The 'sustainability' communication problem: when a word loses its meaning
- Veronika M
- May 29
- 4 min read
At some point in the last decade, "sustainability" became something companies say rather than something they do. It appears in mission statements, annual reports, product descriptions, and investor decks — often without any explanation of what it actually means for that specific company, in practice, right now.
I don't say this as a criticism of the companies using it. The intentions are usually genuine. The problem is the word itself has been stretched to cover so many things — from reducing packaging to community investment to carbon neutrality commitments — that it has become genuinely difficult for anyone outside the organisation to understand what a given company actually means when they use it. And often, it's unclear inside the organisation too.
This creates a communication problem that compounds over time. The vaguer your sustainability language, the harder it is to build trust with customers, attract aligned investors, or motivate employees around a shared purpose. It also carries increasing legal risk. The EU's Green Claims Directive, which came into force in 2024, requires companies to substantiate environmental claims with verifiable evidence before making them publicly. Broad statements like "we are sustainable" or "eco-friendly" without supporting data or recognised certification are no longer just weak communication — in Europe, they are becoming a compliance issue.
The three-pillar concept
Sustainability, as originally conceived, rests on three interconnected pillars: planet, people, and profit. The idea was that long-term business success depends on all three being considered together — that you can't genuinely sustain a business by thriving economically while depleting the environment or exploiting the people in your supply chain.
What's happened in practice is that the environmental dimension has come to dominate how most companies talk about sustainability, while the social and economic dimensions get much less airtime. This narrowing isn't necessarily intentional, but it's worth noticing — particularly for companies whose most meaningful impact is social, or whose sustainability story is as much about how they treat their people and partners as it is about their carbon footprint.
The richer and more honest version of a sustainability narrative usually involves all three dimensions, even if one is more prominent than the others.
What I see in practice
A significant part of my work involves helping companies develop their brand foundations — mission, vision, values, and the communication strategies that flow from them. Sustainability-focused organisations are often the most challenging clients in this area, and the most rewarding, precisely because the stakes feel higher to them.
A pattern I encounter regularly: a founder or leadership team who have built something genuinely good — a business model with real environmental or social merit — but whose external communication has drifted into the kind of language that makes it indistinguishable from companies doing far less. Phrases like "committed to a sustainable future" or "building a better world" appear everywhere and say nothing specific.
Working with a running apparel brand on their sustainability communication strategy, we spent considerable time to nail the language that described their actual approach — the specific materials choices they had made, the production partners they had chosen and why, the trade-offs they had consciously accepted. The result was the client facing commincation based on facts, without any decorations. It is interesting to note that this company doesnt call themself "sustainable" and never had this intetion, but some of their action fall into sustainability category and we made sure we highlight it appropriately.
The same dynamic comes up in mission and vision work. There's a real difference between "we transform today for tomorrow's sustainable future" — which sounds like sustainability but communicates nothing — and "we help businesses redesign their packaging to eliminate single-use plastic, making it easier for their customers to make sustainable choices." The second version is longer, more specific, and far more useful as a foundation for everything that follows.
Clarity as a strategic asset
One thing I've observed working with organisations across different sectors is that the companies with the clearest sustainability communication tend to have the clearest internal understanding of what they're actually trying to achieve.
The communication work and the strategic clarity work are not separate. When an organisation struggles to articulate its sustainability story in plain language, it's often a signal that the strategy itself needs sharpening. The external communication problem is a symptom.
This is why I'd push back gently on the idea that better sustainability communication is primarily a marketing challenge. Bringing in a copywriter to make vague commitments sound more polished rarely solves the underlying issue. The more durable fix is to get genuinely specific about what you're doing, why, and how you measure it — and then let the communication reflect that specificity rather than paper over its absence.
A practical starting point
If you're working on how your organisation communicates sustainability, a useful exercise is to take your current language and ask: could any company in our sector say this? If the answer is yes, it needs more work.
My practical advice — especially in the current European regulatory context — is to be cautious with the word "sustainable" as a standalone claim, and to lead instead with what you can actually demonstrate. "We reduced our use of virgin materials by 40% over two years" says something real. "We are a sustainable company" says nothing verifiable, and under the Green Claims Directive, it may say something you can't defend.
This doesn't mean avoiding the topic. It means anchoring your communication in specific actions, measurable progress, and honest acknowledgement of where you are versus where you're headed. Companies that communicate this way — sharing what they've changed, what they're still working on, and what they're measuring — tend to build more durable credibility than those making broad claims backed by nothing specific.
The word "sustainability" still carries meaning and intention worth claiming, when it's earned. The question worth asking regularly is whether your communication is helping people understand what that actually looks like in your business, or whether it's asking them to take your word for it.
Veronika Marfina is a brand strategist and business innovation consultant working with sustainability-focused companies across Europe. She helps founders and leadership teams develop brands, communication strategies, and business models that grow.
Connect on LinkedIn or get in touch to explore working together.
Comments