It’s not just what you say – why framing climate strategy matters

In a world increasingly shaped by perception, the way we talk about environmental issues can be as important as the issues themselves. Whether we call it climate risk, net zero, sustainable business or responsible capitalism, the framing of environmental messages shapes how people interpret, support and act on them.

The term ‘Obamacare’ famously polarised public opinion in the United States, even when people supported its actual content under different names, such as the Affordable Care Act. The same is true for ESG (environmental, social and governance) – a term once introduced as a politically neutral alternative to ‘sustainability’.

Today, it has become a lightning rod, particularly in the United States where ESG investing is facing backlash and lawsuits from politicians opposed to what they perceive as ‘values-based’ investing.

In response to this controversy, the CFA Institute recently announced it would retire ‘ESG’ from its Certificate in ESG Investing, replacing it with the Sustainable Investing Certificate. As the institute explained, the term ‘sustainable investing’ better reflects the broad, long-term value creation and risk mitigation goals that their qualification aims to support.

This shift isn’t just semantic. It’s strategic.

While we tend to believe that facts speak for themselves, research and experience tell us otherwise. How we frame a message can determine whether it is received with enthusiasm or scepticism.

Speaking at the Sustainable Brands Value of Purpose conference in Rotorua, sustainability strategist Daniel Aronson noted language like ‘sustainability ROI’ and ‘business risk management’ resonates more with financial decision-makers than discussions about planetary boundaries or social good. Sustainable leadership doesn’t always require louder advocacy; it often needs smarter framing to engage people and turn intention into investment.

This is not greenhushing. It is about translating messages into the language of your audience: a boardroom, a procurement team, a CFO’s office.

Take New Zealand startup Mutu, a platform helping companies share resources and reduce waste. At the Sustainable Brands conference, founder Ben Redwood shared how they reframed their story from sustainability to procurement savings to win buy-in from customers and procurement managers. Instead of talking about carbon footprints, they highlighted cost savings and operational efficiency.

The results speak for themselves. Mutu’s partnership with Downer has already diverted over 100 tonnes of materials from landfill. But they didn’t achieve that not just by being green. They achieved it by speaking the language of value creation.

This echoes the broader insight that sustainability doesn’t have to be a trade-off. Done well, sustainability is a business strategy that enhances efficiency, reduces risk, strengthens brand loyalty and unlocks innovation.

Why this matters for boards

A director’s role is not just to oversee risk and compliance, but to help organisations anticipate and adapt. That means ensuring sustainability is embedded not only in strategy but also in culture and communications.

Boards should ask:

• How are we framing our sustainability strategy?
• Is our language enabling or alienating key stakeholders?
• Do we emphasise cost savings, risk management or societal impact?
• Can we frame our climate goals in ways that align with investor priorities or customer values?

Effective governance requires more than setting targets. It requires setting the tone, and the tone starts with the words we choose.

Environmental and climate discourse will always carry some ideological baggage. But rather than abandoning these conversations, we can reclaim them. Whether we use ‘sustainability’, ‘resilience’, ‘low carbon’ or ‘future ready’, the key is to ground our messaging in language that resonates across worldviews.

When it comes to climate action, it is not just about what we say, it is about how we say it - and who is empowered to say it with us. And critically, how we follow this up with action.