How to Communicate your Decarbonization Strategy and Avoid Greenwashing

Decarbonization has become a central pillar of business competitiveness in Europe. Regulatory pressure, international climate commitments, and growing expectations from consumers and investors are forcing companies to reduce their carbon footprint and demonstrate progress credibly.

However, communication is just as important as action. A solid strategy can fail if it is conveyed through vague or technically unsupported messages—leading to accusations of greenwashing that can destroy corporate reputation in a matter of months.

This article explains how to communicate your climate strategy with rigor, which standards to use, and which mistakes to avoid so that your organization’s climate narrative inspires trust instead of suspicion.

What is greenwashing and why does it matter?

Greenwashing is much more than a PR problem. It is a deceptive practice that involves exaggerating or falsifying a company’s environmental achievements, creating a distorted perception among consumers, investors, and regulators.

Common examples include energy companies announcing “net-zero” plans while expanding fossil fuel operations, or fashion brands marketing “green” collections made with only a small fraction of recycled materials.

The consequences are serious: according to the 2024 Eurobarometer, 68% of European consumers stop buying from brands accused of greenwashing. In addition, countries like France and Germany already impose financial penalties for misleading environmental claims—making poor transparency not just a reputational risk, but a legal one.

How to communicate your decarbonization strategy credibly

1. Ensure verifiability

Every claim must be backed by audited and verifiable data. The GHG Protocol has become the global standard for compiling a full emissions inventory across the three scopes: direct (Scope 1), indirect (Scope 2), and value chain (Scope 3). This robust framework builds third-party trust and provides methodological consistency.

2. Align with climate science

Targets should follow scientifically validated decarbonization pathways. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) certifies goals aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Communicating that your targets are SBTi-approved sends a clear signal of authenticity and scientific credibility.

3. Be transparent about carbon offsetting

Many companies claim “climate neutrality” based solely on carbon credits. This narrative often breeds skepticism. It’s essential to specify what portion of emissions is reduced internally—through energy efficiency, electrification, or renewable energy—and what portion is offset externally via reforestation or carbon capture projects.

4. Maintain temporal consistency

Communication should be continuous and transparent over time. Publish updates regularly through sustainability reports, investor briefings, and corporate websites. Consistent disclosure builds credibility and prevents accusations of opportunism or green PR.

Tools that strengthen climate transparency

Credibility in climate communication depends not only on the narrative but also on using recognized frameworks that validate data and enable comparison across sectors and regions.

CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project)

The CDP is one of the world’s most influential climate disclosure initiatives. It invites companies and cities to report on their climate risks and opportunities. Responding to CDP questionnaires requires structured, auditable data collection, enabling benchmarking and generating a public score that directly affects corporate reputation. Many investors consult CDP ratings before allocating capital.

GRI Standards

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) offers a widely adopted framework for transparent, comparable, and auditable sustainability reports. Unlike purely technical standards, the GRI is designed to communicate to both expert and general audiences, making it an essential tool for translating complex climate data into accessible insights.

CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive)

In Europe, the major regulatory shift comes with the CSRD. This directive, mandatory for large companies and soon for listed SMEs, requires the integration of detailed climate risk, emissions, and transition plan data into financial statements. Sustainability reporting is no longer voluntary—it is now material financial information, governed by the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), which demand unprecedented transparency.

ISO 14064

Finally, ISO 14064 provides an independent certification framework for greenhouse gas emissions. It allows companies to validate emission calculations and reductions objectively, building confidence among investors, regulators, and customers who expect verifiable proof of progress.

Many organizations complement CDP or GRI disclosures with ISO 14064 verification to reinforce technical credibility.

Integrating these frameworks collectively enhances communication integrity, opens access to sustainable finance, green bonds, and ESG-linked loans, and strengthens positioning in public tenders or supply contracts that require verified metrics. In an increasingly competitive landscape, demonstrating climate consistency with evidence is a strategic advantage.

Which messages should be avoided?

Avoid Over-Simplification

Climate communication must resist the temptation to oversimplify. Terms like “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “zero impact” may sound appealing but lack technical validity. Overuse of these buzzwords erodes credibility among increasingly informed audiences.

Avoid vague promises

Announcing long-term commitments without concrete timelines or measurable indicators is a common mistake. Phrases like “we will be carbon neutral in the future” lack weight unless accompanied by specific dates, milestones, and action plans. Regulators and investors expect verifiable trajectories, not indefinite promises.

Avoid confusing CSR with climate action

Another damaging practice is mixing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives with decarbonization strategies. Activities like recycling drives, volunteer programs, or donations to NGOs are valuable, but they do not substitute for actual emission reductions. Using them as a centerpiece of climate messaging risks being perceived as a distraction—or worse, greenwashing.

Avoid exaggeration

Presenting minor achievements as major milestones or claiming partial reductions as full neutrality fuels skepticism. The most credible approach is honest communication: celebrate progress while acknowledging remaining challenges. Authenticity builds far more trust than inflated marketing claims.

If you want to explore methodologies and regulatory frameworks in greater depth, we at Manglai recommend reading our practical guide to Scope 3 under the GHG Protocol.

FAQs about how to communicate decarbonization without greenwashing

Can progress be communicated without verification?

No. Every public statement must be supported by third-party audits or recognized verification systems.

Which channels are most reliable?

Integrated reports, corporate websites, and investor disclosures. Social media can complement but should not replace formal communication channels.

How should carbon offsets be communicated?

As a complement to internal reductions—not as a substitute. Claiming offset-based neutrality without actual reductions is perceived as greenwashing.

What are the legal risks of greenwashing?

Countries like France already impose fines for misleading environmental advertising. The European Commission is developing directives that will require substantiation for any environmental claim.

What role does narrative play in climate communication?

Clear and accessible language is essential. Overly technical jargon without tangible results can give the impression of opacity or obfuscation.

How often should communication be updated?

At least annually through sustainability reports, and whenever key climate milestones are achieved or verified.