Sustainability communication: subjectivity

When reading articles and communications of some large Portuguese companies on Sustainability, I find some common ground. I emphasize at the outset that there are several positive issues, however, there remains a bias and a certain temptation to talk about what they plan to do and what they are doing, but in a vague and too subjective form.

This subjectivity can be refuted as a communication addressed primarily to experts and specialists in the area and therefore it is understandable, but in some cases, even for experts that subjectivity is taken to an extreme close demagoguery.
Example of this was what I read in the wake of an article on sustainability policies of an enterprise, which included some questions and answers. A reader posted a comment saying that he had read and reread the text and still did not understand what is the sustainability policy of this company.

Using channels somewhat general, as the press or other media, messages or using language too technical, or even with little content, it is virtually ignoring many of the stakeholders, who also have access to these channels. Note also the tendency to keep the focus on shareholders and financial public, as opposed to other stakeholders.
This creates space for one of two questions:

- The vagueness of demagoguery is closer than the reality of the organization, and is a conscious and planned strategy. In other words, subjectivity is willful, getting to realize what's the aim of promoting the lack of content;
- Subjectivity serves to mask a certain lack of knowledge and strategy in this area, in addition to the actions and initiatives with no great impact. In other words, ignorance leads to a strategy of "better do something, than not to."
Basically, the key is to put the issue on the table of messages and the consistency of the same or better in this case the lack of consistency. Does this lack of consistency in disguise actually serves the objectives of the organization? Is it worth to spend anything rather than nothing? Here nothing is more consistent.

The Obvious Revolution