Communicating With Stakeholders

The ABCs of Greenwashing 🌍 Greenwashing weakens trust and slows down meaningful progress. When companies present overstated or unverified claims, it creates confusion across markets, misleads stakeholders, and reduces pressure for real change. The cost is not only reputational, it also undermines the credibility of sustainability efforts more broadly. As sustainability becomes a business priority, the risk of misleading communication continues to increase. The pressure to report progress has led to claims that are not always backed by substance. Recognizing the signals of greenwashing is essential to ensure integrity in reporting, communication, and strategy. The ABCs of Greenwashing is a practical reference that outlines common red flags, from vague wording and selective data to unverifiable targets and weak transparency. These signs often appear in sustainability reports, websites, product labels, and corporate campaigns. There is a growing demand for better sustainability communication. However, clarity must come with accuracy. Narratives that focus on ambition without showing results raise concerns. Authentic communication requires alignment between commitments, measurable progress, and public disclosures. Expectations are shifting. Stakeholders, regulators, and investors expect more than general statements. Claims must be supported by credible data, meaningful metrics, and consistent reporting. The absence of independent verification or full scope analysis is no longer seen as acceptable. Regulatory frameworks are evolving to address this. New directives and standards are increasing pressure on companies to validate their statements with clear evidence. This shift will affect how sustainability is communicated, measured, and governed across sectors. Avoiding greenwashing requires clear internal structures, cross functional accountability, and regular review of communication practices. Sustainability performance must be integrated into operations, not added as a marketing layer. This is not a communication issue alone. It is a strategic and operational matter. Claims must reflect business decisions, investment priorities, and outcomes that can be tracked over time. The ABCs of Greenwashing is a reminder of the need for precision, transparency, and consistency. Improving the quality of sustainability communication is essential for building trust, reducing risk, and advancing long term business goals. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #greenwashing 

🐑 Business Language vs. UX Language. How to present design work, explain design decisions and get stakeholders on your side ↓ 🤔 Businesses rarely understand the impact of UX work. 🤔 UX language is overloaded with ambiguous terms/labels. 🤔 Business can’t support initiatives it doesn’t understand. ✅ Leave UX language and UX abbreviations at the door. ✅ Explain design work through the lens of business goals. 🚫 Avoid “consistency”, “empathy”, “simplicity”, “affordance”. 🚫 Avoid “design thinking”, “cognitive load”, “universal design”. 🚫 Avoid “lean UX”, “agile”, “archetypes”, “Jobs-To-Be-Done”. 🚫 Avoid “stakeholder management” and “design validation”. 🚫 Avoid abbreviations: WIP, POC, HMW, IxD, PDP, PLP, WCAG. ✅ Explain how you’ll measure success of your design work. ✅ Speak of business value, loyalty, abandonment, churn. ✅ Show risk management, compliance, governance, evidence. ✅ Refer to cost reduction, efficiency, growth, success, Design KPIs. ✅ Present inclusive design as an industry-wide way of working. As designers, we often use design terms, such as consistency, friction and empathy. Yet to many managers, these attributes don’t map to any business objectives at all, often leaving them baffled and utterly confused about the actual real-life impact of our UX work. One way out that changed everything for me is to leave UX vocabulary at the door when entering a business meeting. Instead, I try to explain design work through the lens of the business, often rehearsing and testing the script ahead of time. When presenting design work in a big meeting, I try to be very deliberate and strategic in the choice of words. I won’t be speaking about attracting “eye-balls” or getting users “hooked”. It’s just not me. But I won’t be speaking about reducing “friction” or improving “consistency” either. Instead, I tell a story. A story that visualizes how our work helps the business. How design team has translated business goals into specific design initiatives. How UX can reduce costs. Increase revenue. Grow business. Open new opportunities. New markets. Increase efficiency. Extend reach. Mitigate risk. Amplify word of mouth. And how we’ll measure all that huge impact of our work. Typically, it’s broken down into 8 sections: 🎯 Goals ← Business targets, KRs we aim to achieve. 💥 Translation ← Design initiatives, iterations, tests. 🕵️ Evidence ← Data from UX research, pain points. 🧠 Ideas ← Prioritized by an impact/effort-matrix. 🕹 Design work ← Flows, features, user journeys. 📈 Design KPIs ← How we’ll measure/report success. 🐑 Shepherding ← Risk management, governance. 🔮 Future ← What we believe are good next steps. Next time you walk in a meeting, pay attention to your words. Translate UX terms in a language that other departments understand. It might not take long until you’ll see support coming from everywhere — just because everyone can now clearly see how your work helps them do their work better. [continues in the comments]

Just saw Target CEO Brian Cornell's all-staff email addressing company challenges. As someone who's spent years advising execs on crisis comms, I just have one question: What was the point? He admits "silence from us has created uncertainty" (correctly identifying the problem) but then immediately creates more uncertainty (by not actually articulating a solution to said problem). Instead of explaining WHY leadership went silent during critical company challenges or what they were deliberating behind closed doors, he skips straight to vague reassurances. In my opinion, this is a pretty fundamental communications failure because transparency without context is just another form of opacity. The email positions Target as a passive victim ("things are happening TO us") rather than an active decision-maker ("we made choices that had consequences"). Consider: > Target has had 11 straight weeks of declining foot traffic > They've rolled back DEI initiatives, triggering boycotts > They've been hit with significant tariff impacts Yet NONE of these are directly addressed in the email. Instead, 40,000 employees get a nothing-burger email with vague references to values being "non-negotiable" and products being "second to none" (while customers are literally shopping elsewhere). Here's what probably happened: Someone in the C-suite said "We need to say SOMETHING!" and this vague, purpose-free email was the result. The perfect example of what happens when the goal is "send an email" instead of "solve a problem." If I were advising you Brian, here's what I would have told you: 1. Get specific. Name the actual issues (DEI rollbacks, declining sales, tariffs, declining consumer confidence) directly instead of vague references to "headlines and social media." 2. Own your decisions. Say "we made this choice because..." not "things are happening around us." 3. Skip the robot speak. "Our values are non-negotiable. Period." sounds defensive, it does not confident. 4. Share a real plan. Not just "you'll hear from us more" but exactly how and when. What's on the roadmap? Is there a roadmap? 5. Keep it simple. An email written by a patchwork of people and lawyers and IR teams will never sound authentic or clear. What would you have told Brian in this scenario?

How do you talk about sustainability and climate issues in your company? If you’ve ever found yourself struggling to make sustainability resonate with your team, you’re not alone. At Microsoft, for example, they’ve found that speaking the right "language" makes all the difference. Being a tech company, their conversations around sustainability are deeply rooted in a quantitative, data-driven approach after all, they’re engineers at heart. They use the same principles that drive their technology to frame sustainability risks and opportunities. But what if your company isn’t full of engineers? Every organization speaks its internal language, whether that’s the analytical mindset of finance, the creativity of marketing, or the operations-driven approach of manufacturing. Tailoring sustainability messaging to align with these unique perspectives can bridge the gap, making it easier for employees to see how it connects to what they do every day. One thing is clear across all industries though: the language of science is essential. Whether you're talking to your marketing team, engineers, or executives, scientific facts are the backbone of any meaningful conversation about sustainability. Data on carbon footprints, climate risks, and environmental impacts provide a foundation everyone can work with. According to the IPCC, we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 to stay on track with climate goals numbers. Take Unilever, for example. They made sustainability a part of their company culture by translating climate goals into everyday actions for each department. Their marketing team talks about sustainable sourcing, while their R&D team focuses on lowering the carbon footprint of products. By embedding sustainability into every part of the business, Unilever is empowering all employees to contribute, leading to a 32% reduction in their environmental impact. Sustainability isn’t a one-size-fits-all conversation. But when you frame it in terms that make sense to your team, it becomes part of how your business thinks and operates every day. So, how will you start the conversation within your organization?

We're never going to reach emissions targets with stats like this. 👎 The EU Green Deal aims to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. But this won't happen unless we address some critical issues. Let's take green claims. 📊 According to the EU Commission: → 53% of green claims provide vague, misleading, or unfounded information. → 40% of claims lack supporting evidence. → Half of all green labels offer weak or nonexistent verification. If consumers can't trust green claims, they can't make responsible purchasing decisions. And if there's no recourse, how can brands be held accountable? This is the foundation of new sustainability regulations around the world. 🤔 Here are three steps you should be taking to ensure you're doing your bit: 1/ Back up your claims: → Ensure that every claim you make is backed by solid, transparent data. 2/ Engage third-party verification: → Partner with reputable third-party organisations to verify your green claims. 3/ Educate your consumers: → Make sure you're communicating clear, accessible information about your sustainability efforts and the evidence behind your claims. My point is, there’s a better way. ✅ Empty promises won't cut it. We need real, impactful changes. What steps are you taking to ensure the credibility of your green claims? Share your thoughts below. _____ ➕ Follow Abbie Morris for posts about sustainability, policy, and startups. 📧 Drop me a DM if you want to learn more about tackling the mountain of sustainability regulation facing the retail industry.

In the high-stakes arena of #B2BSales, particularly when engaging the C-suite and Boards, "back of napkin math" is more than just a display of acumen – it's a potent catalyst for building #trust. Imagine a conversation where a senior leader articulates a critical business challenge, perhaps around CAC payback or share of wallet. The seller who can immediately and fluently grasp the underlying financial equation and articulate the potential impact of their solution, without missing a beat, speaks a language that resonates deeply. This isn't about complex modeling done offline; it's the agility to understand core drivers of their success and perform quick, insightful calculations within the flow of the conversation. For instance, if a Chief Revenue Officer (#CRO) mentions a goal of reducing customer churn, a seller with this skill can instantly frame the value of their solution in terms of retained revenue and lifetime customer value, demonstrating a tangible understanding of the CRO's priorities. This competence signals the seller not only listened - but also deeply comprehends which levers to use to solve the client problem. Why is this so crucial for building trust? Because it showcases several key elements that senior leaders value: Deep Understanding: The ability to perform this kind of rapid analysis demonstrates you've done your homework and truly understand their business model, challenges, and objectives. It moves you beyond being a mere vendor to a knowledge partner. #CustomerUnderstanding Intellectual Horsepower: It signals a sharp mind and the capacity to think strategically about their business. This builds confidence in your ability to deliver real value. #StrategicThinking Efficiency and Respect for Time: Senior executives are time-constrained. A seller who quickly gets to the heart of the financial implications respects this constraint and demonstrates a focus on outcomes. #TimeEfficiency Transparency: By engaging in these on-the-spot calculations, you reveal your underlying assumptions and logic, fostering a more transparent discussion. #TransparentCommunication Credibility: It elevates your status from a product peddler to a trusted advisor who speaks the language of business results. #TrustedAdvisor Think about it: when a seller can seamlessly weave in relevant financial implications – the potential ROI, payback period, impact on key KPIs – it’s not just data; it demonstrates commitment to the customer's success. It shows you're thinking beyond the product/service features and instead - are focusing on their strategic outcomes. To be clear - "Back of napkin math" isn't about being precisely accurate in real-time. It's about demonstrating a strong intuitive grasp of financial levers that matter to the customer and the ability to articulate value in their terms, instantly. This fluency builds a bridge of trust, making conversations more meaningful and impactful. #Gartner

Communicating Net Zero Effectively is not an easy task but not impossible, here are some of the steps we take when communicating such a technical topic 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬: Instead of just using the term "net zero", we focus on explaining the positive outcomes that come from the actions needed to achieve net zero, such as economic growth, job creation, better public health, and energy security. This can help people see the real-world benefits. For example, the city of Copenhagen has made a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2025. By focusing their messaging on how this will create green jobs, improve air quality, and make the city more livable, they have been able to build broad public support for their net zero plans. 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞: We Avoid technical jargon and complicated terms. We tend to Explain what net zero means and how it will be achieved in clear, easy-to-understand language. This makes the concept more accessible and less controversial. For example, The state of California has had success with this approach. When communicating their goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, they use straightforward language about transitioning to clean energy and reducing emissions, rather than relying on complex technical terms. 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 We Build a wide coalition by engaging businesses, communities, and other groups. This inclusive approach can help us gather support from many different perspectives and reduce polarization. For example, The UK's Climate Change Committee has exemplified this by bringing together representatives from industry, environmental groups, and local governments to develop their net zero strategy. This has helped ensure the plan addresses the needs of diverse stakeholders. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 Highlight real-world examples of the practical steps being taken towards net zero and the benefits these are bringing to local communities. This can make the concept more concrete and show the progress being made. For example, The city of Oslo, Norway has done this effectively by showcasing how their investments in electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency have improved air quality and reduced household energy bills in local neighborhoods. 𝐁𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Be open to using different terms like "carbon neutrality" or "clean growth" instead of "net zero" if that works better for the audience and political context. The key is finding language that resonates. For example, The state of New York has found success with this approach. When communicating climate goals to certain rural communities, they have emphasized "clean energy" and "sustainable development" rather than the term "net zero", which was less familiar and potentially off-putting. #climatechange #communciation #stakeholderengagement

"Deal's looking good. I'm in with the CMO." A colleague shared his excitement. I rolled my little eyeballs. "What?" he asked, confused. "Single-threaded deals die," I replied. Three weeks later: "CMO went on leave. Deal's stalled." I wasn't surprised. The average B2B purchase now involves 11+ stakeholders. Yet most reps are still playing the "one relationship" game. Old playbook: Find one champion. Let them "sell internally" for you. Hope for the best. Failure rate? About 80%. A recent client win taught me the better approach: Initial call with the VP of Sales. Great fit, but I asked: "Who else needs to be comfortable with this decision?" The list: - CRO (economic buyer) - IT Director (technical approval) - Sales Enablement (implementation) - 2 Regional VPs (end users) That's 6 people. Each with different: - Priorities - Objections - Questions Rather than pestering my champion to coordinate everything... I created a single digital room with: - Role-specific sections for each stakeholder - Tailored ROI calculations for the CRO - Security documentation for IT - Implementation timeline for Enablement - Quick-start guides for the Regional VPs My champion shared the link. The magic happened silently: Analytics showed the CRO viewed the ROI calculator 5 times. The IT Director spent 15 minutes on security docs. Both Regional VPs watched the training videos. I hadn't spoken to any of them directly. But they were all selling themselves. When we finally had the "decision call," everyone was already aligned. No last-minute objections. No mysterious "other stakeholders." No surprises. Here's what changed: Old approach: Pray your champion effectively represents you to people you never meet. New approach: Give every stakeholder what they need, even without direct access. Multi-threading isn't about scheduling more calls. It's about making yourself irrelevant to the process. The best deals close when stakeholders convince themselves...without you in the room. Are you still gambling on single-threaded relationships? Or building networks that sell for you? Agree?

A recent piece from Stanford Social Innovation Review provides a compelling framework for how social sector organizations can use communications to foster trust, amplify values, and build community. For those of us focused on advancing social impact through strategic partnerships, these principles are both timely and essential. Here’s how I see these lessons applying to our work: Trust-Centered Communication: Transitioning from transactional marketing to relationship-driven communication creates space for genuine engagement. Meaningful partnerships thrive when built on trust, not just shared goals. Aligning Actions and Words: Authenticity requires that actions reflect values. Thoughtful communication is vital, but it must be paired with tangible impact to foster integrity and inspire confidence. Community as a Foundation: Supporting partners to amplify their own voices—whether by passing the mic or building their capacity—multiplies collective impact. Empowering others strengthens the ecosystem as a whole. These insights underscore the transformative power of intentional communications in mission-driven work. How are communications evolving in your organizations? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

How can we have productive climate conversations with people who might have different priorities and viewpoints than our own?  Climate Outreach has done extensive research on what resonates with diverse audiences in Alberta, the “Texas of Canada,” as my Albertan husband semi-affectionately calls it. (Hi to my family in Edmonton! <3) These tips apply anywhere for how to approach your audience well, a core tenant of good conversations.  The Alberta Narratives audience report offers tailored language that’s been tested to communicate respectfully and effectively with eight groups: oil sands workers, conservatives, environmentalists, rural Albertans, business leaders, youth, new Canadians, and people of faith.  For example, Climate Outreach suggests focusing on gratitude for hard work and prosperity (not entitlement) when talking to conservatives. For farmers and ranchers, focus on "solutions that make sense within a rural context such as renewable energy”, where solar panels are seen as more realistic than urban-centric biking and electric vehicles. What not to do: don’t make people feel guilty “for who they are and what they care about”. Note that respectfully challenging people requires strong trust (which takes time to build). Any challenges must “be done in a way that supports their sense of shared identity, and suggests that they hold they keys to solutions.” (p. 58) Climate Outreach tested language that was consistently approved across all eight groups, and rejected language that any group strongly disliked, with the goal of building a foundation for shared conversation that does not drive polarization. They offer a sample narrative, which can be adapted for authentic, effective communication. For example, to talk about energy, see their guide below. What are some of your most successful climate conversations? Your most challenging? Let me know in the comments.