CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites


A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.


An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.


The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.


Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Those who know me and my work know that I advocate for avoiding the use of certain words – mainly “sustainability.” “Paradigm” is another word that should be avoided – nay, BANISHED – but that is a different matter. Anyway, it is my experience that “sustainability” has baggage that stems from past misguided, erroneous and overzealous attempts by sustainability professionals at making a business case for these initiatives. I am one of these folks I criticize here. 

With executive negative preconceptions of “sustainability,” a hidden uphill battle exists in getting management, executives and Board members on-board when using that terminology. We need to appreciate what resonates with our key audience (executives who approve programs/funding) rather than continuing to talk in our (sustainability professionals’) own language. That in itself shows a lack of integration of sustainability into “the business” by creating an artificial barrier. The goal should be real success, not philosophical wins.

So of course I was happy to read this piece in Fortune about Patagonia specifically choosing to avoid using the word “sustainable.” Their reasoning is different from mine – but it is thoroughly fascinating, refreshing and authentic. It could even become a model for other companies. Here’s why:

Patagonia avoids the word “sustainable” because, according to the article, “we aren’t entirely sure how to do this.” They openly acknowledge the difficulties they face in both in their own operations (such as increasing recycled content of their products) and in their supply chain (where they say “we are a minor player on this stage”). To tackle these challenges, they turn to their core values – “innovating and finding solutions from which we, and other businesses, can benefit.”

In my opinion, similar to the Ace & Tate announcement I blogged about not long ago, this authenticity is more likely to help stakeholders understand the company’s ESG goals and progress. It shows that leaders are really thinking hard about challenges and linking ESG to strategy and corporate values. Even more – this approach doesn’t cost a penny.

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Lawrence Heim has been practicing in the field of ESG management for almost 40 years. He began his career as a legal assistant in the Environmental Practice of Vinson & Elkins working for a partner who is nationally recognized and an adjunct professor of environmental law at the University of Texas Law School. He moved into technical environmental consulting with ENSR Consulting & Engineering at the height of environmental regulatory development, working across a range of disciplines. He was one… View Profile