On Earth Day (22 April), businesses will publish updates, share commitments, and point to progress on their environmental impact. There will be data. Targets. Statements of intent.
And yet, most of it won’t change a thing.
Not because people don’t care, but because what is being said tends to make most sense to the people who produced it. Outside that group, it is understood in different ways, or not at all.
This is where communication becomes critical. It does not just describe decisions. It shapes how they are understood and acted on.
The problem isn’t always the message. It’s how it’s understood.
There is no shortage of information for organisations working on their environmental impact. The challenge is the growing volume of disclosures, frameworks and reporting requirements that shape how that information is presented.
Frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and the European standards developed by European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to implement the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive aim to bring greater transparency and consistency to environmental reporting.
They are necessary. But they are not sufficient.
Just because they can present structured information, it does not guarantee there is shared understanding.
As information becomes more complex, it becomes harder to process and act on (Miller, 1956; Kahneman, 2011). The OECD has emphasised the importance of clear, accessible communication for public engagement, while the International Energy Agency highlights the role of public acceptance in making the energy transition work.
If people are unable to interpret what is being communicated to them, they cannot readily act on it.
And if they cannot act, nothing changes.
Where environmental communication starts to break down
There are identifiable points where understanding starts to weaken. We can see it when information leaves the immediate group, where terms are used as if everyone shares the same definition, and when data is presented without the context needed to interpret it properly.
- Language that assumes shared understanding
Terms like “net zero”, “scope 3 emissions”, or “transition risk” have specific meanings. But outside specialist circles, those meanings are not uniformly understood. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stressed the importance of making climate information understandable beyond expert groups. - Information presented without context
Numbers alone rarely carry meaning. A reduction of emissions by a certain percentage sounds positive, but compared to what baseline? Over what timeframe? Without context, data can obscure as much as it reveals. - Volume mistaken for clarity
Lengthy reports and dense disclosures can create the impression of thoroughness, while at the same time increasing the effort needed to extract meaning. Limits on cognitive processing are well documented in behavioural science, with research showing that as information becomes more complex, it becomes harder to process and use in decision-making (Miller, 1956; Kahneman, 2011). - Audience left undefined
Too often, communication is shaped around internal requirements or regulatory compliance rather than meeting the needs of the people expected to understand it; employees, customers, partners, or the public.
None of this is intentional. But the effect is the same.
A message that isn’t understood uniformly.
Why this matters beyond communication
Environmental impact is not reduced by publishing information. It is reduced by changing behaviour, within organisations and across the systems they operate in.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) consistently emphasises the role of reliable information and evidence in supporting environmental decision-making.
Information is the starting point. What people understand from it determines what they do next.
As information is shared between departments, across markets and into multiple supply chains, any loss of understanding weakens the original intent.
Decisions are then made using information that has not been fully understood as originally intended.
Resources are misdirected. Effort is duplicated. Progress slows.
Not because the strategy is wrong, but because it has not been uniformly understood.
What this looks like in practice
This is not about oversimplifying complex environmental issues and losing accuracy. Nor is it about turning them into slogans or sound bites.
It is about maintaining how the message is consistently interpreted.
That requires a different level of discipline.
Define terms, don’t assume them
If a term matters, explain it. Briefly. Clearly. This reduces the risk of multiple interpretations emerging later on.
Anchor data in context
Numbers need reference points. Without them, they remain abstract and open to interpretation.
Design for the audience, NOT the author
Communication should be shaped by how it will be used, not just how it is produced. What does the audience need to understand in order to take action?
Reduce unnecessary complexity
Every additional layer increases the effort required to make sense of what is being said.
Align internal and external communication
If the language used internally differs from what is published externally, inconsistency emerges.
This is not about stylistic choices. It is about operational decision-making.
Cutting through the noise
There is no shortage of environmental messaging. If we look around us, it is everywhere.
But volume is not the same as reach. And reach is not the same as understanding.
On Earth Day, progress in addressing environmental challenges will not be driven by how much is said, but by how clearly it is understood and acted on.
If people cannot clearly understand what is happening, what it means, and what is expected of them, they cannot participate in the changes that need to be made..
And without that, even the most well-intentioned strategies remain static.
A final thought
Environmental challenges are systemic. As is the way we communicate about them.
Clarity is not a finishing touch applied at the end of a report. It is central to whether impact is delivered.
If it’s not understood, it doesn’t move.
If it doesn’t move, it doesn’t change anything.