Is your comms team too green?

Safeguarding against misleading corporate claims or blatant attempts to be economical with the truth is PR 101.

Any legal PR team worth their salt understands the future implications of creating strategies that try to wash over issues in the hope the reality won’t be discovered. A foolish strategy, particularly in the era of online sleuthing.

It was therefore interesting to read a piece in Legal Futures this month covering new guidance by the Law Society, which directs in-house lawyers to train their firm’s marketing and communications teams on the risks of greenwashing. It states they should use their “legal eye to edit out over-optimistic claims” and “add disclaimers or context where needed.”

Something that may seem obvious until you take a closer look at the history of corporate environmental behaviour and the nuances of the term “greenwashing”.

The term itself has been around for over 40 years, first used by the oil company Chevron in the 1980s to convince the public that their brand was more eco-friendly than the reality of their corporate behaviour.

At the time, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that their commercial depicting Chevron employees protecting adorable wildlife won an advertising award.

This may seem astonishing in 2026, as the UK is experiencing devastating grass fires, deeply concerning droughts, and is currently on a collision course to a record-breaking summer. Despite the general consensus on climate change and the importance of ESG policies being realised many years ago, there appears to be a genuine need for guidance on the reality of environmental pledges.

A global review by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2021 found that 40 per cent of green claims online could be classed as misleading, demonstrating there is still a disconnect that needs to be addressed.

Since the term greenwashing became part of the modern vernacular, it has evolved to encompass more nuanced practices, such as greenwishing, in which businesses set well-meaning environmental goals that are ultimately unattainable. A promise made with good intentions, which could carry not only reputational damage but also legal consequences.

The new guidance points out that this is a difficult line to tread, particularly for in-house counsel, who face additional pressures to satisfy stakeholders, something in-house communications teams will know all too well.

At Black Letter Communications, we consistently emphasise the importance of ensuring the communications lead has a seat at the board room table. Public relations should always be considered part of a successful business strategy, rather than an afterthought correction mechanism to be relied upon once the horse has bolted.

Stories are only successful if they have the credentials to back them up. The same rules apply to policies. The well-meaning actions behind a story, policy, or corporate activity will be forgotten if they come under scrutiny for misleading the public.

We regularly train in-house PR and legal teams on the impact of establishing regular reviews, so PR opportunities can be maximised, and the organisation can create an environment where issues and ideas are openly discussed during the formation stage, allowing for strategies to be moulded and sense-checked through multiple experts to simultaneously boost and protect reputation.

This guidance is asking the same. Will your environmental pledges stand the test of time, or will your feet get burnt in the future?