How Businesses Can Effectively Convey Climate Change Actions

Contrary to the belief that most businesses oppose climate action, many want to improve their environmental impact and invest in clean energy because it can be profitable.

Businesses recognise that neglecting climate change risks can negatively affect product quality and profitability. They also understand that consumers and investors are more likely to support companies prioritising environmental responsibility by transitioning to cleaner energy and reducing their carbon footprint.

The report “The Return on Responsibility” is a new messaging guide for businesses produced by the Potential Energy Coalition in partnership with the We Mean Business Coalition and Maslansky + partners. It is designed to help enterprises effectively and efficiently communicate climate issues to the public while minimising pushback in an increasingly polarised political environment.

The findings strongly support companies that take action to become environmentally responsible, such as investing in clean energy, reducing their carbon footprints, and communicating these decisions to the public. Consumers report being more likely to purchase products from and support brands that engage in these practices and are even more inclined to work for these companies. Additionally, U.S. investors believe financial firms should act on and evaluate climate-related factors.

The report is based on extensive research with nearly 15,000 U.S. respondents from June 2023 to July 2024, including focus groups and online surveys to understand consumer views on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors, climate action, and business success. This 13-month study also includes comparative research conducted in the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, and Brazil.

The report findings indicate that the most effective way for businesses to enhance support is to focus on tangible benefits rather than moralising the issue of climate change. Previous research suggests that framing climate change as a moral concern—motivated by love and the desire to protect the planet for future generations—can be powerful. However, for businesses, the context is different. Companies invest in climate-related initiatives not only because they are beneficial for the environment but also because they make good business sense.

The problem with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is its framing.

The survey findings reveal that many respondents are frustrated with “forced morality” from businesses pushing their beliefs. This fuels the “anti-ESG” backlash and results in boycotts against perceived “woke” companies. ESG is seen as an empty term, often misunderstood, with only half of Americans familiar with it and just one in five holding favourable views.

Originally a financial tool for assessing long-term business risks, ESG has become politically loaded. A shift to “responsible business” communicates the intended values without the associated baggage, resonating better with consumers and investors seeking impartial risk assessments and strategic decision-making.

The additional guide for businesses is that messages should be clear, familiar, and based on material impact when making responsible business decisions. Seventy-three percent of consumers prefer messaging about “protecting plants, animals, and habitats” over “protecting biodiversity”.

Moreover, 74% prefer information about companies that ensure their partners are reducing carbon pollution, in contrast to 26% who are more interested in companies “reducing scope 3 emissions.”

The guide emphasises simplifying climate change messages with everyday, concrete language, which makes messaging far more effective.