What is future-proof sustainability communication?

Sustainability communication is undergoing a transformation. Tightening regulations, more critical consumer attitudes and growing expectations for ethical communication have fundamentally changed the operating landscape. How should companies navigate this transformation and what are we allowed to say about sustainability?

The European Union has set new requirements for sustainability communication. For example, the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition requires companies to provide more precise justifications for environmental claims in consumer communication and marketing. The directive, which will come into effect in Finland in 2026, bans vague terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “green” and “climate-friendly” unless they are supported by concrete and verifiable evidence. As a result, companies must also stop making carbon neutrality claims based on offsetting if the offsetting occurs outside the value chain of a product or service. 

Overall, the evolving regulations are forcing organisations to revise their communication strategies while also providing an opportunity to build trust with stakeholders, such as consumers. Finnish companies, too, have work to do in this area, with a chance to move towards not only more precise and fact-based, but also genuinely clearer communication. However, legislation is only a small piece of the puzzle.

Sustainability communication distant from the consumer’s reality

Miltton has conducted extensive research on consumer attitudes towards sustainability communication over the past few years. The research has focused on Finnish adults across the country.

According to Miltton’s 2024 study, as many as 85% of Finns believe that companies and brands communicate about sustainability the same way. Sustainability communication has undeniably become a realm of established clichés – every other company claims that “sustainability is at the core of our business” or that “production is responsible” without providing further explanation. In other words, there is plenty of room and a need to stand out. A total of 70% of Finns feel that companies and brands describe their sustainability efforts in a boring way. This observation invites us to consider whether the sustainability jargon could be simplified and made more appealing. Speaking of appeal – or the lack of it:  68% of Finns believe that companies and brands communicate about their sustainability efforts in a distancing way.

68% of Finns believe that companies and brands communicate about their sustainability efforts in a detached manner.

Perhaps the most striking finding from last year’s research is that 70% of Finnish consumers feel that companies and brands talk too little about their sustainability efforts. In a world saturated with sustainability clichés, this observation seems strange – sometimes it feels like corporate communication is all about sustainability talk. However, what may be essential here is to recognise the communication mismatch. Extravagant corporate-level sustainability claims may not resonate with the consumer’s reality or connect to actual instances of consumer decision-making. When companies talk about emissions targets or compliance with circular economy, the consumer may not necessarily understand the actual content of the message. 

Testing trust

The challenge of sustainability communication is further compounded by the fact that similarity, dullness, distance and the communication mismatch cannot be solved with creative marketing communications alone. The key indicator of success in sustainability communications is credibility, and the erosion of trust in a company’s claims is a significant risk for the entire brand.

In this regard, Finnish consumers are demanding – and also tired of companies’ sustainability claims. According to Miltton’s research, only 10% of Finns find companies’ own sustainability promises credible. This figure is surprisingly low, perhaps even concerning. For example, the claim “the product is carbon neutral” might seem tangible and verifiable. However, instead, over half of Finns (58%) consider the claim suspicious or feel indifferent towards it.

Only 10% of Finns find companies’ own sustainability promises credible.

Interestingly, according to the study, the most scepticism amongst consumers is stirred by conditional sustainability claims, where a company promises actions in exchange for a purchased service or product. Examples of such claims include “for every service contract signed, we will plant one tree” or “for every product sold, we will donate one euro to charity.”

The research results show that consumers value concrete evidence, such as transparent product labelling, when evaluating the sustainability of products or services during purchases. Domestic production continues to be a key factor in signalling sustainability, as it is easily understood. However, in the 2024 study, the credibility of domestic production as a measure of sustainability had declined slightly compared to 2023. One reason for this may have been human rights issues related to Thai berry pickers, which were discussed in the Finnish media around the time the study was conducted. 

Practical tools for future-proof sustainability communication

There are so many pitfalls in sustainability communication that, according to some studies, “greenhushing” is becoming more common amongst large companies. This refers to the tendency to avoid discussing sustainability, and environmental themes in particular, because it is so difficult to talk about them without facing stakeholder criticism.In recent years, for example, social media has seen influencers and activists growing tired of vague sustainability claims that could be interpreted as greenwashing or colourwashing. 

Finnish businesses do not need to choose greenhushing, and it is particularly concerning if companies that have genuinely invested in sustainability work choose to remain silent. It is still possible and necessary to communicate about sustainability, but it is also important to understand the regulations, as well as the pitfalls of colourwashing. A concrete checklist for sustainability communication is also helpful, serving as a reference point for communications.

Much has been written about colourwashing and greenwashing, with even academic literature available on the subject. One good practical guide is the Greenwashing Compass of the Consumers’ Union (link in Finnish). At Miltton, we closely follow the ongoing discussions about colourwashing concerning Finnish companies and, to summarise, Finnish companies often stumble into these colourwashing pitfalls.

• Vague statements: General claims without concrete evidence. These include statements about the environmental friendliness of products or the responsibility of business practices without readily available specifics or proof.
• Blurred scale: Emphasising minor actions in relation to the overall impact. Imagine a company with significant logistics emissions focusing its external communications primarily on employees commuting by bicycle. The scale becomes unclear, right? It is fine to share small sustainability actions, but their true impact must be described as part of the company’s overall environmental impact.
• Misleading visuals: Creating an appearance of responsibility through images and colours without a connection to the company’s actual activities. Examples of this include green leaf icons or stock photos of rainforests used on a company’s sustainability webpage, even though they have no relevance to the company’s business operations.
• Selective communications: Talking about positive achievements while bypassing negative and difficult topics.  

Once a company has ensured that the risk of colourwashing is not apparent in its communication, it is good to quickly revisit the quick sustainability communication checklist. The fundamental pillars of trust-building sustainability communication are:

1. Relevance: Focus on the topics that the business has a significant impact on and that are essential to the stakeholders.
2. Objectives and progress: Set targets and indicators for the most relevant sustainability aspects. The existence of a target in itself is not proof of responsibility; instead, open communications about progress in relation to the objectives build trust and provide a foundation of facts for the messages. 
3. Openness: Communicate about unfinished goals too, and do not hesitate to share setbacks. This is a way to build trust. This is especially true when a company communicates strongly about sustainability aspects that involve challenges. It is better to be open and share the information yourself than to wait for criticism.
4. Right scale: Make sure that statements are accurate and proportionate to the overall impact of the company. It is fine to talk about small sustainability actions as well, but they should be put into perspective.
5. Accuracy: Ensure that every sustainability claim is accurate. Does it apply to the company or a specific product? Does it apply to the entire value chain of a product or service, or only some part of it? Accuracy typically makes a claim more tangible and credible.
   

Depending on the sector and stakeholders, a company can add steps to the checklist mentioned above or modify the existing ones. This is a valuable exercise for both small and large companies. It also provides an opportunity to reflect on the language used in communications, such as whether high-level terms like “responsible production” are still being used, or if it is possible to offer something more concrete for consumers to connect with.It is also important to ensure that the company’s own staff and partners understand the sustainability communication principles the company has committed to. Practical tools can include training, documented sustainability communication principles and even joint brainstorming sessions with partners. However, this is an evolution and a shared learning process, and sustainability communication matters are rarely black and white. 

Although consumers are demanding and regulation is tightening, we at Miltton are pleased that Finnish consumers continue to think critically. In the midst of global political turbulence, this is reassuring and contributes to the green transition. Strong and accurate sustainability communication is also a genuine competitive advantage for Finnish companies. For the time being, it is still relatively easy to take the lead in this development – so the time to act is now!

Photo: Mikko Ryhänen