How to Talk About Impact Without Overpromising

Impact has become one of the most overused and misunderstood words in sustainability communications.

Everyone wants to show they’re making a difference. The problem is that, under pressure, many organisations end up saying more than they can prove or promising more than they can deliver.

That’s rarely because they’re dishonest. It’s usually because they don’t know how to talk about progress, limitations, and intent in a way that still sounds confident.

Here’s the good news: you don’t need big, sweeping claims to communicate impact well. In fact, the opposite is often true.

The real risk isn’t under-claiming. It’s overstating.

Most greenwashing issues don’t come from outright lies. They come from vague language that sounds impressive but means very little, future-tense promises presented as current reality, or isolated actions framed as system-level change.

For example:

Instead of:

“We’re making a positive impact across our value chain.”

Try:

“This year, we focused on improving data quality in three sourcing regions, which helped us understand where our biggest gaps still are.”

If your claim can’t survive a simple follow-up question (“How?” or “Compared to what?”), it’s probably doing more harm than good.

Impact is a story of progress, not perfection.

One of the biggest mindset shifts I encourage is this: impact doesn’t have to mean outcomes you’ve already solved.

Credible impact communication focuses on what you’ve done, what you’ve learned, what’s changing as a result, and what still needs work.

That difference shows up clearly in language.

Instead of:

“Leading the transition to a more sustainable future.”

Try:

“We’re testing changes to how we set targets and sharing what’s working and what isn’t.”

Audiences today are far more comfortable with “not there yet” language than many teams realise. What they’re less tolerant of is certainty without evidence.

Say what’s real, not what sounds impressive.

A simple test I often use is this: would this sentence still make sense if it were read aloud in a board meeting or by a regulator?

If not, it probably needs tightening. This is where specificity does a lot of quiet work for you.

Instead of:

“Delivering meaningful environmental outcomes.”

Try:

“We reduced energy use at two sites, and we’re still working to address Scope 3 emissions.”

Clarity doesn’t weaken your story. It anchors it.

You don’t need less ambition. You need better language.

Many teams worry that being precise will make their work sound smaller. In reality, it makes it more credible.

There’s a big difference between claiming impact and showing how impact is being built.

Instead of:

“Driving system-wide change.”

Try:

“We’re contributing to a wider effort, but progress depends on partners, suppliers, and policy too.”

The second is slower, more careful, and far more defensible. Over time, it’s also what earns trust.

Final thought

Good sustainability communication doesn’t come from saying less. It comes from saying what’s true, in language that can stand up to scrutiny.

Clarity beats confidence. Progress beats perfection.

If talking about impact feels risky, you’re not alone.

At My Green Comms, I share practical examples and tools to help you stress-test your sustainability language before it goes live.

Sign up for updates for clearer sustainability communications, with less guesswork and fewer risks.