Are Philippines companies overselling sustainability?

Sustainability has become one of the most enthusiastically promoted commitments in Philippine business. Corporate reports celebrate environmental achievements, social media pages showcase community programs and industry awards recognize companies for their contributions to society.

From tree planting to renewable energy, businesses have become increasingly adept at telling stories about their sustainability efforts.

But are Philippine companies becoming more sustainable, or simply becoming better at communicating sustainability?

The question is not intended to diminish genuine corporate achievements. Many companies have invested substantial resources in improving their environmental and social performance.

The concern is whether their sustainability narratives accurately reflect what they have accomplished, and whether the organizations producing them have the systems to deliver on their promises.

In a BusinessWorld column I wrote in July 2024, titled “May the real chief sustainability officer rise?,” I questioned the organizational placement of sustainability functions, particularly when they fall under corporate communications.

My concern was never about communications professionals’ competence.

Rather, it was about what such an arrangement might reveal about management priorities. If sustainability is treated primarily as a communications responsibility, does that suggest the company sees it more as a reputation-building exercise than a business-transformation imperative?

Organizational placement alone does not determine effectiveness. What matters is whether sustainability leaders have the authority, resources and access to influence investments, operations, supply chains and corporate strategy. Communications should help explain sustainability achievements, but should not be expected to produce them.

The business implications are considerable. Brand Finance’s 2025 Sustainability Perceptions Index estimated that $174 million of Jollibee’s brand value was associated with sustainability perceptions, followed by $145 million for BDO and $126 million for Red Horse. These figures illustrate the financial significance of how stakeholders perceive corporate sustainability.

Brand Finance itself recognizes an important distinction. Its Sustainability Perceptions Value measures the financial value associated with sustainability perceptions, rather than directly measuring sustainability performance. Its research also examines the gap between perceptions and actual achievements.

Companies face reputation risks when perceptions exceed performance, while genuine accomplishments that remain underrecognized can represent missed opportunities to strengthen brand value.

This distinction raises a difficult question. Are some organizations investing more in communicating sustainability than in building the systems necessary to deliver it?

Consider how sustainability is frequently presented. A company announces that it planted 10,000 trees. Another celebrates distributing reusable bags. A corporation produces an impressive video announcing carbon reduction commitments. These initiatives may be worthwhile, but the publicity often tells us little about their actual outcomes.

How many trees survived? How much waste was prevented? What percentage of emissions was reduced? Were the improvements independently verified?

These questions should be central to sustainability communication, not treated as inconvenient details.

Companies should move beyond reporting activities toward explaining measurable outcomes. A reduction in water consumption should identify its baseline and reporting period.

Renewable energy commitments should disclose actual energy use. Community programs should demonstrate improvements in beneficiaries’ lives rather than simply count participants.

Equally important, companies should acknowledge limitations and unfinished work. Sustainability is a continuous process involving difficult choices and competing priorities.

An organization that explains why it missed a target and what it intends to do about it may be more credible than one that selectively celebrates successes.

This is why the debate should go beyond greenwashing, where environmental claims exaggerate or misrepresent actual performance. Greenhushing also occurs when companies communicate too little about genuine sustainability achievements. Neither exaggeration nor silence serves stakeholders particularly well.

Responsible sustainability communication should match performance, be evidence-based and suit different stakeholders. Investors require material disclosures. Consumers need understandable product claims.

Employees expect corporate promises to match workplace practices. Communities want evidence of lasting benefits.

The Philippines is moving toward more demanding sustainability disclosure requirements.

Corporate communications remains essential. Its responsibility is to translate complex information, engage stakeholders and ensure that claims are accurate and understandable. But communicators must also have the authority to question unsupported claims, not simply package them attractively.

Philippine companies have legitimate sustainability achievements worth celebrating. Those accomplishments should be communicated confidently. But their credibility ultimately depends on whether stakeholders can understand, verify and experience the claimed results.

Perhaps the real question is not whether Philippine companies are overselling sustainability. It is whether they have given sustainability enough authority within their organizations to justify what they tell the public.

Because where sustainability sits in a company may reveal more about its commitment than everything written in its sustainability report.

*Dr. Ron F. Jabal, APR, is the CEO of PAGEONE Group (www.pageonegroup.ph) (www.pageonegroup.ph) and the Founder and President of the Reputation Management Association of the Philippines (www.rmap.org.ph). Please correspond to [email protected] or [email protected]