When ESG needs a shared language
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
Developing the communication framework for U Mobile’s ESG narrative
Credibility begins long before the report
ESG is no longer judged by the commitments an organisation publishes but by how well those commitments stand up to scrutiny.Regulators expect greater accountability. Investors ask harder questions. Employees and customers increasingly look for evidence that words and actions are aligned.
For U Mobile, the challenge was not simply to its ESG ambitions. It was to build a shared understanding of what those ambitions meant for the organisation, and a credible narrative through which they could be expressed with clarity and consistency.
Finding the language that already existed
The work began by listening. Through conversations with the U Mobile team, we explored how different parts of the organisation understood its ESG priorities and ambitions.
While these perspectives were often expressed differently, many were grounded in the same underlying principles. Our role was to identify that shared thinking and give it a common language.
The narrative took shape through discussion, revision and careful refinement. With each iteration, the meaning became clearer, while the language was tested against the needs of different audiences and what U Mobile was prepared to stand behind.
The narrative gave the organisation a clearer and more consistent way to articulate its ESG commitments, internally and beyond.
Clarity is earned, not manufactured
One lesson returns with surprising consistency. Organisations rarely lack meaning. More often, they lack a language that allows that meaning to be understood in the same way by different people.
That language cannot simply be imposed. It has to emerge through listening, questioning and the discipline to separate aspiration from what can genuinely be supported.
When that happens, communication begins to feel less constructed. People inside the organisation recognise themselves in it. Those outside it have fewer reasons to question whether the organisation means what it says.
