From narrative to numbers: The shift reshaping sustainability reporting

The state of sustainability communication

Over the past few years, corporate sustainability communication has undergone a noticeable shift. As regulatory requirements tighten and stakeholders become more discerning, there is less room for unsupported claims and polished narratives. This is reflected in our Webranking data, where an increasing share of Europe's largest listed companies now publish sustainability disclosures aligned with recognised frameworks, yet still struggle to demonstrate the level of transparency and accountability expected by audiences. Many companies highlight ambitions and commitments, but fewer provide tangible progress, methodologies, and data to support them.

This tension sits at the centre of the current conversation - a backlash against greenwashing, but also a growing discomfort with sustainability storytelling that feels celebratory rather than self-reflective.

"Nothing we do is sustainable"

Patagonia’s newly released Work in Progress Report illustrates this shift in practice and tone. Rather than presenting sustainability as a competitive differentiator, the report opens by acknowledging the company’s own limitations: “Nothing we do is sustainable” and “Our existence seems counter to our purpose”. The CEO explicitly states that the last thing they wanted was “page after page of self-congratulation” and frames the report instead as a tool for accountability and progress tracking.

This framing is notable. Few companies voluntarily emphasise uncertainty, incomplete work or setbacks. Yet Patagonia uses this transparency to reinforce credibility:

The report describes Patagonia’s shift from carbon neutrality to a true Net Zero 2040 target, their use of third-party assurance to avoid greenwashing, and their first ESRS-aligned double materiality assessment identifying key impact areas. It also underscores a strict “no offset” policy, focusing instead on decarbonising their own supply chain.

These themes reflect a broader movement in sustainability communication: companies are expected to articulate how they know what their impacts are, why they prioritise certain topics, and what the limitations of their approach are.

The tone is changing

An article in Sustainability Magazine highlights Patagonia’s approach as “refreshingly unpolished” and points to the brand’s willingness to prioritise honesty over image. That attitude is visible throughout the report: the language is direct, pragmatic and occasionally critical of corporate norms. For example, the report calls for businesses to stop hiding behind industry organisations that lobby against climate action and argues that regulatory requirements, often perceived as burdens, can instead drive innovation.

This contrasts with another trend seen in many sustainability reports across industries: highly designed narratives that showcase successes while avoiding operational challenges. As scrutiny increases, these approaches are becoming less convincing.

Why this matters now

This shift arrives at a time when sustainability reporting is becoming more standardised, regulated and data-driven. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the increase in mandatory climate disclosures, and the rise of third-party scrutiny leave companies with less room for broad statements and more pressure to substantiate claims.

At the same time, the expectations for digital sustainability communication are evolving. The shift is not only regulatory but behavioural: stakeholders increasingly want to understand how companies assess their impacts, what drives their priorities, and how they measure progress over time.

'Greenhushing' in a shifting political climate

Some companies, however, respond to these pressures not by improving transparency but by retreating into silence. This is known as greenhushing, the deliberate under-communicating or withholding of genuine sustainability initiatives. Unlike greenwashing, where companies exaggerate or fabricate environmental claims, greenhushing is about doing something but choosing not to communicate it publicly. Companies may greenhush because they fear being accused of greenwashing, worry about regulatory or legal scrutiny, or feel their data or initiatives are not “perfect” enough to share.

This trend has become more visible recently as global political developments influence corporate behaviour. Since early 2025, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to dismantle public-sector DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives and signalled scrutiny of private-sector DEI policies under new executive orders. In response, major companies have scaled back or removed DEI language from public filings and reports. For example, Ericsson removed all references to “diversity and inclusion” from their 2024 annual report - a sharp shift given that these terms appeared multiple times in earlier reports. 

But silence comes at a cost. When real sustainability efforts remain invisible, companies lose opportunities to build credibility, share progress, and influence peers. Stakeholders are left unable to evaluate performance, consumers and investors cannot make informed decisions, and the company misses a chance to strengthen its brand as a trustworthy, responsible actor. This is also something we have seen in the latest Webranking edition.

What Webranking reveals

According to our latest Webranking data, the largest listed companies in Europe struggle the most with presenting the following on their corporate websites. We found that:

• Only 11% their double materiality assessment.
• 15% disclose if their sustainability report has been externally verified.
• 19% present social sustainability data of at least 2 years.
• 19% address two or more environmental areas (e.g. emissions, water, waste, biodiversity), through a data range of at least 2 years.

Although Webranking evaluates only what companies publish on their websites, not the full substance or internal data of their sustainability reports, these stats show us that public disclosure often remains incomplete. As many stakeholders, including investors, analysts, journalists and potential employees, rely on corporate websites as their main source of information, missing or partial disclosures at this level can hinder transparency and comparability.

In today’s market, companies that want to be seen as sustainable brands must do more than bury ESG information in lengthy PDF reports: they need to share data, policies, performance metrics and materiality assessments in accessible and navigable ways.

Transparent, web-based disclosure can help build stakeholder trust and signal that sustainability is integrated into the business rather than an afterthought. Clear and credible sustainability communication offers a strategic advantage: as scrutiny increases and consumers and investors grow more discerning, companies that combine authenticity with accessible evidence are more likely to build lasting reputational capital and differentiate themselves in a crowded field.