sustainability
Internal resistance to sustainability is commonly framed as a culture problem. Evidence from working across client organizations suggests that the roots are usually more structural. Sustainability teams consistently describe two compounding challenges: insufficient internal capacity to assess compliance across jurisdictions; and difficulty engaging other functions in what feels like a technical, abstract process.
When compliance is ad hoc and dependent on individual expertise rather than embedded process, it is experienced as an additional burden. And burdens generate resistance — not because people oppose ESG objectives, but because the process feels disconnected from their day-to-day work.
What changes this is structure: clear accountability for regulatory monitoring, task management processes that distribute responsibility across functions, and reliable regulatory intelligence that different teams can actually use. When the process is embedded in normal workflows, resistance gives way to ownership.
Scaling sustainability compliance without losing local relevance
For multinationals, consistency in sustainability compliance is often framed as a standardization challenge. Yet this is not achieved by applying identical rules everywhere; it comes from having a consistent process for managing regulatory change, with centralized strategic oversight and local execution. This is where sustainability compliance programs either hold together or fragment.
Horizon scanning is essential to this model. Organizations that wait for regulatory change to arrive before assessing its impact are perpetually reactive. Those that invest in anticipating change can prioritize risks and integrate regulatory intelligence into strategic planning rather than treating it as a compliance afterthought.
By using compliance intelligence as a foundation, organizations can identify priorities and use that information to shape — not just satisfy — their sustainability strategy.
The strategic value of sustainability compliance
Companies often have a limited view of compliance in sustainability, linked to, or limited to, sustainability reports. However, sustainability compliance means the whole set of environmental, social and governance regulations that apply to the organization – across its operations, value chain, and products. Compliance and monitoring of most of these regulations are often managed by multiple teams – HR, procurement, product stewardship, legal, finance, among others – with the sustainability team acting as an interinstitutional enabler, coordinating processes that check for sustainability regulations across the business and ensuring a comprehensive and strategic approach.
The most persistent misconception is that sustainability compliance is primarily about reporting. This mischaracterizes both what compliance requires and what it can enable. Compliance is proactive and continuous: identifying requirements, assessing current status, anticipating change, and translating regulatory intelligence into operational decisions.
Organizations that treat compliance as a reporting output miss this entirely. They produce disclosures that accurately reflect their current state without using the compliance process to improve it. True compliance intelligence drives action, not just documentation.
From obligation to ownership
The gap between what companies say about sustainability and what they do is, at its core, a structural problem as much as a cultural one. Closing it requires starting with the questions compliance demands: what does the law require of us, across every jurisdiction we operate in, and where do we stand?
Answering those questions does not constrain sustainability ambition. It grounds it in evidence, in accountability, and in the kind of credibility that makes genuine cultural change possible. Sustainability creates lasting value when it moves from obligation to ownership. Compliance intelligence is what makes that transition coherent.
