The United States Business Council Sustainable Development

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760424525
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Missouri City, TX, USA
Phone
5136467277
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$392,105
Expenses
$268,733
Assets
$235,422
Liabilities
$279,488

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW MANGAN (ADVISOR): $84,001 total reported compensation
  • CLAUDE L GRIFFIN (EXECUTIVE DI): $30,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promotion of sustainable development in the united states.

What it reported doing in 2025

Water synergy project: since 2012 the us bcsd has worked with 23 diverse companies in the lower Mississippi river basin to address a range of water supply, water quality, stormwater and coastal resiliency risks. Companies are working together to address water quality concerns through design of a water quality trading program, and have explored new options for wetlands restoration through changes in water management. Projects and policy recommendations have emerged that have been greeted with high interest by state and local agencies, academia, and ngos. This multi-sector teaming demonstrates that there is considerable regional interest in using the speed and efficiency of market-based institutions to seek out ways of converting water problems into economic opportunities, and to developing a collective capacity for conserving watershed systems as both private and public goods.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.4%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 34.1%; rating input score 34
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 31.5%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.19; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.4% of revenue deployed · 34.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.