Climate risk: A reputation test most organisations are failing
Climate change is reshaping how organisations are judged. Performance still matters. But credibility now determines whether that performance is believed. And in an environment where trust is already fragile, that distinction is critical. Because ultimately, your license to operate will depend not on what you say, but on whether people believe you.
Tshepo Sefotlhelo says climate change is reshaping how organisations are judged and you cannot communicate your way out of a credibility gap (Image source: @News24 News24)
Extreme weather events, supply chain disruptions and shifting regulations are now part of the operating environment. But what follows these events is just as important. Stakeholders are asking harder questions. Who is accountable? Who is prepared? Who is honest?
In that moment, communication is not about crafting the right message. It is about whether there is anything credible to say at all.
Too often, there isn’t.
From my time as the global director of communication at IDH, working across multiple markets, I’ve had close visibility of how sustainable trade and agricultural landscape programmes operate.
One lesson stands out: you cannot communicate your way out of a credibility gap. You have to build trust long before the pressure comes.
A test of leadership
The latest climate briefing from the World Economic Forum points out three clear trends: climate shocks are intensifying, the gap between ambition and delivery is widening, and the scrutiny on climate finance is increasing.
None of these is surprising.
What is concerning is how unprepared many organisations still are from a credibility point of view.
Because climate change is no longer just an environmental or a policy issue. It is fast becoming a test of leadership, and more importantly, of trust.
The ambition gap is becoming a trust gap
There has been no shortage of climate commitments. Net-zero targets have become standard language across sectors.
But stakeholders are no longer impressed by commitments on paper. They are looking for evidence. And that is where many organisations are falling short.
There is a tendency to communicate ambition in broad, polished terms, while progress on the ground remains unclear or uneven. That disconnect is where trust begins to erode.
Where work is visible, where farmers are adopting new practices, where ecosystems are being restored, where supply chains are becoming more resilient, the story becomes easier to tell, and more importantly, easier to believe.
The shift required is straightforward: moving away from communicating intent and focusing on demonstrating progress.
Climate finance will define the net phase of scrutiny
The increasing focus on climate finance is not a technical debate. It is a credibility issue.
Questions around greenwashing, the integrity of carbon markets and the actual impact of climate investments are gaining traction. And they are not going away.
There is also a tendency to hide behind complexity – to assume that stakeholders will not interrogate the details.
That assumption no longer holds.
If anything, complexity raises the bar. It requires organisations to explain, in clear and practical terms, how capital is deployed and what it achieves.
Where it works, it should be shown. Where it falls short, it should be acknowledged.
Credibility does not come from having a perfect story. It comes from being able to stand behind it.
Communication needs to move upstream
One of the more persistent mistakes is treating communication as something that happens after decisions are made. In the context of climate risk, that approach is outdated.
Communication should shape how organisations think about risk, accountability and stakeholder expectations from the outset. It should inform strategy, not simply package it.
This is especially important in environments where multiple stakeholders are involved – government, business, financiers and communities. Alignment is not automatic; it requires deliberate effort.
And without clear, credible communication, that alignment breaks down quickly.
The bar has moved.
It is no longer enough to have a climate strategy. It has to stand up to scrutiny.
That means being able to show progress, not just plans. Being transparent, even when the picture is not perfect. Engaging consistently, not only when under pressure.
It also means grounding global commitments in local realities. Climate change may be global, but trust is built much closer to home.
About the author
Tshepo Sefotlhelo is a communications professional with extensive experience in reputation management and strategic advisory across Africa and beyond.