In a time when terms like "greenwashing," "net-zero," and "ESG" dominate headlines, sustainability has taken centre stage in the corporate world. Communicating this topic effectively, though, can prove to be a complex challenge.
Telum spoke with Elise Margaritis, Principal, Sustainability Communications at Edge Impact, whose career spans nearly two decades, working in and around the environmental and sustainability communications space. She shares her insights on the changes in sustainability comms strategy, keeping public trust, audience behaviour, and more.
Before we get into the deeper stuff, how would you personally define sustainability communications?
It is the art of making the invisible visible - translating complex, often abstract concepts like carbon footprints, circular economy or human rights, into stories that people can relate to.
I've learned that it's not about broadcasting green credentials or ticking ESG boxes, but it's creating a connection to what people already care about - their Sector - Health, their children's futures, and unsurprisingly...their bottom line!
It's also about effective translation. Taking data and policy and strategy, and making it relevant to different audiences: the head of marketing who wants to know how this will impact the brand, employees seeking purpose, or customers aligning values with choices.
It also requires balance because sustainability sits at the intersection of urgency and hope. We're dealing with existential challenges, but fear paralyses people, so instead, we need to help them feel empowered to contribute to solutions.
In recent years, we've seen climate change messaging shift toward empowerment and solution-focused narratives. Is this approach sustainable, or could fear-based messaging resurface as generational perspectives evolve or the climate crisis intensifies?
What a great question. My view is that the answer lies in understanding why fear-based messaging fails in the first place.
Psychologically, fear motivates short-term action but creates long-term paralysis, which we saw play out during COVID. During initial lockdowns, fear and uncertainty drove rapid shifts: flights grounded, roads emptied, factories paused. This led to almost immediate dramatic environmental results: skies cleared, waterways ran clear, emissions plummeted - but that behavioural change didn't last. As the immediate threat faded, old habits returned. Because it wasn't anchored in agency, it was driven by fear, not choice. No one decided to reduce their impact, they were reacting to a crisis. And while climate change is a crisis, many perceive it as a distant or abstract one.
Fear wins headlines, but it doesn't build long-term commitment. Empowerment, on the other hand, gives people a sense of purpose. But sometimes we swing too far into toxic positivity, presenting climate action as easy or painless - when it's not.
As for generational perspectives, I've noticed younger audiences respond better to complexity and nuance than we give them credit for. They want the truth, including the hard parts. They're less interested in being shielded from climate realities and more interested in being equipped to address them.
The most resilient messaging will combine urgency with agency: this matters enormously, and here's exactly what you can do about it.
Building on the shift in climate communication strategies, there's a growing narrative suggesting that public support for achieving net-zero is waning. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair recently claimed that plans focusing on phasing out fossil fuels are 'doomed to fail.' How can communicators in the environmental and sustainability space effectively respond to such evolving narratives without losing public trust?
Public support for climate action is fragile when it collides with economic pressures, lifestyle changes, or perceived unfairness. The backlash against policies like low emission zones or restrictions on gas appliances shows that good intentions aren't enough if the transition feels imposed rather than co-created.
Our response needs to be both strategic and humble. We can't dismiss these concerns as fossil fuel propaganda or public ignorance. Some scepticism is reasonable, given the complexity of energy systems, supply chains, and social equity considerations.
Instead, communicators should focus on making the transition tangible and inclusive. Show how net-zero strategies create jobs, improve Sector - Health outcomes, enhance energy security, and reduce costs over time. Make the benefits visible before the sacrifices are required.
We also need to be more honest about trade-offs. If we pretend there are no costs or complications, we set ourselves up for failure. But we can frame these challenges as problems to solve collectively rather than reasons to abandon the goal.
Ultimately, we need to shift from selling net-zero as a destination to framing it as a direction. Progress matters more than perfection.
Through your work in sustainability and environmental comms, what insights have you gained about audience behaviour?
One of the biggest insights I've gained is that most people do care deeply about the planet, but they feel overwhelmed, disempowered and unsure how to make a difference. (Remember that BP ‘share your pledge’ meme? 'I pledge not to spill 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico'. Case in point).
I saw this play out while helping travel and transport companies encourage customers to opt in to offset programs. The logic was sound: for a few extra dollars you can offset your emissions by funding verified carbon projects. But uptake was low.
Research showed the barrier wasn't cost, it was confusion. What's an offset? Where does the money go? Does it actually make a difference? In the absence of information, people defaulted to inaction.
So we reframed it, making the offer hyper-clear and linked to real and specific outcomes: restoring native habitat, supporting Indigenous land stewardship, empowering developing communities. And the engagement followed.
People aren't waiting to be convinced that sustainability matters - they want a clear, credible better choice.
How do you navigate the balance between promoting a client's sustainability initiatives and ensuring authenticity? Have you ever had to challenge messaging that felt like greenwashing?
Of course! If you work in sustainability comms and haven't challenged messaging, you're either working with absolute saints or very creative spinners! (Check out my recent
ESG Confessions post).
One client confidently came to us with a claim straight from their supplier, that their product was helping protect vital habitat for beloved native wildlife. It had a huge 'fur and feather' factor. Emotive, marketable...and potentially true.
But when we asked for evidence, project data, verification, anything, the trail went cold. It wasn't that the claim was false, it just couldn't be substantiated, and in sustainability, that’s not good enough. You can't say you're saving the koalas without showing the credentials.
Ultimately, the goal isn't to sound impressive. It's to be believable. The best sustainability stories aren't the glossiest, they're the honest, transparent, relatable ones you’re proud to raise your hand for when someone asks, 'Says who?'.