How to Answer ESG Questions Early
Apr 6, 2025
How to Answer ESG Questions Early: A research-led guide for organisations that face ESG questions
Across the UK and EU, early-stage companies, SMEs and B2B service providers increasingly face ESG questions from buyers, partners and investors. Many of these organisations do not have mature sustainability strategies, dedicated teams or verified data. They are, in simple terms, not there yet.
This position is common and it is credible. The challenge is not the absence of maturity but the risk of miscommunication. Organisations that attempt to appear more advanced than they are face increased exposure to allegations of overclaiming or greenwashing. At the same time, declining to engage with ESG entirely can limit commercial opportunities.
This paper examines how organisations can answer ESG questions responsibly when they are at the beginning of their journey. It is designed for early-stage teams that need to communicate without implying compliance, measurement or impact.
1. The Context: Why Questions Arrive Early
ESG pressure no longer flows only from regulation. It now arrives through indirect channels such as procurement, partnership compatibility, investor screening and reputational expectations.
Three drivers explain why organisations are asked before they are ready.
Buyer accountability
Regulated buyers cannot afford to onboard vendors that create risk. They need language and clarity from partners.
Market signalling
Organisations reference ESG not only for compliance but to signal values. Vendors that ignore ESG may be interpreted as disengaged.
Operational interdependence
ESG performance is influenced by supply chains, not only internal behaviour. As a result, readiness is relational.
Early questions are therefore not a sign of failure. They are a structural feature of ESG-mature markets.
2. The Risk of Pretending to Be Further Ahead
Organisations that overstate ESG progress compromise credibility. The most common failure patterns include:
Ambition presented as achievement
Aspirational targets framed as active plans
Framework names used casually
Benefits of the product framed as impact without evidence
Jargon used to imply capability
These patterns are preventable. Accuracy protects reputation and simplifies sales.
3. The Credible Position: Early Stage With Boundaries
The most credible position is not neutrality or silence. It is acknowledging stage, intention and limits.
A credible early stage position includes:
Recognition of ESG relevance
Awareness of applicable frameworks
Work in progress on structure and language
Avoidance of impact or compliance claims
Clear boundaries around what is not offered
This is not defensive. It is strategic.
4. Core Principles for Early Responses
Five communication principles help organisations answer without implying maturity.
Be specific about stage
“Early stage” is more credible than “in progress” because it acknowledges extent.
Separate intent from capability
Intent is acceptable. Capability must be evidenced.
Avoid quantified language
Impact measurement requires data and methodology.
Use conditional phrasing
May, can, might, depending on context. Avoid will and guarantee.
Define scope clearly
State what the product is and what it is not.
These principles form the basis of protective language.
5. Model Responses for Early Stage Teams
The following responses can be adapted to context. They are intentionally modest.
Do you have an ESG strategy?
“We do not have a full strategy yet. We are mapping priorities and building the structure to engage responsibly.”
Are you compliant with ESG standards?
“We avoid implying compliance. We are assessing which frameworks apply and building our literacy.”
How does your product contribute to sustainability?
“Our product is not an ESG or carbon solution. In some contexts it may support responsible operations depending on use case.”
Do you reduce emissions?
“We do not make claims about emissions or impact without evidence. We avoid attributing reductions to our product.”
Are you aligned with CSRD or GRI?
“We reference terminology from relevant frameworks to ensure language consistency. We do not claim alignment or certification.”
These responses do not attempt to convince. They attempt to clarify.
6. What to Avoid
Avoiding specific constructions reduces ambiguity.
Absolutes such as always and fully
Impact verbs such as reduce, cut or eliminate
Certification verbs such as align or comply without evidence
Framework name dropping without scope
If a sentence implies status that cannot be tested, it should be revised.
7. Building a Short-Term Readiness Plan
A structured plan helps bridge the gap between current and future maturity.
0 to 30 days
Identify relevant frameworks by sector and geography
Create a list of terms to avoid
Add a public language boundary to the website
30 to 90 days
Draft a short ESG position statement
Create a procurement FAQ with safe responses
Begin mapping data sources that may support future claims
90 to 180 days
Prioritise which claims you may evidence in the future
Identify external partners for measurement or reporting
Review communication quarterly for risk
This plan acknowledges reality without stalling progress.
8. Supporting Sales Without Overclaiming
For many organisations, ESG appears first in sales environments. Sales materials should reflect stage, not aspiration.
Minimum viable content includes:
A positioning sentence
A boundaries paragraph
A conditional description of potential contributions
A list of what is not offered
This content prevents pressure from escalating during negotiation.
9. When to Involve Specialists
Early stage teams do not need to hire a sustainability officer immediately. Instead, they can involve specialists when:
Claims require verification
Reporting scope is confirmed
Framework participation begins
Legal interpretation is required
The goal is not to outsource responsibility. It is to prevent escalation of misrepresentation risk.
10. The Psychological Barrier
Many organisations hesitate to acknowledge early stage status because they fear appearing inadequate. The research suggests the opposite is true. Buyers reward accuracy. They recognise the difference between immaturity and misrepresentation.
The psychological barrier is cultural, not operational. It can be reduced by normalising early stage statements. Transparency is a sign of literacy, not weakness.
Conclusion
ESG questions arriving before readiness is a normal feature of the current market. The challenge is not answering perfectly but answering responsibly. Clarity protects reputation. Precision protects commercial pathways. Responsible language protects the organisation from becoming an example of what not to do.
Progress is not a requirement for communication. Accuracy is.
