Conspicuous absences: why consistency is key for ESG and sustainability reports
Will a ‘now you see me, now you don’t’ approach to ESG and sustainability reports damage your brand? Chris Bowman, co-head of ESG at Aspectus Group, thinks it just might.
I have a toddler. Once upon a time, that toddler was content to play with Hotwheels in the morning. Then, one particularly bleary-eyed five am (I also have a baby), I let him watch TV instead. Now the Hotwheels aren’t good enough. Forget the cars, the first question of the day isn’t ‘how are you, daddy?’ or ‘did you sleep well?’, it’s: ‘can I watch TV?’
I don’t say this to invite judgement on my parenting (though fill your boots if you must), but to point out that once expectations are raised, they are not easily lowered; once something is offered, its absence is conspicuous when withdrawn. Even if it didn’t seem a big deal in the first place.
(At least that’s the case with toddlers. I leave it to the reader to consider how many traits their audiences do or do not share with preschoolers.)
Hence why it’s so aggravating to see corporate websites with three or four years in a row of neatly packaged and proudly published ESG and sustainability reports, only for the last edition to be for financial year 22/23.
Hold the line
I know why. ESG has taken a kicking in the political sphere and the press. Key bodies such as the SEC and EU are watering down or rolling back relevant regulations. Given that these reports take up time and money that could be spent elsewhere, it makes sense to redeploy resources, right?
Wrong.
Because the absence of a message is itself a message.
What you say when you stop speaking about sustainability
Think about it a moment; put yourself in your audience’s shoes. This company has spent years telling you how integral ESG and/or sustainability was to its business and how diligently it took its responsibility to people and the planet. Now… only tumbleweed.
What do you conclude?
- They were lying to you all along.
- They meant it at the time, but were willing to abandon these sincerely held values and strategically critical initiatives the moment the wind changed.
- They really really meant it, honest. They just happened to change their mind for valid, compelling and unrelated reasons just as it became less fashionable. Scout’s honor.
Of the above, only C) is an acceptable option, but it’s scarcely a credible one. If it’s A), is that a company you want to trust with your business, your investment, your career? If it’s B), how much can you believe the company will stay the course for any other strategy, initiative or value – a company that will turn on a dime may turn on you.
Because, ultimately, whatever their views on ESG and sustainability specifically, your stakeholders want to engage with businesses which follow through on what they tell them. Even if they don’t care about scope 3 emissions or diversity, equity and inclusion, promises kept are more valuable than commitments broken.
Reframe the issue
If you’re a marketer or comms professional who broadly agrees with the above but knows that those giving the orders have pulled the purse strings shut on sustainability, then the argument needs reframing.
Premise 1: Our brand is a valuable asset to our company that we should protect.
+
Premise 2: Breaking promises, failing to meet expectations and appearing flaky are damaging to a brand.
+
Premise 3: Abruptly abandoning ESG and sustainability reporting with no explanation breaks an implicit promise, confounds expectations and makes us look flaky.
=
Conclusion: We should not abruptly abandon ESG and sustainability reporting
Minimum viable continuity
Even if this argument is accepted, however, resources are finite and if priorities have shifted, then a way must be found to continue in a leaner fashion. The question becomes: how can we aim for minimum viable continuity?
Here are some broadbrush approaches for doing so:
Rinse and repeat: Use previous years as a template and update as little as possible. Plug in the new numbers, detail the new achievements and re-write the introduction and/or foreword to reflect your new strategic priorities. No new sections, no new design assets.
Compliance first: Map out which, if any, relevant regulations apply to your company and require reporting. Compile a single report which covers what is mandatory and omits what is not. Explain the approach and structure in the introduction.
Mea culpa: Excuse yourself from reporting but do so with an explanatory message – tie off the loose threads. You may disappoint stakeholders, but you will at least appear intentional and decisive. If the lack of reporting is a short-term aberration say so, but make sure you follow through in future.
Remember: it’s not just the report
The presence and then absence of a report may be the most obvious signal to audiences regarding your changing ESG and sustainability commitments, but it’s not the only one.
Throughout your marketing collateral and communications, if you’ve spent years talking about these things and suddenly stop, it’s jarring. By all means, adjust and update the message, but don’t delete it.
Silence is loud when it’s sudden.
Want to discuss your ESG comms strategy? We’re all ears.
Key takeaways
Why are companies deprioritising ESG and sustainability reports?
Probably because regulators are relaxing report requirements and there is a well-published backlash against ESG, lessening pressure on companies to be seen as leaders in this respect.
Is it a problem if companies stop publishing ESG and sustainability reports?
Yes, in that it shows inconsitency, insincerity and indecisiveness. It says nothing good about your brand to leave old reports mouldering online without updates.
What can brands do about it?
Ideally, continue their good work. If priorities have changed and resources must be redeployed however, at least look for ways to ensure minimum viable continuity.
