Getting your sustainability comms ‘right’

When it comes to talking about sustainability in your communications – and serious issues like the climate emergency – it can be tricky to get the balance right.

Too negative and this risks alienating your audience or even scaring them off.

Too positive or ‘worthy’ and you’re in danger of opening yourself up to accusations of ‘green-washing’.

The latter is particularly true in the commercial sector.

Brands can be quick to ‘big up’ their green credentials, but, unless they’ve done their homework and are able to back up every claim they’re making, they WILL get called out.

This is particularly true in an era when consumers know way more than they have done in the past… or can simply Google it!

It’s therefore interesting to look at a couple of examples of when – in our view – using sustainability in campaign messaging has been handled badly, versus when it’s hit the spot.

And for the bad, what better place to start than the oil industry?

In 2000, BP launched its ‘beyond petroleum’ campaign, accompanied by a rebrand and the oh-so-natural, flower-like logo we know today.

It ran heartwarming ads on its research into biofuels, exploring how algae (yes, algae!) could be converted into energy.

All done without a drop of oil in sight.

Commendable, eh?

Fast forward to 2022 and, when the Labour Party (in opposition) proposed a windfall tax on energy companies, BP reacted immediately by spending £800,000 on social media ads championing the company’s investments in green energy, reaching tens of millions of UK users.

The ads talked of its transition to net zero by gradually reducing oil and gas production and investing more in “low carbon” and renewable energy sources.

Plans to hit energy companies with full windfall taxes didn’t come to pass.

Fast forward a little further and, in 2025, BP abandoned its net zero energy ambitions entirely… and doubled down on its oil and gas extraction, committing to investing £10bn/year in fossil fuels, at a time when the consensus is that this is the exact opposite of the approach we should be taking.

As to whether this truly harms their brand, BP’s ongoing profits of billions of pounds per quarter appear to indicate otherwise.

However, their credibility as earth-friendly, algae-loving “good guys” has been shot to pieces.

Contrast this with another global company, in Patagonia.

Started in California in 1973, this outdoor clothing brand was founded on Yvon Chouinard’s vision of a corporate business that didn’t cause harm to the environment and was committed to environmental activism.

And he meant it.

He really meant it.

Initiatives such as “1% for the Planet” (1% of sales go to environmental organisations) have long-demonstrated that they are a world-leading company in sustainable business practices.

Their campaigns are unique, as they acknowledge that they, themselves, are part of the problem.

Brave.

Manufacturing clothing, at scale, with a requirement for it to be durable and often waterproof, cannot come without an environmental price tag. Materials, dyes, chemicals and transportation all contribute to the company’s drain on the earth’s resources.

But, instead of attempting to hide or ignore this inconvenient problem, they tackle it head on, by informing their customers upfront.

From detailed material specifications on product labels and online, to adverts promoting their Worn Repair programme, which prioritises extending the life of their garments over purchasing new, they discourage unnecessary purchases and the waste that comes with this.

In case you’re wondering if this in itself is a clever, or cynical marketing ploy, they recently went one BIG step further.

In 2022 – and in a direct response to the climate emergency – they transferred ownership of the company to a specially designed trust and a non-profit organisation, which now protect the company’s independence and direct profits toward its mission.

In their own words “Earth is now our only shareholder.”

All of this means that, when Patagonia run ads promoting their sustainability credentials, not only can they clearly show the steps they take to be as sustainable as possible; they can also demonstrate that they’re putting their money where their mouth is.

On top of this, punchy ‘anti-marketing’ campaigns like Black Friday’s “Don’t buy this jacket”, challenge overconsumption by detailing the environmental costs of production (water, carbon, and waste) of their garment, urging consumers to only buy what they need, repair old gear, and recycle.

Ironically, it had the effect of boosting sales!

So, get it right and there are rewards to be had.

Get it wrong and, well, maybe karma will catch up with BP someday?