Everything you learned about communications is wrong when it comes to sustainability

Hyperbole. Metaphors. Vague and unbacked product benefits. Promises of “the best” and “the greatest ever.” All of that may be okay in the traditional marketing world, but it’ll land you in a heap of trouble in sustainability communications, where everybody from NGOs to government agencies scrutinize every … single … word.    

And we’re not talking about a proverbial slap on the wrist here. The price tag of making a communications blunder and committing an act of greenwashing is steep. In recent years, DWS had to pay the SEC $25 million in penalties for greenwashing. Kohl’s and Walmart paid $5.5 million in combined penalties for using vague and misleading claims. Oatly paid investors $9 million for inflating its stock prices with false sustainability claims. And “Dieselgate” cost Volkswagen a whopping $35 million in fines and settlements for installing software that recorded lower than actual GHG emissions. On top of that, those lawsuits and negative PR seep into the court of public opinion, eroding trust and brand affinity and undermining the good sustainability work that’s actually being done. 

So, with all due respect to traditional advertising approaches (which have had great success marketing products and services to consumers in the past), sustainability communications is an entirely different ball game. And it’s a ball game with constantly changing rules due to: 

• Ever-evolving sustainability language (that resonates or alienates)
• Ever-evolving consumer knowledge
• Ever-evolving consumer care-abouts
• Ever-evolving greenwashing boundaries
• Ever-evolving laws and regulations
• Ever-evolving infrastructure (e.g., what, where, and how to recycle)

Before you resign yourself to thinking, “Why communicate at all when the risk is so high?” consider our recent consumer research: 90% of consumers globally say a company’s environmental reputation impacts their purchasing decisions.

So, people not only care about the sustainability work your company is doing, but they’re purchasing accordingly. In fact, our research reveals 44% can name (unaided) a time when they purchased — or didn’t purchase — because of the environmental record of the manufacturer. 

All of which means: Not communicating is not an option.  

So, what’s a company to do? Our latest free report digs into the nuances of sustainability communications and how you can make sure you’re communicating the right way. It contains new greenwashing insights and identifies consumers who consider themselves good at spotting greenwashing. We asked them to tell us what makes them think a product’s claim is greenwashing and how it makes them feel about the companies behind the greenwashing claims. We also explore the dangers of making assumptions about your audience’s views on ESG issues — it may not be what you think. 

It pains us to see good work that companies are doing going underleveraged due to fear of saying the wrong things. Companies need to control the sustainability and ESG narrative surrounding them or risk others controlling it. To do that, you have to tell your story. Our new report will help you do that with confidence.