Blog Only a few years ago, banks were proudly announcing ambitious net zero targets and joining international alliances. Sustainability felt both central to their operations and front and centre in their communications.
Today, the picture looks very different. In some parts of the financial sector, sustainability appears to be falling by the wayside. Following Donald Trump’s re-election, the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), once representing more than 145 banks with around $75 trillion in assets, has been significantly weakened by a wave of withdrawals from major financial institutions. Similarly, the World Bank recently removed its target of directing 45% of lending towards climate-related projects. Elsewhere, other banks have relaxed restrictions on financing oil and gas developments.
Businesses, particularly financial institutions, can’t ignore political reality. Adjusting strategy is part of running any successful organisation, especially in a sector shaped by regulation and commercial risk.
That being said, many banks and financial institutions have spent years positioning sustainability as central to their long-term strategy, and when those commitments take a backseat in light of changing political pressures, it raises an uncomfortable question: if a bank’s sustainability commitment can disappear because of changing politics, to what extent were they really ‘committed’ in the first place?
Of course, people understand that the world changes. What they struggle with however, is silence or – arguably worse – wishy-washy, overly-corporate explanations.
If political pressures have altered the operating environment, explain that. If regulations have changed the balance of commercial risk, say so. If priorities have evolved, communicate the reasoning clearly.
The old communications mantra still applies: do what you say and say what you do.
People may not always agree with a decision, but they’re far more likely to respect organisations that explain difficult choices compared to those who hide behind jargon or hope no one has noticed.
The moment to bring in communications isn’t at the point of the press release. It needs to be much earlier, when commitments are discussed in the boardroom and organisations decide what they can genuinely deliver – from the earliest stages of strategic decision-making. Communications experts should be able to challenge whether commitments are evidence-based, resilient to political and commercial change, and realistic enough to withstand future scrutiny. Its role is to help organisations make commitments they can explain and stand behind, not account for decisions after the fact.
Lastly, although this debate is playing out most visibly in financial services, the lesson isn’t limited to banks. In every sector, organisations who are able to withstand or adapt to political winds, without looking insincere or inconsistent, are the ones that embed communications into strategic decision-making from the start and communicate change with consistency and transparency. Changing direction isn’t necessarily a bad thing, at all. But organisations need to communicate clearly and transparently as to why.
