Finding the words to save the world

From the dawn of language during humanity’s earliest days to today’s chaotic Digital Age, words have had the power to change the world — for better and worse. Just as words teach, persuade and inspire, they can disinform, dissuade and discourage. When words come together in the right way, they form ideas that manifest in millions of collective actions (or inactions) that define our past, present and future. 

Words have been responsible for the ebbs and flows of corporate sustainability. The “sustainability recession” we’re currently weathering, for example, has in many ways been caused by the power of words.

Let’s consider the term “ESG” — as the latest and most successful sustainability buzzword to-date, ESG became the term for corporate action to address social and environmental risks. And yes, technically ESG is an acronym and not a word, but if you want to get even more technical and somewhat pedantic — as my friend Grant Harris of Trellis (formerly GreenBiz), told me on an episode of The Sustainability Communicator — ESG is actually an “initialism”, or an acronym that is pronounced as individual letters. But I digress. 

In 2020, ESG’s meteoric rise accelerated after Larry Fink’s now infamous Letter to CEOs rightly recognized “that climate risk is investment risk” — even though the term wasn’t mentioned in the letter. ESG became a buzzword so famous that I found folks in my network who previously had no interest in my work suddenly asking me about it. Meanwhile, investors began demanding sustainability information from companies that had none — causing a mad scramble for companies to make commitments and kickstart sustainability programs and reporting. That same year, George Floyd’s murder led to a cornucopia of companies to communicate commitments to diversity, equity & inclusion before they had actually thought it through or had a clear strategy around it. Throw in a global pandemic, and the “S” in ESG had an unexpected breakout year, as I wrote in Trellis. 

While ESG has never been the perfect term to describe this “thing” we do, it seemed to suffice even if many outside of corporate sustainability circles didn’t fully understand it. The nerdiest among us even began debating the difference between “sustainability” and “ESG”. Couple this with the climate-forward public policies coming out of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (now likely dead), California and Europe (CSRD, very much alive), it felt like the “Golden Age” of corporate sustainability had arrived.

But our success caused reactionary forces to take notice. Congressional Republicans in the U.S. began a small but highly vocal campaign to destroy ESG. This is what my friend Whitney Dailey of Allison called “the anti-ESG distraction” in a 2023 opinion piece in PR Week. Politicians who had long-ignored corporate sustainability started to complain that companies were overstepping their bounds. ESG got sucked into the cesspool of polarization embodying the current political moment in the U.S.

Reactionaries have always been better at wielding words as weapons. Republican pollster Frank Lutz, for example, is often credited for pushing the term “climate change” — though he didn’t invent it — because it downplays the danger of a warming world more than global warming. Yet even Lutz in 2019 expressed regret for his previous efforts to cast doubt on the climate crisis. 

Today, many companies are terrified of being labeled as “woke” and some are even starting to backtrack on DEI commitments — including Tractor Supply Co, Harley Davidson, John Deere and even Microsoft. When you think about the word “woke” and what it actually means  — having awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism and denial of LGBT rights — it’s hard to imagine how any decent human being (or company) could view this as a bad word. But because of the power of words, companies are bending the knee to bullies like Robby Starbuck. 

As corporate sustainability comes under more legal and regulatory scrutiny, we’re further reminded of the significance of words. Companies can’t be cavalier about their sustainability communication any longer because the price of getting it wrong is too high. In the extremely litigious culture of the U.S., words can cost companies millions. Today, a company can potentially be sued simply for saying “making a difference” versus “helping to make a difference.” Recently, I dove deep into this topic during a discussion with “ESG lawyer” Christine Uri on The Sustainability Communicator podcast. 

As a sustainability communicator and writer, it’s my responsibility to look at the data and wrangle the right words in the right way to enable meaningful action on the climate crisis and other pressing environmental and social challenges. Words without numbers often are hollow, and numbers without words typically lack salience. The numbers tell us what we need to do, and words make us want to do it. 

While the words we use to talk about this work change over time, the challenges remain the same. We must work to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis, address longstanding inequities that deplete the moral fiber of society and build businesses and communities capable of standing the test of time. 

Sometimes this means having the courage to say and do the right thing even when people hate you for it.

This originally appeared in the August 2024 ENGAGE newsletter. Subscribe to have articles like this and other sustainability communication content delivered directly to your inbox each month.