You all know that I spend a lot of time working on the subject of sustainability.

What’s its impact?

How is it reported by corporations?

Is that reporting accurate?

What do you decide to report if it’s not mandatory for your size/type of company?

How does it relate to corporate fundraising on the public markets?

And most of all, for a marketing and thought-leadership agency – how do you COMMUNICATE it?

Naturally, you’d expect to deploy the numbers, the research, the proofpoints, in order to back up key points about the business case for sustainability.

Certainly, in terms of definitions, the EU Taxonomy has been very helpful, establishing a number of classifications and relating them to notions of measurable ‘materiality’ – i.e. the relationship between an ESG initiative and its real life impact – doing good or avoiding doing harm.

But what we really want to know is where the business world stands on sustainability. Who’s doing it? How much? In what particular areas of their business?

And that’s where things are coming unstuck.

Enter one of my favourite (or most regular) hobby-horses. The abuse of data.

Yes folks, it’s back to haunt us.

Let me tell you what happens when you examine recent research information on sustainability… just a few examples.

One study (2024) tells us that 92% of CFOs plan to boost sustainability spending this year

Hurrah!

Put out more flags!

The world is moving in beautiful choreography to the sustainability dance.

Or is it?

When we look at the underlying data, we never find out by how much they are going to increase sustainability spending. Or the base from which the ones who say they’re going to spend more come.

Groan. What a swizz.

The good news is that they are already spending 2%+ of revenue on these initiatives. That sounds quite a lot.

But then what does revenue actually mean? The source is coy on that one. And the question’s an important one. If the firm’s turnover is, say, €100 million, then 2% is €2 million. Juicy. On the other hand if ‘revenue’ means EBIT, then that might total €10 million (10%), in which can they’re spending just €200,000. Big difference.

So what do other sources say?

One tells us that in fact 90% of firms are going to spend between 5% and 10% of ‘revenue’ on sustainability this year. Different figures entirely.

Another says just two thirds (66%) are to boost sustainability spending in 2025. Much fewer.

Another finds that less than half of businesses have sustainability targets. So how can we believe over 90% are increasing their spending?

And yet another says that only 68% have dedicated sustainability reporting budgets.

Good Lord, what a mess. The disparities and contradictions are huge.

Now none of this is a good reason to stop researching or stop publishing the fruits of that research.

But folks… can we be PRECISE about what is being reported?

What is the company size of the respondents?

What does ‘revenue’ mean?

Are we researching among pioneers, or among a truly representative slice of the business community.

It doesn’t matter what maturity stage the sample is at, so long we are CLEAR about it.

Otherwise, we’re just doing a very great disservice to a very important subject.

I hope you find these bulletins entertaining. I’m happy to discuss all relevant engagements – from customer community creation, to directorial mentoring, to strategy development, to thought-leadership content development, to full campaign structuring and management, and more.

Do get in touch!