In today’s regulatory and reputational environment, the way that companies talk about sustainability attracts as much scrutiny as their actions.
Nowhere is this more acute than in the beverage alcohol industry, where operational success relies on agriculture, water, energy, packaging and labour – all encompassed by the principles of ESG (environmental, social and governance). This intrinsic dependency increases the pressure on companies to clearly – and credibly – communicate their environmental and human impact. Internally, it’s moved the conversation beyond product marketing to a C-suite-level, critical business issue.
But, as the ESG agenda matures, so too have the expectations of key stakeholders, including consumers, media, trading partners and investors. And this shift has changed the role that communication plays.
The last decade has been dominated by businesses making big and bold sustainability commitments, from net-zero targets to declarations of embracing circular systems. While these narratives might have felt easy to control at the time, the task has become much harder amid missed targets and ditched pledges.
The reality is that some companies have found living up to their well-intentioned, press-released promises difficult to fulfil.
There’s a multitude of reasons why. In some cases, strategic blind spots were missed in the planning stages, leading to over-ambitious and unrealistic goals that weren’t corrected during implementation. Among other obstacles, you could also add poor data and a lack of science-based frameworks, along with cost miscalculations and under-equipped teams.
At the same time, runaway inflation across global markets, and an unstable geopolitical landscape have brought their own pressures to bear.
A common outcome has been corporate climb-down, with the complexity of delivery deemed too challenging, resulting in high-profile row-backs and reputational fallout. But, as ESG enters a new era, failure alone is not always the issue. It’s how companies move forward and how they explain their workings.
Companies that have been forced to justify U-turns know the dangers of consumer scepticism creeping in, along with loyalty-erosion. Although owning up to sustainability lows can feel difficult, it’s not impossible.
Missed targets don’t have to mean abandoning ambitions; indeed, it’s a vital moment to recalibrate. This isn’t a time to retreat or water down targets. Instead, priority should be given to revising goals so that they are still stretching, and are backed by a data-led, science-based roadmap. Third-party validations can also bring greater credibility and help keep progress on track.
As ever, transparent communication – not PR spin – is key. Being open about what went wrong with one’s initial plans and the remedies taken to rectify those problems can win back trust and even elevate a company’s leadership stance.
That said, it’s far better to be more considered in explaining the promises and pledges being made from the outset, rather than having to correct them later, with the associated potential damage. Being precise, not performative, should be a guiding principle – with a focus on clear metrics and baselines.
Messaging that overstates and over-promises is a growing area of risk. The woolly ESG language that might have been acceptable in the past now exposes companies to greenwashing accusations and governments are watching. Ambitious claims are being tackled head-on through legislation with the prospect of significant fines for those flouting the law.
Good communication also represents a commercial opportunity, waiting to be grasped. In a crowded market, the brands that speak clearly and credibly about what they’re doing – and not just what they hope to do – stand out. They earn trust by showing progress, not perfection. And consumers are increasingly able to tell the difference.
Getting this right means recognising that language is not the soft edge of sustainability, it’s the structure that holds it up.
As ESG continues to evolve, sustainability reporting and communication will only become more regulated, more complex and more visible. Those who adapt their language to ensure it’s rooted in accuracy, honesty, and material relevance, will be ahead of the curve.
Those who don’t, risk not only being misunderstood, but also held to account in ways they may not be prepared for or expecting.
