For many organisations – particularly those with a stake in industry, infrastructure, or energy – the challenge isn’t just what to do, but how to speak about what they’re doing. In an environment defined by scrutiny, ambition, and accelerating regulation, the role of brand is becoming more delicate, and more strategic.

Because the truth is: transition takes time. But the pressure to signal progress is immediate.

 

Treading the line between momentum and modesty
One of the central dilemmas companies face is how to talk about change while acknowledging that they’re not there yet. This isn’t just about marketing; it’s about signalling integrity in a landscape where greenwashing is now reputationally and legally risky.

Just ask DWS Group, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank, which was fined $25 million in 2023 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over misstatements related to ESG investing. Or Shell, which has faced repeated legal action and public pressure over the gap between its climate pledges and ongoing fossil fuel expansion.

According to PwC’s 2023 Global Investor Survey, 94% of investors believe corporate reporting on sustainability performance contains unsupported claims. Meanwhile, watchdog organisations such as Planet Tracker and ClientEarth have continued to warn that ESG reporting is often vague, exaggerated, or unverifiable. And yet, doing nothing – or saying nothing – feels equally untenable.

So what does an honest, future-facing brand position on the environment look like?

It’s probably not a bold claim. It’s probably not a net zero badge on the homepage. It might instead be a clear statement of fact about where you are in the journey, and what you’re doing next.

 

Interim steps still matter
Scope 1 and 2 emissions (those directly linked to operations and energy use) are increasingly trackable and reportable. But long-term infrastructure investments take years to materialise. In the meantime, what should companies say? How do you brand an in-between state?

One answer is to signal climate ambition through tangible interim milestones. Not “We are green,” but “We are committed to reducing our emissions, with the ambition of achieving CO2-neutral steel making by 2045 and achieving at least a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 (compared to 2018 levels)”. It’s the approach taken by Tata Steel UK, whose Optemis Carbon Lite programme offers certified lower-carbon steel while larger transformations are still underway – a practical way to show commitment while navigating complexity.

Mapping out the journey and reporting progress against it can strengthen credibility, guide messaging, and offer customers and investors something real to hold onto.

The lesson: interim action is not failure. It’s how you get there.

But it has to be real.

 

Independent verification matters
Carbon offsetting remains controversial – and not without reason. While it can form part of a credible strategy, it’s increasingly viewed with suspicion unless independently audited and clearly secondary to actual emissions reduction. The Guardian reported that more than 90% of rainforest offsets certified by one major agency were “worthless”, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on offsets as a branding crutch.

To build trust, verification must be central; not just in climate claims, but in the systems behind them. Solutions like Environment Bank’s Biodiversity Units offer a good example: every unit is underpinned by 30 years of independently monitored habitat creation, grounded in real, measurable ecological outcomes.

This kind of accountability provides the operational truth that climate-conscious branding demands, and this is the kind of evidence brands can lean on if they want to speak with confidence.

 

From ESG to evolution
ESG is no longer just a reporting framework. Originally built as a risk management tool for investors, ESG has become a broader filter influencing procurement decisions, funding access, employee attraction, and public trust.

As regulation tightens – especially under the EU’s CSRD and taxonomy – the shift is clear: from disclosing risk to demonstrating responsibility. From ticking boxes to taking a stand.

And for some businesses, that stand isn’t just ethical – it’s strategic. As impact investing gains momentum, environmental leadership is becoming a differentiator. Taking a clear, proactive stance on sustainability can open doors: to new markets, to investor confidence, to long-term trust.

Brand plays a vital role here. Not by mastering every acronym, but by helping companies find a centre of gravity: a consistent, honest platform that holds both ambition and ambiguity.

A good brand won’t gloss over the gaps. But it can give you a voice strong enough to speak through them; and vision clear enough to guide the path ahead.

 

So what now?
Navigating the energy transition as a brand is not a question of spin, it’s a question of structure.

The strongest companies aren’t those with the most polished green claims. They’re the ones who have a clear evidenced plan, with a strong rationale, that underpins the approach and is grounded in science. A good brand won’t mask complexity. But it can help you hold it, speak to it, and build from it.

Not just for the next press release, but for the next 20 years.