They fail because the communication system is wrong.
Sustainability problems are messy, complex, and uncertain, and they involve multiple stakeholders with legitimate (and conflicting) incentives who are all closely watching. In that kind of environment, ‘more messaging’ does not reduce risk, it often increases it. The organisations that make progress treat communication not as a layer on top of strategy, but as the mechanism that makes strategy executable.
From ‘communication of’ to ‘communication about/for’
Sustainability communication often still defaults to sender-led messaging: how do we persuade others that our sustainability agenda is credible? That is necessary but insufficient.
In complex systems (high uncertainty, contested trade-offs), leaders need three distinct modes of sustainability communication – and a deliberate shift from OF toward ABOUT and FOR as complexity rises:
Sustainability of broadcast or sender-led communication means telling people what you are doing or what you believe. Purpose: persuade, position, reassure, and signal credibility. Typical formats: ESG reports, website claims, campaigns, keynote narratives, press releases. Risk: “We spoke, therefore we acted” – plus scepticism if claims outpace proof. Litmus test: if nobody can challenge it or change it, it is OF.
Sustainability ABOUT (dialogue/sensemaking) is communication about sustainability: you are creating structured conversation to cope with uncertainty, trade-offs, and competing priorities. Purpose: sensemaking – surfacing tensions, constraints, and what must change early enough to improve the strategy. Typical formats: listening sessions, stakeholder interviews, supplier roundtables, employee forums, citizen panels, and Q&A that face the trade-offs. Risk: performative consultation (“we listened”) if nothing changes. Litmus test: if the conversation can change priorities, metrics, or design choices, it is ABOUT.
Sustainability FOR (coordination/execution) is communication for sustainability: communication designed to produce outcomes—decisions, capital allocations, behaviours, and operating model shifts. Purpose: coordinate action across functions and stakeholders by clarifying decision rights, sequencing, accountability, and cadence. Typical formats: decision memos, investment cases, governance packs, OKRs/KPIs, operating plans (“who does what by when”), and board updates tied to thresholds and triggers. Risk: if you skip ABOUT, FOR can feel imposed and fail politically or culturally. Litmus test: if it assigns owners, deadlines, metrics, and decision rights, it is FOR.
If your sustainability communication plan is 90% OF and 10% ABOUT/FOR, you are optimising for storytelling, not execution.
Why broadcast breaks (and why ESG 2.0 raises the bar)
Many sustainability programmes still run on the assumption of old culture: if we push the right ideas hard enough, others will adopt them. That’s a linear model in a non-linear world.
The new game is iterative pull–push cycles: listen for real needs, test interventions, learn fast, then communicate the next decision and the next ask.
This shift is what ‘ESG 2.0’ is really about. Scrutiny is higher, fatigue is real, and stakeholders have options. If your sustainability initiative does not deliver something of value, something people can feel, measure, and trust—they will not engage. Without engagement, you cannot achieve implementation.
A practical architecture: Consult → Engage → Co-produce → Leverage → Govern (repeat)
So what does ‘communication for sustainability’ look like in practice? It looks like a designed system, not a campaign calendar.
1. Consult: map the stakeholder system, not just audiences
Start by identifying who must be involved to change the system, internal functions, value chain partners, communities, regulators, financiers, NGOs, employees. Then make the outcomes explicit: what are we trying to grow, reduce, avoid, or accelerate? A simple sustainable value map (stakeholders × outcomes) forces clarity before you start ‘telling the story’.
2. Engage: separate wants from needs
Stakeholders may express a desire for data, yet this information may not be entirely accurate. Translate ‘wants’ into needs using pains and gains: what hurts today, what value would unblock action, and what trade-off is unacceptable? This is where the value of ‘communication about sustainability’ emerges: a structured dialogue that reveals constraints at an early stage, allowing for strategy redesign.
3. Co-produce: turn dialogue into an influence model
Now convert the insights into a systems view: an influence diagram showing what drives what, where the feedback loops sit, and which variables are leverage points. Then prioritise interventions using an Ease–and Effect Matrix lens: what is high-impact and feasible now, what requires capability build, and what is politically or operationally blocked? This is the handoff from discourse to decision.
4. Leverage: concentrate effort where the system moves
Using the influence diagram, isolate the few leverage points that will shift outcomes fastest (typically 3-5) – for example: capital-allocation gates, procurement requirements, product/design standards, incentive plans, and measurement rules. Then design communication that activates those levers across boundaries by translating sustainability into the language each function recognises (e.g, finance: value and risk). A practical test: if the communication changes what gets funded, what gets bought, what gets measured, and what leaders are held accountable for, you have created leverage.
5. Govern: assign levers, decision rights, and cadence
Communication becomes ‘for sustainability’ when it is tied to governance: owners for each lever, decision rights, evidence expectations, and a cadence for revisiting assumptions. The comms output is not a brochure; itis a living set of commitments: who does what by when, with what proof.
Why this matters beyond the firm: subsystems and “opening up”
Sustainability does not live in one arena. Business, politics, science, media, civil society, and law each operate with their own internal logic and a tendency to talk to themselves. That operational closure is why sustainability often devolves into parallel monologues: a corporate report, a regulator’s consultation, an NGO’s campaign, an academic paper.
The bottom line
Treat communication as infrastructure. Build a system that moves from OF (persuasion) to ABOUT (sensemaking) to FOR (coordination), and keep iterating until outcomes move. Sustainable strategy is a coordination problem dressed up as a reporting problem—and communication is the operating system that enables coordination.