Why Greenwashing Is No Longer a Communications Issue: But a Governance Issue

For years, greenwashing has been treated as a communications problem.

A misleading claim.
An overenthusiastic press release.
A poorly worded sustainability statement.

The solution was assumed to sit within marketing: adjust the language, refine the message, soften the headline.

But that era has passed. In music, media and live events, greenwashing is no longer a branding risk. It is a governance issue.

And governance failures carry far greater consequences than reputational embarrassment.

The Regulatory Landscape Has Shifted

Across the UK and Europe, environmental claims are under increasing scrutiny.

• The Green Claims Code requires claims to be truthful and substantiated.
• The ASA is actively challenging misleading advertising.
• The FCA’s Anti-Greenwashing Rule now places legal expectations on sustainability claims made by regulated firms.

Even where events and media organisations are not directly regulated under financial frameworks, they sit within sponsor and investor ecosystems that are.

When a sustainability claim is made publicly, on stage, in a sponsorship deck, in a broadcast or on social media, it now exists in a regulatory context.

The question is no longer “Does this sound credible?”

It is “Can this be evidenced? And who is accountable if it cannot?”

That is governance territory.

Why Marketing Cannot Solve Structural Risk

Marketing teams do not calculate scope 3 emissions.

They do not control freight logistics.
They do not oversee energy procurement.
They do not manage supplier due diligence.

Yet in many organisations, sustainability messaging still originates in communications departments.

This creates structural vulnerability.

If operational data is incomplete, if measurement boundaries are unclear, or if reduction strategies are underdeveloped, no amount of careful wording will remove the risk. It merely postpones it.

Greenwashing is rarely born from deliberate deception. More often, it emerges from misalignment between ambition, operations and oversight.

When sustainability sits outside governance structures, misalignment is almost inevitable.

The Complexity of Live Events Demands Oversight

Live events and media productions are operationally complex environments.

They involve:

• Temporary infrastructure
• Global logistics
• Multiple suppliers
• Rapid timelines
• International jurisdictions
  
  

Environmental impact is distributed across power systems, transport networks, materials, catering, waste streams and audience travel.

In this context, sustainability claims require robust internal structures:

• Clear reporting boundaries.
• Defined financial control.
• Stakeholder engagement.
• Data collection systems.
• Senior-level accountability.

Without these foundations, sustainability becomes interpretive: and interpretation is where greenwashing risk grows.

Sponsors Have Raised the Bar

A significant shift has come from sponsors.

Financial institutions, global brands and publicly listed companies are now under formal ESG reporting obligations. Their sustainability claims are scrutinised by regulators, investors and shareholders.

When those organisations align themselves with an event described as “carbon neutral” or “net zero,” they inherit the credibility (or fragility) of that claim.

This changes the commercial dynamic.

Sustainability data is no longer requested for PR purposes. It is required for compliance, risk management and reporting accuracy. If event organisers cannot provide defensible methodologies, governance questions follow.

Greenwashing exposure no longer sits solely with communications teams. It sits with executive leadership.

Governance Is About Accountability

At its core, governance answers three questions:

1. Who is responsible?
2. How is information verified?
3. What happens if it is wrong?

When sustainability claims are made without clear oversight, those questions remain unanswered.

Strong governance in sustainability means:

• Board-level awareness of environmental impact
• Defined sign-off processes for public claims
• Transparent methodologies
• Independent verification where appropriate
• Alignment between operational data and external messaging
  
  

It ensures that sustainability is embedded into decision-making rather than layered onto it.

In practical terms, this may involve integrating carbon reporting into executive dashboards, assigning accountability within senior leadership, or formalising sustainability review processes before major announcements.

This is not bureaucracy. It is risk management.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

In cultural industries, reputational damage moves quickly.

Events and broadcasts operate in high-visibility environments. Sustainability claims are amplified across media channels and social platforms within minutes.

If a claim is challenged and found to lack evidence, consequences extend beyond headlines. They can affect sponsor relationships, funding agreements, procurement processes and internal morale.

More subtly, they erode trust. And trust, once weakened, is difficult to restore.

In other words, greenwashing is no longer an abstract ethical concern: It is a material commercial risk.

From Narrative to Infrastructure

The organisations that are navigating this shift successfully share one characteristic: sustainability is treated as infrastructure.

• It is measured consistently.
• It is reviewed internally.
• It informs procurement and operational decisions.
• It is governed, not improvised.

When sustainability becomes part of organisational architecture rather than a communications initiative, the risk of greenwashing reduces dramatically.

Claims become a reflection of systems, not aspirations.

The Opportunity Within the Shift

There is a positive dimension to this evolution.

When governance strengthens, credibility strengthens. In music, media and live events (sectors with extraordinary cultural influence) robust sustainability governance does more than protect reputation. It builds leadership.

• It allows organisations to speak confidently.
• It strengthens sponsor relationships.
• It enables year-on-year improvement grounded in data.

In a sector often defined by creativity and agility, embedding governance may feel counterintuitive. But without it, sustainability remains vulnerable to misinterpretation and overstatement.

The industry does not need less ambition. It needs more structure behind it.

A Defining Moment

Greenwashing has moved beyond communications missteps.

It now sits at the intersection of regulation, investor scrutiny, sponsorship dynamics and public expectation. For live events and media, this represents a defining moment.

Sustainability must move from messaging to management. From campaign to control. From aspiration to accountability.

The question for leadership teams is no longer whether sustainability should be communicated.

It is whether it is governed.

Because in today’s landscape, the credibility of your claims depends not on how they are written: but on how your organisation is structured to support them.

Building Governance Into Sustainability

Strengthening sustainability governance requires clarity, measurement and alignment between operations and communications.

At Hope Solutions, we work exclusively across music, media and live events to ensure environmental impact is captured comprehensively, reported transparently and embedded into operational decision-making. The aim is simple: to ensure sustainability claims reflect reality: and stand up to scrutiny.

If sustainability sits within your communications team but not yet within your governance framework, now is the time to address the gap.

Contact Hope Solutions to build sustainability strategies that are not only ambitious, but accountable.

‍