Adapting to the New Era of Compliance: Breaking Through Resistance and Excuses

Across industries, there’s often a delay between identifying new issues and implementing corrective actions. In environmental compliance, these delays have historically spanned a decade or more. However, this dynamic is shifting rapidly. With the adoption of new frameworks, regulations are emerging at an unprecedented pace, driven by advances in technology and scientific tools. As a result, companies now face the challenge of managing increasingly complex compliance obligations—often involving thousands of requests.

This new regulatory era has arrived for businesses, and organizations must either adapt or risk becoming obsolete. Transparency and open communication are no longer optional. Rather, they are essential to surviving and ultimately thriving in this evolving landscape. Yet many companies claim that increased transparency presents risks to their operations. These excuses are becoming less relevant, however, as sustainability-minded businesses demonstrate that success lies in adapting to change rather than resisting it. Below, we address some of the most common objections to transparency in compliance—and explain why they no longer hold up.

1. Competitive Advantage

What we hear: “The certifications reflect proprietary information, and publicizing them could provide insights to competitors.”

While compliance statements may vary by company, they generally contain a few key elements: legal references, ownership details, and either company-wide or product-specific claims. While company-wide compliance should be the goal, it’s not always possible, and exemptions may be required. But it’s important to bear in mind that these exemptions are typically temporary, as regulations often encourage the development of safer alternatives to restricted substances.

The crux of this objection is, “If we demonstrate compliance, disclosing the substance might reveal proprietary information.” But the reality is that competitors are already working on solutions to meet compliance standards. As a result, those that put off efforts to achieve transparency risk being left behind, as proactive companies use compliance as a competitive advantage. Successful suppliers disclose relevant information early and show they are actively working on improvements—positioning themselves ahead of the curve rather than scrambling when stricter regulations arrive.

2. Customer and Supplier Segmentation

What we hear: “We prefer to share certifications only with select customers or partners on a need-to-know basis.”

This selective approach creates more problems than it solves. Without a clearly published compliance contact or the ability to respond quickly to inquiries, companies risk alienating customers and damaging their brand reputation. Compliance requirements are constantly evolving, and distributors or bulk buyers will inevitably need updated documentation. Companies that make this process difficult harm relationships and expose themselves to legal risks.

Customers are increasingly switching to suppliers that offer transparency and responsiveness. If access to certifications becomes contingent on new purchases or additional fees, clients may grow disillusioned and seek alternatives that better align with their own compliance needs. In this environment, trust and open communication are essential for long-term success. 

3. Scope or Coverage Limitations

What we hear: “This certification applies only to a specific business unit, and sharing it publicly could mislead stakeholders.”

Certifications should always be clear and specific about what they cover, and it is the company’s responsibility to ensure accuracy before and after publication. Regular reviews should be built into compliance programs to maintain the integrity of certifications. If a certification lacks clarity, it reflects poorly on the company and erodes customer trust. Suppliers who issue vague or incomplete certifications risk losing clients to competitors who offer a higher level of detail and transparency. The solution is not to withhold information but to develop clear, accurate certifications that specify the products, business units, or timeframes they apply to.

4. Cost and Effort Considerations

What we hear: “Maintaining certifications over time could become too resource-intensive.”

This objection signals a reluctance to meet legal obligations, which can quickly lead to loss of business. Many regulations require continuous auditing, updated documentation, and ongoing due diligence—time-intensive, often costly upkeep work that some organizations are resistant to. But deliberately opting to fall behind on these obligations exposes both the supplier and its clients to significant legal risks.

In today’s business environment, risk management and mitigation are priorities for leadership teams. Companies that openly admit they don’t intend to maintain compliance undermine trust and jeopardize key business relationships. The cost of compliance may be significant, but the cost of non-compliance—both in financial and reputational terms—is far greater.

5. Legal and Regulatory Sensitivities

What we hear: “We prefer to quietly maintain compliance rather than advertise it publicly.”

Discretion is understandable in some cases, particularly where regulatory reviews could be triggered. It is not, however, a sustainable long-term strategy. Taking a company at its word that their products are compliant is often not enough. Customers will still submit inquiries to confirm compliance status. Companies must offer accessible points of contact and respond promptly to requests.

Transparency is becoming the standard in compliance, with some industries already moving toward legal mandates for open communication. Organizations that embrace this shift early will build trust with customers and strengthen their market position. In contrast, companies that resist transparency risk signaling uncertainty and eroding confidence in their brand.

6. Changing Standards and Temporary Certifications

What we hear: “Standards evolve, and certifications may become outdated. To avoid confusion, we prefer not to publish them.”

Standards do evolve, but this is not a valid excuse for withholding information. Certifications should clearly state what they cover, along with dates and relevant legal references. If these details are provided, the risk of confusion is minimized. Clients expect transparency and accountability—and withholding information suggests a lack of commitment to compliance.

Regulations often require ongoing updates, and customers expect suppliers to maintain due diligence. Companies that fail to do so present legal risks to their clients, who may look elsewhere for more reliable partners. Maintaining accurate and up-to-date certifications signals a commitment to compliance and builds trust with stakeholders.

The Future of Compliance Is Transparency

Publishing compliance certifications builds trust and credibility with clients by demonstrating a commitment to regulatory obligations and any related future developments. Arguments against transparency are increasingly outdated, as the industry shifts toward openness and responsiveness.

While selectively sharing information with key stakeholders can provide control over messaging, companies must ensure they have the resources to meet demand and respond to inquiries. In today’s regulatory environment, transparency is not just a best practice—it’s becoming a business imperative. Organizations that embrace these changes will position themselves for success. Those that resist their impending obligations, on the other hand, will risk falling out of compliance, losing customers, and letting their market position slip away.