Today’s paradox deals with “climate claims”. When companies set bold climate goals but fall short, “greenwashing” accusations are almost inevitable—even if the intentions are genuine.

One way to navigate this is, paradoxically, by softening the claims while keeping them engaging. For instance:

Saying “We’re fully committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement” is less rigid—and sounds better—than “We commit to a Science-Based Target.”

Similarly, “We support a million new trees” feels more inspiring but carries less risk than “We offset all our emissions with nature-based solutions.”

Paradoxically, a company is often better off making vague claims: The risk of getting criticised is lower because you didn’t promise anything concrete. Indeed, vague and inspirational claims often draw more praise and less scrutiny than rigid, scientific claims.

Have you experienced the claims paradox in your company? How can you ensure that companies with weak but nice-sounding targets—or with no targets at all—are not getting a better deal than companies that set ambitious goals?