ESG and sustainability communication: how to avoid greenwashing

In recent years, sustainability has evolved from being a value-added feature to becoming a reputational, regulatory and business imperative. However, in an environment where all brands claim to have a positive impact, the real challenge is no longer simply implementing ESG practices, but communicating them with credibility.

A poorly executed ESG communication campaign not only loses its effectiveness but can also erode trust, trigger a reputational crisis or even lead to legal risks. Therefore, avoiding greenwashing is not merely an ethical issue in isolation, but a strategic decision.

This insight goes beyond theory: it highlights the most common pitfalls and sets out specific criteria for building a robust, coherent and verifiable ESG strategy.

What is ESG communication and why does it matter to a company?

ESG communication is the way in which a company explains, contextualises and gives meaning to its environmental, social and governance performance. It is not merely about communicating sustainable actions, but about translating the business’s impact into messages that are understandable, relevant and credible to each audience.

This is where strategic communication comes into play. It is not enough simply to publish messages; they must be planned, aligned and their impact on reputation and business measured. 

This is particularly relevant because, nowadays, ESG communication directly influences key decisions such as purchasing a product, investing in a company or attracting talent. Furthermore, the European regulatory landscape is raising the bar. It is no longer enough to have sustainable initiatives; you must be able to demonstrate and defend them.

What is greenwashing and why does it pose a reputational risk?

Greenwashing occurs when a company communicates sustainability in a misleading, exaggerated or insufficiently substantiated manner. It is often not the result of malicious intent, but rather of poor execution: oversimplification, prioritising the narrative, or a failure to properly align internal data.

The problem is that the impact is immediate. When a message doesn’t hold up, trust suffers. And in an environment where public discourse is constant, any inconsistency can quickly escalate in the media and on social media. Added to this is the regulatory factor, which is becoming increasingly decisive. European regulations have for two years now restricted the use of generic environmental claims unless they are properly backed up by concrete evidence and, preferably, validated by independent third parties. 

In this context, greenwashing ceases to be an isolated mistake and becomes a structural risk that directly affects reputation and business.

Why many brands fail to communicate sustainability

1. Misalignment between strategy, data and messaging. One of the main problems lies not in what is done, but in how it is organised internally. In many organisations, sustainability teams work with complex and rigorous indicators, whilst communications teams try to simplify them to make them more accessible. If, on top of that, sustainability is not integrated into the business strategy, the result is often an inconsistent narrative. Brands that get it right aren’t necessarily the ones with the most initiatives, but rather those that best align their actions with their messaging.
2. Vague promises, excessive storytelling and a lack of evidence. Another common mistake is relying too heavily on aspirational messages without sufficient backing. Phrases such as ‘sustainable brand’ or ‘committed to the planet’ are met with increasing scepticism if they are not accompanied by concrete data. In response to this, some companies have chosen to radically change the way they communicate. Patagonia, for example, not only shares its progress but also its limitations and contradictions, integrating transparency as part of its brand narrative. This shift reflects a clear trend: storytelling remains important, but it is no longer enough. Today, credibility depends on the ability to back up claims with verifiable information.

Principles for credible ESG communication

1. Transparency, consistency and traceability. A robust ESG strategy is based on three key principles: transparency, consistency and traceability. Transparency involves explaining not only achievements but also outstanding challenges. Consistency requires that all the organisation’s messages are aligned, regardless of the channel or spokesperson. Finally, traceability means being able to back up every claim with data, methodologies or certifications. A good example is IKEA, which details the origin of materials, climate targets and specific progress in its reports and public content, making it easier to understand and reducing ambiguity. All this information is available on its official sustainability portal.
2. Data, metrics and context to avoid empty claims. Data is the key factor in distinguishing genuine sustainability from greenwashing, but its value depends on context. A figure taken in isolation can be insufficient or misleading if not properly explained. That is why brands that communicate effectively not only provide results, but also help to interpret them. They explain the starting point, the period analysed and the scope of the improvements implemented. This level of detail not only improves clarity, but also reinforces trust and credibility.

How to build an ESG communication strategy without resorting to greenwashing

1. Narrative, audiences and channels. An effective ESG strategy is not based on a single message, but on the ability to adapt it to different audiences. Each audience has different expectations and requires varying levels of detail. Investors look for data and metrics, customers for clarity and tangible impact, and employees for a genuine connection to the company’s purpose. All of this necessitates working within a segmentation framework typical of strategic communication. Furthermore, in a fragmented environment, it is key to build a consistent presence across different channels, from the media to proprietary platforms or spokespersons.
2. Coordination between sustainability, communications and management. The quality of ESG communications depends directly on the level of internal coordination. When sustainability, communications and management work in alignment, messages gain in consistency, credibility and substance. This requires clear processes, access to reliable data and well-prepared spokespersons. In this context, ESG communication cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a broader approach to communication and PR, where corporate reputation is managed in an integrated and strategic manner across all the organisation’s touchpoints.

Final checklist for validating your company’s ESG reporting

Before publishing any ESG message, it is worth asking yourself a few key questions:

• Is this claim backed up by verifiable data?
• Is it specific enough, or could it be considered generic?
• Could we defend this information before a regulatory body or a journalist?
• Is the message aligned with the company’s ESG strategy?
• Does it include the necessary context to be properly understood?
• Is it consistent with the organisation’s other messages?

If any of these questions raise doubts, there is likely a risk of falling into greenwashing.

ESG communication has evolved from an exercise in visibility to one of credibility. Against a backdrop of increased regulation, information overload and more demanding audiences, the brands that truly stand out are not those that talk most about sustainability, but those that do so with the greatest rigour and consistency. Avoiding greenwashing does not mean communicating less, but communicating better: with data, context and a strategy aligned with the business, because in ESG, trust is not built on intention, but on evidence.

At Canela, we help organisations transform their ESG communication into a real asset of credibility. If you want to strengthen yours, let’s talk. 

Angy Morales is Account Director & ESG Specialist