How to Communicate Credibly About Sustainability

Navigate regulations, avoid greenwashing, and build stakeholder trust

The pressure to communicate about sustainability has never been greater—or more fraught. Consumers expect environmental action, investors demand ESG transparency, and regulators are watching every word. Yet saying too much can land you in court, while saying nothing risks being left behind.

The stakes are real. Keurig paid $10 million to settle claims that it misled consumers about K-Cup recyclability. The SEC separately fined the company $1.5 million for inaccurate statements in investor disclosures. Meanwhile, New York’s Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement with JBS over unsubstantiated “net zero by 2040” claims the beef producer had no viable plan to achieve.

The space between greenhushing—saying nothing—and greenwashing—overstating your impact—has narrowed considerably. Here’s how to navigate it.

AT-A-GLANCE
  • Greenwashing regulations are tightening rapidly: State laws now impose daily penalties, and litigation is succeeding more often in court.
  • Specificity protects you: Support claims with data, establish baselines, and account for your full value chain.
  • Authenticity beats perfection: Sharing both progress and challenges builds more trust than claims of flawless sustainability performance.

The Regulatory Landscape Is Tightening

While the FTC continues revising its Green Guides (last updated in 2012), states aren’t waiting. California’s AB 1305, effective January 2024, requires detailed disclosure for any net-zero or carbon neutrality claims made in the state, with penalties reaching $2,500 per day. New York and Washington have strengthened their green marketing laws, and more states will likely follow.

The litigation trends are equally telling. Recent analysis shows that 8 out of 11 greenwashing class actions have survived motions to dismiss—a signal that courts take these claims seriously. This isn’t abstract regulatory risk. It’s immediate financial and reputational exposure.

Greenwashing Risks Go Beyond Fines

The most obvious risk is financial. But reputational damage often costs more. Once you break trust, rebuilding takes years. Investors increasingly scrutinize environmental claims in securities filings. And litigation drains resources, requiring extensive documentation, legal defense, and management attention diverted from actual sustainability work.

Fear of greenwashing accusations push companies toward silence. Yet saying nothing may prove more damaging—stakeholders need to understand your progress and challenges. The answer isn’t less communication; it’s more precise communication.

What Actually is Greenwashing?

Understanding what regulators and courts flag as problematic helps you steer clear of trouble:

Vague claims without evidence. Terms like “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “sustainable” used without specific supporting data invite scrutiny.

Cherry-picking data. Highlighting positive results while ignoring negative impacts creates a misleading picture. 

Overstating small initiatives. Pilot programs and limited efforts presented as company-wide achievements mislead stakeholders about actual progress and scale.

Unqualified carbon claims. Carbon neutral, net zero, and similar statements face intense scrutiny, particularly when relying heavily on offsets rather than actual emissions reductions.

Ignoring supply chains. Claims must account for broader impacts. Scope 3 emissions and supply chain activities increasingly matter in evaluating credibility.

The Credibility Principles

Most greenwashing isn’t intentional. It happens when teams overstate progress or use imprecise language. The solution: build guardrails that keep your messaging accurate.

IOP follows these principles when creating sustainability communications:

DOs: Build Credible Communications

  1. Be specific, not sweeping.
    Replace vague language with concrete, measurable, verifiable claims. Specificity protects you and helps stakeholders understand what you’ve achieved.
  2. Show your work.
    Support every claim with the underlying data and methodology. How did you measure? What standards did you use? What boundaries did you set? Third-party verification has become best practice and provides independent credibility.
  3. Establish clear baselines.
    Any comparison—”reduced by,” “better than” “improved”—requires a reference point. Specify your baseline year, measurement, and scope.
  4. Acknowledge the journey.
    Transparency about challenges builds more trust than claims of perfection. Share both progress and setbacks.
  5. Align all communications.
    Ensure consistency across communications, and across your company. Inconsistencies raise red flags.

DON’Ts: Common Greenwashing Pitfalls

  1. Don’t use vague environmental terms without context.
    Avoid “sustainable”, “green”, or “eco-friendly” claims without proof. If you use these terms, provide concrete details.
  2. Don’t overstate.
    Scale matters. Be proportional in how you discuss efforts and clear about what percentage of your business any initiative actually covers.
  3. Don’t make unqualified carbon claims.
    Carbon neutral and net zero statements face scrutiny, especially when achieved through offsets. Disclose your offsets and verification methods. Emphasize actual emissions reductions first.
  4. Don’t ignore your supply chain.
    Your environmental footprint extends beyond your direct operations. Account for broader value chain activities in your claims.

Consumer vs. Corporate Claims: Know the Difference

Product-level claims face strict standards under consumer protection laws and FTC guidelines. Claims like “recyclable” or “carbon neutral” must be substantiated and not misleading.

Corporate disclosures carry equally serious obligations. Securities laws prohibit material misstatements. If you tell investors your products are recyclable while knowing recyclers reject them, that’s a violation. Sustainability goals in SEC filings must have reasonable basis.

Both contexts demand accuracy and substantiation, but legal frameworks differ. When Vale published misleading statements about dam safety in its sustainability reports, knowing risks existed, the SEC charged it with securities violations. Vale paid $55.9 million to settle. 

Getting Sustainability Communication Right

The best defense against greenwashing isn’t saying less—it’s being more precise. Your communications should reflect actual performance, supported by data and framed honestly. When you’ve made progress, say so. When you face obstacles, explain how you’re addressing them.

Frame sustainability as business strategy, not PR. Companies doing genuine work have nothing to hide. Those treating sustainability communications as marketing will increasingly face regulators, lawyers, and skeptical stakeholders. Companies establishing credible, substantiated communications practices now position themselves well as standards evolve.

The Takeaway

Navigating sustainability communications requires balancing transparency with accuracy—authenticity beats aspiration. The rules are tightening and risks are real. But companies committed to telling truthful stories, backed by data and sharing both successes and challenges, build lasting trust.

Ideas On Purpose Can Help

Sustainability communications require both strategic expertise and deep understanding of what works in practice. We help companies craft authentic messages that showcase real progress while keeping you on the right side of regulations. And help you get your whole organization aligned. Whether you’re developing your first sustainability report, refining ongoing communications, or navigating social media, we have the experience to help you tell your story credibly.

Email us to discuss how we can help position your sustainability work for maximum impact and minimum risk.