PROOF OVER PROMISES. HOW SUSTAINABILITY IS REWRITING CORPORATE MESSAGING
Sustainability narratives used to be built on ambition. Now they are tested on performance. Businesses still need to signal intent with high-level commitments to climate, community or biodiversity goals. But what carries weight with investors, regulators and communities is the evidence that goals are being delivered and sustained.
This shift is visible across sectors, but nowhere more sharply than in nature investment. In the UK, biodiversity net gain (BNG) rules and voluntary codes for woodland and peatland projects are setting measurable standards that investors, planners and communities can interrogate. The way organisations communicate around these standards is no longer a side consideration, it is central to market access and credibility.
Sustainability shifts in UK infrastructure
Since February 2024, communicating around BNG has become critical to compliance. Most building projects in England must now deliver at least a ten per cent biodiversity uplift, managed for 30 years. The policy has changed the tenor of messaging. General statements about ‘supporting biodiversity’ now ring hollow unless backed by quantifiable baselines, management plans and long-term accountability. Earlier this year the Labour government consulted on adjustments for small and medium sites and on how BNG will apply to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, due to start in May 2026. While some sector voices describe elements of the consultation as a potential rollback, the current rules remain in force until government publishes its formal response.
New voluntary nature investment standards
At the same time, government ambition to mobilise £500 million a year into nature by 2027, rising to £1 billion by 2030, is pulling institutional capital into the market. Recent policy developments, including a call for evidence to expand private sector roles and new voluntary nature investment standards, reinforce the framework’s ambition rather than reducing it. These investors expect infrastructure-grade reporting and governance. Clear communication of governance, verification and risk management helps projects avoid delays in the planning and approvals process, those that don’t risk being left behind.
Voluntary codes such as the Woodland Carbon Code and Peatland Code also raise the bar. Together, they now govern over a thousand projects, creating a transparent framework against which new entrants are measured. In this context, strategic sustainability communications need to demonstrate alignment with recognised standards and show that claims can withstand technical scrutiny.
How communications turns technical delivery into trusted narratives
The value of good communications shows up in the way successful projects cut through complexity, bring people with them, and build trust.
One of the biggest hurdles is translating technical frameworks into language that different audiences can act on. The Woodland Carbon Code or Biodiversity Net Gain metrics may make sense to specialists, but they can be opaque to others. Environment Bank, for example, has made habitat banking accessible by breaking down what biodiversity units mean in practice, their measurement, quality, location and long-term management, and providing resources that demystify the process for planners and developers.
Consistency across channels is just as important. A planning submission, an investor deck and a community newsletter may all describe the same project in different terms. If the facts diverge, credibility is quickly lost. Revere, the partnership between UK National Parks and Palladium, has shown how disciplined messaging across different platforms can reassure partners and investors that what is promised at landscape scale is backed up by delivery on the ground.
Balance in messaging also matters. Investors want governance detail, while communities often care more about co-benefits such as flood prevention, jobs and access. Rebalance Earth demonstrates how to link ecological outcomes directly to economic and social resilience, positioning nature-positive investments in ways that make sense to both finance professionals and the public.
Finally, communications also have a protective role. Projects operating under long-term obligations are subject to detailed questioning from investors, regulators and NGOs. Overclaiming or presenting results without clear evidence risks undermining credibility. Framing nature projects in ways that resonate with institutional investors for example, drawing on the language of infrastructure can help open doors, but it must be matched by transparency about ecological complexity and the uncertainties of long-term delivery.
Risks for the unwary
When communications aren’t treated strategically, several risks can surface. Overclaiming, for example, presenting forecasts without distinguishing them clearly from verified outcomes can damage credibility. Inconsistencies between what is said to regulators, investors and communities create confusion and raise questions about governance. And when the social side of projects such as jobs, skills or public access is overlooked, local support may be harder to sustain even if environmental metrics are positive. Taking a balanced and transparent approach across all audiences reduces these risks and helps build lasting trust.
Where the trend is heading – Is communications just good governance?
Nature markets remain in early stages, but the direction is clear. Stakeholders are moving toward live reporting, dashboards and open data that track delivery against baselines in real time. Dialogue with communities is becoming as important as dialogue with regulators and investors. And communications itself is shifting from being a reputational tool to being part of governance evidence that a project can withstand due diligence.
These themes will also be explored at the Nature Finance UK Conference on 25 November 2025, hosted by Ecosystems Knowledge Network. We are pleased to be supporting the event, which will cover policy and standards, project pipeline developments, buyer expectations for nature-based solutions, and innovations in monitoring and verification. Across these discussions runs a clear message, projects are increasingly judged on the clarity and credibility of the evidence they present.
How projects explain and evidence their impact often decides whether they move smoothly through approvals, attract serious investment, or earn the backing of local communities.
Communications in this context is not just about telling a compelling story; it is about showing, with clarity and consistency, that delivery matches ambition. Promises still matter, but it is proof, clearly communicated, that ultimately unlocks progress.
