Ep. 10: What to call this thing we do, with Moody’s Raheem Cash

The words used to describe sustainability work have morphed and changed over the years — from corporate philanthropy to CSR, to sustainability and ESG. This constant change in terminology confuses even those who live and breathe it everyday and poses a big problem for sustainability communicators. What exactly should we call this “thing” we do?  

In this episode, Mike interviews Raheem Cash, vice president of Corporate Sustainability at Moody’s Corporation, to better understand where we've been, where we are and where we're going when it comes to sustainability terminology and discourse. 

Read the full transcript of the conversation below. You can also listen to this episode on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and YouTube.

TRANSCRIPT

Mike Hower: How we talk about sustainability has changed a lot over the decades from corporate philanthropy to CSR, to sustainability and ESG. What we call this space is constantly in flux. And this has contributed to confusion and corporate sustainability communication, writ large. 

What do we call this work we do? And if we can't get our terminology straight, how can we expect to clearly communicate sustainability to those who don't even live this stuff every day? 

Today, we're going to explore the evolution of language around sustainability, where we've been, where we are and where we're going. So to help us with this today on the pod, I'm excited to have Raheem Cash, a sustainability ESG and EH&S leader with 30 years of extensive experience developing and implementing business focused strategies for a wide range of organizations. He currently is VP of corporate sustainability at Moody's Corporation. 

And before that, He held corporate sustainability roles at Lockheed Martin, AECOM and the U.S. General Services Administration, among others. Thanks for being here today, Raheem. 

Raheem Cash: Well, thank you.   

Mike: So you've been working in this space for a while now. We had a conversation a couple of months ago before GreenBiz, on this topic — but how has the terminology changed since you've been in this space? How has it impacted the way that companies communicate sustainability? 

Raheem: Well, as you mentioned — the 30 years — so it's very funny that coming up July 18th will be the 30th anniversary of me starting my first real job after grad school. And That was in the middle of the pollution prevention era. So, that was the mantra at that time. And that was sort of coming out of the pollution control era and stewardship and conservation. And I think really these changes reflect a difference in what we understand about the environment — and also changes in how we view the corporate role with respect to the environment.

So, going back to when it was pollution control — it was basically about companies causing harm. “You are causing damage and we have to stop you from doing that. Here are the rules. You will comply with those.” And that led to companies wanting to find a way to present a different narrative about the things they were doing, the corporate responsibility, social responsibility, and to kind of counter that  single minded approach and viewpoint of what a company's role is with respect to society. 

And so now we're going forward. We are recognizing that companies have a positive role to play. It doesn't take away the need for pollution control, obviously, but there are things that companies can do that will advance sustainability writ large. And I think the other aspect that's led to some changes in terminology is that understanding of, it's not just the impact on.

The environment or society — it's a two way street and that's when you really have investors coming in and saying, wait a second, this actually can affect the bottom line of a company and we need to understand this better. And so we end up with terminology around that. 

I think what we're seeing really reflects that deeper understanding and the multi directional aspect of sustainability and the actors involved and the interest to go from general public interest, regulator interest, investor interest and now any company recognizes that their own employees have an interest as well. And so the terms are in flux, they come and go, but it's really based on those changes in perspectives and understanding. 

Mike: It's fascinating. I've been in this space for about 15 years, right when corporate responsibility was gaining traction and the idea of sustainable business was becoming more prominent. I was really drawn to the concept of business being a force for good. It's interesting to think that when you started your career, it was almost the opposite narrative — businesses were often seen as inherently bad. Then there was this shift, but now I wonder, where are we headed? Are we still moving towards viewing business as a force for good, or have we swung too far in that direction? Do we now need to focus more on mitigating the negative impacts of business?

Raheem: That's an interesting point. We've talked before about the backlash against ESG initiatives. I see a lot of that as a necessary correction. We've reached a point where simply projecting an image of sustainability isn't enough. Communication has become key, distinguishing between promoting a brand through sustainability and actually communicating what actions are being taken. We need clarity on what businesses are really doing. I believe if they focus on genuine action, the positive image will naturally follow. Remember that old ad campaign, "Image is everything"? 

In the sustainability space, we've seen a lot of emphasis on image, sometimes overshadowing real action. This is partly because companies were eager to share their positive initiatives, but when these initiatives didn't seem to have a tangible impact on the bottom line, investors started questioning their significance. The backlash against ESG isn't just from one side — even those who prioritize environmental issues are calling for less focus on promotion and more on genuine action that aligns with business reality.

Mike: Yeah, that resonates with a lot of conversations I've been having recently on the pod and just kind of out in the world — that a lot of companies find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to sustainability communication.

Because there are some that are actually, at least they're trying to do better. They're trying to improve their performance on sustainability and ESG. And then they put out communication and then they get hit on both sides. So, they get hit for being woke on one side and they get hit for not doing enough on the other.

And so a lot of them are retracting, which everyone's familiar with the term “green hushing” by now — which is when you're taking sustainability actions, but then not talking about it — and I've been hearing this happening a lot more across the board where companies are like, “we're going to keep doing the work, but we're just not going to talk about it.”

Have you kind of seen that across your network? And how does a company move forward where they're kind of “damned if they do, damned if they don't?”  

Raheem: Yeah, I have seen some of that over the past several years and some peers struggling with that.  And with the rock and the hard place, I mean, there are times when I say some of this is putting yourself in that hard place. And that again tends to happen if you're a little bit too focused on the promotion aspects. So, I think it's incumbent upon sustainability leaders to make sure that they are avoiding that. 

And really, the only way to do it is to remain really focused on what is actually happening in your company. What are you actually doing? And what are you actually able to document and prove that you're doing as well? So, that's the first step. And then the other part is this profession — you'll truly never make anyone happy. You just learn that you'll be welcomed and loved in the beginning — but over time as you start pushing and pulling to drive action — you'll get resistance. And the resistance doesn't always last, but it's tricky because often you are advocating things that most people actually agree with and want to see happen, but the changes that are required start bumping up against some established procedures, established preferences. And that's when you have a much, much tougher time making progress.

And then the result of that is things don't move fast enough. So, those who are really in your corner from the very beginning, in fact, they're the ones pushing and pulling you. Yes, you get the, oh, you know, we're not really doing enough. Why isn't this actually happening? And again, those are just the rhythms of being a sustainability professional externally.

Dealing with the reactions again, you do end up performing some triage in terms of what do you listen to? You'll get plenty of complaints or even praise, and you really have to start discerning which of those sources are actually most meaningful to the business. So, there are plenty of ratings out there.

They all have different methodologies. Most of them don't share what they are necessarily. But even when they do, you have to avoid getting to a point where you're trying to guide your actions based on what those ratings might say, because otherwise you'll be just pulled in different directions.

And again, those where you're being pulled may not align with the reality of your business. So, I always come back to that, you know, “what is the reality of your company, your business that has to be what guides you.”  

Mike: I think that was actually some really great career advice for people even trying to break into this space. I do these monthly calls with people who are trying to break into sustainability and ESG and they often ask me, you know, “how do you break in”, but often they have a — and I know I used to be like this too — they have kind of an idealistic idea of what it's like to be an in house sustainability person.

And I think your point is that, it's not necessarily a thankless role — but it's not like you're just this superhero that everybody wants to follow all the time. People might agree with you, but change is hard. 

So moving on — the anti-ESG rhetoric, you know, we've heard a lot about this. I don't like calling it the anti-ESG movement because that makes it sound like it's this big thing, which I don't think it is — it's a small but highly vocal group of individuals in government and business that have basically killed the term ESG. It sounds like now it's effectively dead. A lot of companies are moving away from leading with the issue and their communication this year, actually I've seen a lot of companies change their reports from ESG reports of sustainability or impact reports.

Why do you think they were so effective in this effort? And why are companies listening to such a small vocal group? Has this happened before in your 30 years of experience — has there been a term that's been this politicized like this, and I'm just curious what you think about that. 

Raheem: Yeah, I don't think that this level of focus and attention — I don't recall that. I'm not sure I agree with the ESG being killed at this point because if it has been, it's a very powerful zombie. I guess because it's still all over the place and obviously has meaning. But as I mentioned before, I mean, in some ways it's probably a sort of a corrective and it's forcing everyone to focus on, well, what are you really doing and what are you really talking about? 

And so, in some ways, well, we're not going to call it ESG. That might mean you're going to actually look at what you're communicating and give it the proper name. And I will say when ESG was first emerging as a term — being old school as I was — it's sort of, well, what was wrong with sustainability?

And isn't this really — isn't ESG just business sustainability? And then I realized it was a problem there because the acronym is BS. And so I said, “okay, so now I understand why we can't call it business sustainability” because it gives us an acronym that we're trying to actually avoid, but unfortunately, and for many people, ESG has become BS.

And so how do you avoid that? How do you — and sometimes it is by saying, well, let's not focus on that term with respect to listening to a small group again, if they're powerful. And in this case, if it's coming from your government or key legislators in your government, then of course.

That's why you're listening to them. There are those important relationships to maintain.And so, you can't ignore that. But, as you mentioned earlier, there is a difference between using certain terms versus continuing to take action and engage  and especially engage with those who are very supportive of what you're doing.

And that includes other powerful voices. So, it's a tricky balance and I think every company is really just assessing the extent to which those anti ESG voices matter to them. So, it goes back to what I was saying earlier, that you are sorting through that all the time. And so if some of those anti-ESG voices are for your business, actually pretty critical, then it's very reasonable to say, well, let's not unnecessarily provoke them in that end.

Other companies have more of a luxury of either having a different constituency that might be equally as powerful — and so therefore say, “well, no, we're going to listen to them because at the end of the day, those are the voices that are actually going to impact our business most.” So, what I find interesting is that it does actually pull it into a strategic discussion about your communications and engagement around this topic.

And it's no longer just off to the side and it's not just your communications wing. It's communications, engaging with your sustainability teams and engaging with your finance teams and others to really understand and your government affairs teams to really understand the company as a whole and say, okay, what is the best way for us to engage with our stakeholders on this topic? And currently that includes an assessment of. What word do we use to do it?  

Mike: I agree with that. A lot of companies this year are reflecting on what we call this work we do. And I've seen this during my time as a journalist and even as a consultant that a lot of times outside of the  ESG team — or sometimes it's one person, sometimes multiple people — like the marketing team doesn't really get what this is and they still see sustainability as like this cute Earth Day thing.

And so, I think that internal education is really important in helping them understand that. ESG is a risk management framework. This is not about hugging trees and yeah, I guess I should backtrack that ESG isn't dead — or maybe it's a powerful zombie.

But I think that on the communication side of things, the ESG work is still being done — but there are some companies that are afraid of calling it that. It's definitely a weird time, but it's a weird time from a year ago where I feel like ESG was hot. It was the hot word. And I think that's the bigger trend is like — whatever we call this stuff, the work doesn't change — what we call it is going to probably change 10 more times in the next five years. But as long as  what we're actually doing is continuing on that path, that's what matters most.

Moving on to ratings, you kind of touched on this already. I know in my own work, a lot of times this is what companies are most interested in, especially with reports is — how are we going to put out a report that's going to influence ratings? A lot of their comms and reporting efforts are focused on improving a score from a rater when all their mysterious methodologies, I even get asked like, what do we need to do to get a better score from this rating agency?

And I often have to tell them a lot of this is a guessing game because they don't disclose what they're actually looking for half the time and they're all different. So, I'm curious, if you think that, how companies communicate sustainability — does that actually have a causal link to the ratings or, if companies are actually working to do a better job on this, how can they change how they talk about it to improve the ratings? 

Raheem: I've actually not seen that kind of calculation going on precisely because you really can't predict the outcome. And so, typically what you're doing is the raters will give you the results. You then have a chance to engage with them directly, provide other evidence that might support, well, actually we think we have disclosed this information.

We do believe it's efficient and sometimes you'll get a change. Sometimes you won't, but in terms of the communications. And I think I should make a distinction between the communication and disclosures. And I've started to make that distinction just because it keeps me sane because it does reflect the different audiences that you're trying to reach.

So, with your disclosures, which is usually through the investor and now increasingly the regulator community, that's really where your ratings entities are looking. The communications piece where you're typically speaking to a broader public, those certainly you're not trying to influence ratings that way.

The raters aren't really looking at that except to see if you're being inconsistent. So, of course, if you're promoting something in one place and it's not matching up with what you're promoting elsewhere, it doesn't matter, but really it's about looking at your company and seeing where we are taking action and perhaps not sharing, not disclosing.

Are we being transparent enough? If we're not, can we change that? So that's where the discussions I've had over the years internally — is that you see a rating, you have a lower score on a particular section because you haven't put something out publicly. And then it's this question of, can we do that?

Do we want to do that? Why? Why not? You know, what are the pros and cons? And in any case, it resulted in, oh, you know, yeah, let's, let's go ahead and share that. We have this data. You don't have a problem sharing it. And so you do it and even once you've done that, your score, you may get an improvement in that one section, that one line item perhaps, but overall, you still don't really know what happened.

I don't think there's much of a strategy around trying to influence the outcome of those because it's really, really difficult to do. 

Mike: Shifting gears to your current work at Moody's, can you tell me a bit more about  your sustainability strategy and your approach to communicating what you're doing on ESG and sustainability?

What kind of messages are you trying to put out there? And what channels do you use? And what's been  your experience lately with those efforts? 

Raheem: Right now, a lot of the focus and I've been there, it's been one year, as of earlier this month. One of the things from a particular communications and disclosure standpoint, we are about to put our revamped website for sustainability and a separate site for our ESG information. And that's really reflecting what I was saying earlier, it is particularly important at this moment, very important that we are clear about who we're speaking to. And so that we're not trying to satisfy multiple audiences with very different interests, through a single document. And of course, my push was also to get rid of the document, putting out books that no one's going to — huge, very colorful, wonderful, things that people really are not going to sit down and read, but to make sure we are still effectively conveying the actions that we're taking.

And at the same time, the data that goes behind those actions. And so this allows us to explain what  sustainability means to Moody's, what's relevant to us, and the action that we're taking and do so in a way that's attractive to potential talent. General public, but still do so within the frameworks like a GRI, for instance, and that was their whole mission is to make sure companies aren't just putting out.

Oh, you've done these wonderful things. You plant the trees. It still again has to be based on the reality of your company. It has to address the impacts that you're actually having. So we're still adhering to those frameworks with that sort of general sustainability communication, but you also said we want to make sure it's easy for investors and regulators to find what they need. 

In order to make the decisions that they have to make regarding movies from an ESG perspective. So the CDP reports, the human rights statements and all of those things are available there along with the ESG data points — from the human capital data, GHG emission data, all of that readily accessible.

So, that will be up and running later, the latter portion of May. And I see that as just freeing us up because it means once you have that clarity as to who you're speaking to, then that kind of translates through all of your other communications. You've mentioned that struggle, which does exist everywhere where it's not just about recycling and you're trying to always get that message through.

Well, I can spend a lot more time now developing messaging for an internal audience to explain how does Moody's relate to sustainability, what are the impacts we have and and how are the various things we're doing — you know, the wonderful things we're doing across the company relate to that and therefore, we're not just speaking about this in a vacuum, it's showing how it's connected to the company as a whole.

And before it actually started to get to a point where you were excluding some of that because you really wanted to make sure the investors and so on were getting what they needed so this, splitting them up, I think, is going to bring some major benefits in addition to reducing the amount of paper used to print out some of these and  and all.

Mike: I like that idea. And yeah, that's, that's definitely been one of my biggest criticisms of reports. And  part of what I do for a living is helping companies create reports.But a lot of times, they're trying to appease every audience that's out there when they all have different needs, right? Your consumers don't need the same information your investors need, but trying to put it all into one document is not only stressful and hard to do, but like to your point, nobody's reading them. 

So what have been some of the challenges Moody has faced in its sustainability communication and  what are the key challenges and  who are your key audiences and how are you reaching them?  

Raheem: I still like to say our employees, they come top of mind to me and, admittedly, we've been reshaping things and, and addressing, regulators at the moment, getting ready for that.

So that's kind of thrown a wrench into things, realizing that, okay, now we're going to be told exactly what to say and when to say it and where to say it. And so, that's distracted us, distracted me anyway, a little bit from doing some of the things I want to do internally. Because I think that's how you keep that motivation.

When I say employees — that's the broad term — but within that, there are employees whose roles have a very direct impact on Moody's sustainability. So if you're the decisions that various people are making with regards to real estate or purchasing — all of those things really are at the heart of sustainability for Moody's. And so, wanting to make sure that we are communicating. And it's not just through web pages, but it's through training and so on and benchmarking with other companies with peers to learn some best practices. All of that's essential to keep things going for us. And so, I think for me, it's still that internal audience that's first and foremost, then you've got the regulator side and that's just by necessity, right?

You can't ignore them. And so, the challenge is that balance, the challenge of making sure that you are not expending so many resources towards satisfying the needs and preferences of an admittedly very powerful audience, regulators, investors at the expense of the people that will actually drive sustainability in your company.

And not to mention the people who are not in your company yet, but who are looking around and making choices and deciding. It may not be looking at your sustainability performance as a primary decision point, but when it comes down to company A versus company B, and if they have any concern or interest about sustainability, they're going to choose the one that's doing the right thing and able to effectively communicate about what they're doing and demonstrate the seriousness.

With which they take sustainability and how they've linked it to their business. S, I want to make sure we're doing that.  

Mike: Yeah, that's definitely something I've seen too. And I'm going to have on the pod soon a Gen Zer who just graduated from Yale. Who's talking about the Gen Z perspective on sustainability.

And  one of his key points was that, more so than — even that I'm a millennial, I guess I'm an old millennial, you know — we cared about this and then I think the recession hit us and then we kind of had to get real, so to speak, but Gen Z is definitely like, Double down on like, we're only going to work for companies that we believe in.

And so I think it's going to be more important than ever. If you want to hire anybody under the age of 30 soon, you're going to have to have clear communication around what you're doing or, they're going to be asking these questions and you're gonna have to have the answers at some point.

Raheem: Yeah. And I think we've benefited from the frameworks that have now, some of them have been incorporated into regulation. But you know, the GRIs, the SASBs, the notion that says, okay, yes, you're communicating, but here's some guardrails. And so, we can understand like, what are you talking about — making sure it's relevant.

I think it's actually been very helpful to have that and the extent to which regulations will help that I don't know. I mean, I think  it's a positive step at the same time. I think it does make it more challenging because now  there's a fear element. And once you have a fear element introduced into things like this, you're not sure where it will take you.

But I think that it helps guide communications, and also helps the relationships between the sustainability team and the communications team when we can all understand that it's not just communicating anything and everything — that there are some guidelines to follow. And that means when you're talking about, as you mentioned, getting to external audiences who are the Gen Z folks, they are not going to go for BS.

They understand that there has to be something behind it. So to have frameworks that you can follow that minimizes the chances that you end up putting out BS, I think has been very helpful and will, I think, lead to better decisions, which is what Moody's is all about, helping companies make better decisions.

But in this case, it's better to make decisions regarding what you talk about and how. 

Mike: Right. Raheem. I think we have time for one more question. Everything we talked about today is very helpful to give us a framework we're thinking about — like, I love this idea of separating your disclosures from your communication. What advice would you give companies that are looking to do that in their own sustainability disclosure strategy?

A lot of companies that I've encountered either working with directly or even just met through my network — they range of all sizes. Like some companies maybe only have one person handling this, or they might have a team. Not everybody has the resources to do a very comprehensive sustainability strategy or comms plan.

What kind of general advice would you give a company that's just starting out — or maybe, has been doing this a while and wants to revamp it — to do a better job communicating sustainability?  

Raheem: One thing that I've liked the most about my experience at Moody's so far is the strength of, and the closeness between sustainability and communications — and that's not something that you often see.

So, it allows the sustainability team to, well, communicate their perspective with respect to these various issues. And I have found that I'm working with communications folks who have an understanding of the approach and strategy that we have as a company towards sustainability. And that in turn has meant that they're able to come up with potential ideas on communicating — even in some cases changing the way they've done things previously because they now have an understanding of the direction we're going in and the approach that we want to take.

That closeness I think is really essential because it's fascinating — particularly now how often something that might seem very straightforward And to say, yes, let's share this with everyone. And it enters the community communication space and you get into editing and wanting to make something, no, well, that's too technical.

Don't we want to not use that word and so on. And if it wasn't for that closeness with sustainability, someone to say, “wait a second, no, no, that word has to stay there.” 

That actually means something very, very important, very specific. And if you put it out without that, or if you add this other word, we're going to have a problem.

And so, those kinds of things are avoided when you have that closeness. And so, it doesn't mean move your sustainability team under communications and what have you. I'm usually someone that says,  you know, the question of where to put sustainability has been around way too long. And I think part of the challenge is that our interactions go all over the place.

But when it comes to communicating, you really just have to be sure that  you have dedicated folks in your communications team to work with your sustainability team so that that understanding can develop over time. And I would say it's not just one way. It's not, this isn't just about communications, both understanding sustainability — it's the other way too. I mean, it helps for us too in sustainability to understand what they're trying to achieve and communicate about the company. And that, in turn, allows us to come up with ways in which we can advance their agenda as well. 

Mike:  That's often where I come in to kind of be that person that speaks between the sustainability team and the marketing comms team.

And often, there's a big disconnect where the sustainability people don't always get marketing and comms — and then the comms people don't get sustainability. And so finding a way to work closer together is really important. What I've seen even when companies are caught for greenwashing, I would be surprised if that was done intentionally.

I think a lot of times it's because the comms people just get it because they couldn't possibly get it if they don't live and breathe this stuff. And so  finding a way to either uplevel your sustainability people to do a better job communicating or working with the comms team or getting the comms people to at least, you know, they don't have to necessarily become ESG experts, but at least understand it enough to your point of being like, all right, removing this word or adding this word changes the meaning.

And then that turns us into greenwashing or also knowing what's interesting, right?  Like net zero was a cool word a couple of years ago, and now it's not, it's not groundbreaking anymore. And, also speaking the language of sustainability is kind of a growth mindset activity — you're never going to be perfectly sustainable.

So, you don't need to put out all of this communication, making it sound like you're perfect because you're never going to be. 

Raheem: That's the corner I talked about, you know, so it's the hard place. So, the rock and a hard place that's the kind of thing that gets you into that hard place.

Mike: Exactly. Yeah. Nobody wants to be there. Well, that's a great place for us to stop today. I think we could keep talking forever on this topic, but thank you so much for him, uh, for your time today.  

Raheem: Oh, I appreciate it, Mike. Thank you. 

Mike: Great. And for everybody listening, , Brahim cash is the VP of corporate sustainability at Moody's. Thank you so much Raheem. 
Raheem: All right. Thanks, Mike.

Subscribe to The Sustainability Communicator LinkedIn newsletter to be notified whenever new episodes are published.