Accusations have been flying around the advertising sector again this week, with an anonymous group of senior people claiming that large agencies are enabling clients in environmentally-pollutive industries to continue to greenwash what they do.

Whistleblower group Inside Track released a memo making the case that the Donald Trump-led anti-DEI and anti-climate agenda had caused some ad agency bosses to effectively sanction greenwashing for clients. It also claimed that “the power of tech giants and holding groups is undermining the independence of UK advertising.”

The advertising industry, and agencies in particular, have been the target of action groups like Clean Creatives for several years, but this memo points the finger more directly at larger agency groups that also own PR and communications firms.

Yet a separate survey of chief sustainability officers outlined that project credibility and business reputation concerns were preventing organisations from investing in climate and nature initiatives, and a quarter feared a greenwashing backlash more than the implications of not taking positive climate action.

It also showed that many companies still wanted to invest in climate-positive activity, but needed better evidence to support it.

But the greenwashing point is the fundamental one. The survey pointed to a form of paralysis that seems to have invaded some in the corporate world, as worries about being seen to deliberately mislead the public had become so severe that many were preferring to do nothing, rather than risking being called out in the public eye.

Which would be an unwelcome by-product of the anti-greenwashing brigade.

On paper, it should be fairly simple: facts are either true or false, information is either right or wrong, rules around wording are either broken or not. But in an advertising sector that is struggling to meet future needs and deal with a soft economy, and given the political heat that can be felt at multiple levels, there are likely many pressures on senior advertising executives to sign off work that crosses the line. And as this week’s finger-pointers are anonymous, we don’t know whether they’re competitors from smaller agencies trying to also score points.

Looking at where communications fits into all of this, this recent MIT Sloan piece and podcast sums it up nicely: do it with honesty and integrity to achieve real change. If you want to transform your business, you should talk but not overpromise and “leave space between words and deeds” rather than wanting to hog the limelight, it advises.

“Companies that publicly communicate bold sustainability goals can trigger the internal processes, alignment, and momentum that make those goals more likely to be achieved — but excessive talk can impede this effect,” it says.

It’s not quite as black and white as this, but it does strike me that while elements of the advertising industry are under greater scrutiny and companies are put off delivering environmental messages — whatever the intention — there is parallel opportunity for communications, as sharing the right information for the right reasons can cement reputation and better drive change.