Those who talk most about sustainability also come across as most credible
The fear of greenwashing has led many to assume that the brands that talk most about sustainability are also the ones that promise most relative to what they show. We measured it at 297 Danish brands, and the arrow points the other way. The problem lives somewhere other than where the debate looks for it.
Three groups: the silent, the mentioning and the carrying
We classified the brands' own communication: just under half do not mention sustainability at all, a little over a third mention it, and at just under one brand in six it is a prominent message. At the same time, sustainability appears as a declared value at one brand in three, so the topic takes up more room in the lists of values than it does as a prominent message.
The surprise: those who say most also show most
Here is the finding we had not expected. The brands where sustainability is a carrying message score markedly higher than the rest on our measure of story credibility, and they are also best at living their declared values in their visible expression. Those who speak loudest about the green agenda thus back it up most across their overall communication. The difference holds even when we account for how strong the brand is otherwise.
It makes sense when you think about it: making sustainability a carrying message is binding. It requires documentation, coherence and persistence across everything the brand says. The brands that have made that choice have typically also done the work.
Half measures achieve nothing, and the closet is full
The middle group is brands that mention sustainability without committing to it. They look like the silent ones on all our measures: neither more credible nor better at living their values. Mentioning it is thus not a measurable step on the way. The gain only appears when sustainability becomes a carrying message.
And then there is the group in the closet: brands that have sustainability as a declared value, but where it cannot be read in their own communication. This applies to one in six of the brands that do not communicate sustainability. It is not greenwashing but the opposite: a green value without a voice. It does nothing for the planet or for the brand as long as no one can see it.
What this means for your brand
The conclusion is simple, and refreshingly blunt: say it fully, or not at all. If sustainability is part of your company's practice, make it a carrying message with the documentation in order: the figures from the field show that this is where credibility is found. And if it is not (yet), you lose nothing by leaving it out, because a green sentence in a list of values that no one can find again lifts nothing. Half measures give no return.
How we measured (method)
The figures are based on 351 brands analysed in brandvju as of October 2026, all measured with the same method; the place of sustainability in the communication could be classified for 297 of them. The place of sustainability in the communication was classified automatically from the brands' own publicly available texts and tied to verbatim quotes. The credibility and consistency measures measure the brand's COMMUNICATION: whether the story holds together, and whether the declared values can be found in the visible expression. The groups were compared both as averages and as medians, and the difference between the carrying brands and the others holds even when we account for the brand's other strengths. We do not measure carbon footprint, certifications or actual behaviour, and the figures therefore say nothing about whether a brand IS sustainable.