Problem 5. Unassigned responsibility
Addressing what is missing, how requirements are formulated, where they are placed, and whether they are feasible and realtistic does not guarantee that they will work in practice. Sustainability-related requirements may be present, properly placed, and capable of guiding action – yet still fail if responsibility for their implementation is unclear.
Unclear ownership is one of the most common reasons why otherwise well-designed requirements fail in everyday operations. Responsibility may be unassigned, fragmented, or implicitly assumed rather than clearly defined.
This challenge operates at two levels:
Contract and system level: who is responsible for designing and maintaining the contract architecture – how sustainability-related requirements are structured, aligned, connected, and managed across the contract stack and organisational functions;
Operational and execution level: who is responsible for carrying out, verifying, monitoring, and following up specific requirements.
Sustainability-related requirements may be formally assigned, but no one may be clearly responsible for ensuring that they are understood, implemented, monitored, and followed up. As a result, they may remain fragmented across documents and functions.
What is everyone’s responsibility can easily become no one’s responsibility.
Clear ownership is therefore a critical condition for translating sustainability-related content into action.
Diagnostic exercise: Is responsibility clearly assigned?
Imagine you are a buyer who has set out the following requirements for the supplier. Consider who is responsible for ensuring that the requirement is implemented.
Clause 1:
“The supplier shall conduct appropriate due diligence in its operations.”
Who is responsible on the buyer’s side for ensuring that this requirement is implemented?
- Procurement
- Supplier management
- Legal
- Compliance
- Quality / Technical
- Sustainability
- Unclear
Clause 2:
“The supplier and its products shall comply with all applicable laws.”
Who is responsible on the buyer’s side for ensuring that this requirement is implemented?
- Procurement
- Supplier management
- Legal
- Compliance
- Quality / Technical
- Sustainability
- Unclear
The same exercise can also be approached from the supplier’s perspective:
Who is responsible on the supplier’s side for ensuring that this requirement is implemented?
- Management
- Sales / Account management
- Procurement / Sourcing
- Production / Operations
- Legal / Compliance
- Quality / Technical
- Sustainability
- Unclear
In these examples, the clause appears clear and assigns an obligation to the supplier. Yet, it remains unclear
- who ensures the supplier understands what is required,
- who verifies that it is carried out, and
- what key terms such as “appropriate due diligence” or “comply with all applicable laws” actually mean.
This illustrates the gap at the level of ownership: the supplier has the obligation, but responsibility for ensuring implementation, monitoring, and follow-up remains unclear. At the same time, the issue often extends beyond individual clauses to the contract and process level. Responsibility for ensuring that sustainability-related requirements are consistently defined, aligned across documents, and supported by operational processes may be unclear.
Ownership and responsibility need to be carefully considered – even when not explicitly written into the contract.
Even well-formulated and well-placed requirements fail if no one owns their implementation. Assigning responsibility is therefore essential. However, it is not sufficient.
The next problem focuses on a related but different question: not who is responsible, but whether contracts and clauses enable those responsible to act.
Problem 6: Not embedded in practice next page