With the shift in narratives in sustainability, better understanding of some of the key principles, and in some cases overuse of terms and buzzwords, that in fact has become counterproductive to the overall progress (e.g. Net Zero, Climate Neutral, Sustainable business) - a change in communication strategy would not only help engage stakeholders more effectively, but also steer clear of greenwashing regulations.
We offer a few metaphors that we have found helpful in not only understanding the concepts, but giving more insight on how to act on them.
1. From cliff edge to speed limit
To date, communications have focused on simplifying the science to create a single goal to rally around -"keep warming below 1.5°C".
This framing leads to a misconception: that there's a safe zone on one side and disaster on the other. Therefore if we do not hit the target, we might as well give up. This does not encourage action, it actually prevents meaningful action - often for the fear of how big a task is.
Instead of cliff edges, consider speed limits. The faster you drive, the greater your risk - the speed limit is an arbitrary number that has been set to keep everyone safer under the rules to eliminate the need for an individual judgement. This is what 1.5°C is - but at 1.3°C of global warming, impacts are still serious (we can see it today), at 2°C, they escalate so much further that the level of disruption and devastation becomes dangerously untenable - and also unevenly distributed across the globe.
There's no single threshold where everything suddenly breaks. Instead we’re facing escalating and often uncertain consequences at every increment - therefore it is beneficial to take action (ease on the speed pedal) regardless of whether the target will be hit. When you’re driving too fast, there isn’t enough time to react to the unexpected - there won’t be enough time to adapt to the new world if we wait much longer.
2. Do I take an umbrella if it is sunny in Tokyo?
When we check the weather forecast, we don’t look up the global average temperature -we want to know the weather locally, we know what to wear and if it rains today. To help patients in a hospital, we do not ask what an average body temperature across patients is.
India is often in the news for extreme heat and tragic consequences, however India warming slower than the global average - around 1.2°C higher than the 1901–1910 average, both below the global land figure.
This is why the global focus on 1.5°C" doesn’t allow us the alarm bells to go off sooner.
Europe is the fastest-warming continent. The increase since pre-industrial levels is around 2.4°C, roughly double the global average and triple of that in India. 2024 was Europe's warmest year on record, and 2025 was the UK’s warmest year on record - 2026 is likely to beat that record.
Daytime winter surface temperatures in the Andes rose by about 0.5°C per decade since 2000 at 1,000–1,500m elevation, but by 1.7°C per decade above 5,000m, more than five times the recent global rate. Peru's Andean glaciers have lost about 22% of their area in the last 30 years on average.
Since 1971, annual average temperatures on Svalbard have risen by roughly 4°C, about five times the global rate. In winter specifically, it's warmed by more than 7°C over the same period. Projections in the "Climate in Svalbard 2100" report suggest a further 7–10°C of warming by the end of the century under a medium-emissions scenario.
Naming the region-specific number and circumstance helps land the message harder than the global average ever will - and takes away the perception that it is all happening somewhere else.
3. Ecosystem health to Human health
What is the difference between 1.5°C and 2°CGlobal warming? Let’s look at a human body - normal is 37°C - at 38.5°C, you are feverish and unwell. At 40°C, in serious medical danger. Suddenly that "small" number is significant.
So whether overshoot over 1.5°C makes the world feverish or in serious medical danger - it is out of balance, and therefore will face consequences.
4. Supply chain as a Relay race
Scope 3 has become this all encompassing term which actually covers 12 categories, not just one type of purchasing. Scope 3 translated as supply chain sounds like somebody else's problem. Thinking of it as a relay race may travel better: the team only finishes as well as its slowest handover. A supplier who is not managing their risk or environmental impact leads to the organisation to be exposed, worse - carry losses or incur costs - no matter how strong the other legs were.
It also reframes supplier engagement as risk management rather than virtue or data gathering for data gathering sake.
5. Nature is a load-bearing wall, not a wallpaper
Nature conversation is starting to shift from only trees and bees. Natural Capital is Critical Infrastructure: Putting Natural Capital at the Heart of UK Growth and Resilience", published January 2026 by the ISEP Institute for Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), argues that natural capital already meets the government's own definition of Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) and calls on the government to formally recognise it as such.
This may be a complex idea to grasp, especially if it is not immediately obvious or visible how a particular business is supported by nature. Pollinators, soil health, specific species activities, clean water and stable weather patterns are load-bearing structures and dependencies. Take enough of them out and the building falls down. If you remove a wall because it messes with your aesthetic and then the roof falls down, that wall is holding up more than you know - and the builder was not trying to be difficult when they refused, they just knew.
At a London Climate Action Week panel by BAFTA Albert (the climate action body for film and TV), it was proposed that climate should win the award for Best Supporting Actor. So who then should be the star? Like BAFTA Albert, we’d like to nominate nature.
You have come to the place for thought leadership.
