How sustainability claims have become a frontline risk for PR teams
As scrutiny continues to intensify, sustainability claims have become a reputational risk for PR teams, not just a compliance issue, reshaping their role in how organisations communicate.
In conversations with clients and colleagues over the past few years, I have noticed a quiet but consequential shift in how sustainability claims are judged, and where the fallout now lands.
Not long ago, the risk of getting such claims wrong sat largely within legal and compliance functions. Statements were reviewed, caveated and approved. If they met regulatory requirements, they were considered fit for purpose.
That is no longer sufficient.
Sustainability communication now operates in a far more exposed environment. Claims are tested not only by regulators, but by journalists, campaigners, investors and increasingly well informed audiences. When something does not stand up, the response is swift and public.
Recent rulings by the UK’s regulators on sustainability claims illustrate how quickly messaging can be challenged when it lacks clarity or substantiation. What might once have been a technical issue is now a visible one.
And when that visibility escalates, it is PR teams who are drawn to the centre.
This is the critical shift. The risk has moved from being contained and procedural to being reputational and immediate.
PR as stewardship
For PR professionals, this changes the nature of the role. It is no longer enough to communicate sustainability initiatives clearly and persuasively. There is now an expectation, often implicit, that communications teams will also interrogate the strength of the claims themselves. Where evidence is partial, where language risks overstating progress, or where context is missing, those issues can no longer be passed over.
This is not a traditional communications function. It is closer to stewardship.
The difficulty is that sustainability remains a complex and evolving area. Organisations are under pressure to demonstrate progress, yet the data is not always complete, standards continue to develop, and the language itself is still being defined. In that environment, the boundary between a confident claim and an overstated one is not always clear.
At the same time, tolerance for ambiguity has diminished.
Some argue that this level of scrutiny risks discouraging organisations from communicating at all. There is evidence of that hesitation. Faced with the possibility of being challenged, some companies are choosing to say less, or to delay communication until they feel on firmer ground.
There is logic in that caution. But it is not without consequence.
Silence can create its own form of risk. When organisations under communicate, they leave a gap between what they are doing and what stakeholders are aware of. Over time, that gap can erode trust just as surely as overstatement.
PR teams therefore find themselves navigating a narrow path. On one side lies the risk of over-claiming. On the other, the risk of saying too little.
The most effective responses to this tension share a common feature. They begin earlier in the process.
How messages develop
Rather than treating sustainability communication as something applied at the end, PR teams are becoming more closely involved in shaping how messages are developed. That involves asking more disciplined questions. What is the evidence behind this statement? Would it withstand external scrutiny? Are we being clear about scope and limitation?
These are not simply matters of compliance. They are judgements about credibility.
This shift also redefines the value that PR can bring. At its best, the role is not to simplify complexity to the point of distortion, but to translate it with precision and restraint. That requires a degree of confidence, not only in the messaging, but in the decision to acknowledge where uncertainty remains.
That may result in more measured communication. It may also mean resisting the temptation to overstate progress in pursuit of a stronger headline.
For PR professionals, that is the underlying change. Sustainability communication is no longer a question of how well a message is expressed once it has been approved. It is increasingly about whether that message deserves to be expressed in the first place.
And when that judgement is called into question, it is reputation, not regulation, that is at stake.
Charlie Martin is the founder and CEO of the Anti-Greenwash Charter and truMRK, initiatives that help organisations strengthen the credibility of their sustainability communications. He also hosts The Responsible Edge podcast, where he speaks with leaders about how ethics, responsibility, and sustainability are reshaping business.
More thought leadership
Fake experts, real pressure: what PR and journalism need to fix now
Why effective photography is PR’s most valuable asset
The confidence gap in PR: why it's holding our industry back