Sustain South Carolina Intersection of Commerce and Conservation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833354091
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Columbia, SC, USA
Phone
8032193110
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,113,749
Expenses
$992,524
Assets
$908,616
Liabilities
$293,307

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Leslie Skardon (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Leslie Skardon (CEO): $163,750 total reported compensation
  • Cynthia Davis (Senior VP Commerce): $122,870 total reported compensation
  • Kristen Gunter (Senior VP Conservation): $115,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are connecting the sustainability goals of business in South Carolina with local solutions for the benefit of our economy, environment, and people.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sustain SC exists to build and grow a more sustainable future for South Carolina at the intersection of commerce and conservation. To do this, Sustain SC works with businesses to help them meet their sustainability goals.Sustain SC focuses on four pillars: grow our economy through economic development and recruitment; help organizations flourish in South Carolina; assist municipalities in improving resiliency; and educate decision makers on the economic importance of sustainability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 50.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 98.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $982K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.