Many corporate representatives and communications professionals may be shifting uneasily in their chairs: is it still safe to communicate about a company’s sustainability at all?
The EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive is being implemented nationally, with the new rules applying from 27 September 2026. The legislation sets clear boundaries for the sustainability claims companies can make about their products and services: claims must be substantiated. For example, carbon neutrality targets without a concrete implementation plan will no longer be allowed.
But regulation is not the only thing changing the sustainability communication environment. Companies no longer have complete control over how their sustainability communication is interpreted, according to doctoral researcher Mitra Salimi’s recent research at the University of Jyväskylä School of Business and Economics.
“A greenwashing controversy can quickly move beyond the original communication. Consumers, NGOs, journalists and other stakeholders can all become part of the conversation,” Salimi says.
There is value in being a work in progress
New requirements call for greater precision in sustainability communication. According to Salimi, good communication should make it easier for people to understand what a company has actually achieved. Even complex topics should be communicated clearly, with claims that can be substantiated.
Rather than relying on broad adjectives such as “green” or “sustainable”, Salimi encourages companies to be specific: What exactly has been achieved? What evidence supports the claim? And what are its limitations?
She also stresses that sustainability is not a finished state, but an ongoing process. Every company has room for improvement in some area of sustainability, and there is no need to hide that.
“Being transparent about what is still unfinished can actually strengthen credibility,” Salimi says.
Greenwashing cannot be fixed with a better slogan
Mistakes can happen in an increasingly demanding sustainability communication environment, and they can damage a company’s reputation.
If a company is accused of greenwashing, Salimi says the first step is to avoid becoming defensive. Instead of immediately defending the original message, the company should understand what the criticism is actually about, acknowledge where the communication was misleading or unclear, correct it and demonstrate what is changing.
“The most credible response to greenwashing is not a better slogan. It is evidence of corrective action,” Salimi says.
Meaningful action is worth communicating
Salimi sees a real risk that increasing scrutiny will make companies so concerned about saying the wrong thing that they say very little at all. This is sometimes referred to as greenhushing.
But silence is not the answer. If companies genuinely improve their environmental or social performance, stakeholders should be able to hear about those improvements. The challenge is to move away from communication that tries to look sustainable and towards communication that makes sustainability progress understandable and verifiable.
Salimi also points out that while consumers are becoming more attentive to the credibility of sustainability claims, they cannot be expected to investigate every environmental claim they encounter. Responsibility for credible, substantiated communication ultimately remains with companies.
So, to those still shifting uneasily in their office chairs, the answer is:
Yes, you can still communicate about sustainability.
In fact, you should.