Corporate Communicators We Admire in Early 2026

At truMRK, admiration is not based on stated intent or public reputation. It is based on evidence.

When we review sustainability and ESG communications, we look for clear signs of discipline in how organisations communicate.

This includes how claims are framed, how limits are explained, how ambition is separated from delivery, and whether messages remain consistent over time.

The organisations below stand out because their communications show these qualities repeatedly and clearly in practice.

Triodos Bank

What we see in their communications

Triodos publishes detailed information about where its lending and investment capital is directed, with clear breakdowns by sector and purpose. Sustainability communications focus on explaining decision making criteria rather than promoting outcomes alone. The organisation also openly acknowledges system level limits within financial markets, including areas where capital cannot yet be deployed responsibly.

Supporting evidence

• Triodos Bank Impact Reports and disclosures on lending and investment allocation

• Triodos Green Bond Allocation

Why this matters

Triodos communicates impact through explanation rather than assertion. Claims are supported by transparent disclosure, and uncertainty is addressed directly rather than left out. This points to strong internal governance over sustainability communication.

Patagonia

What we see in their communications

Patagonia regularly acknowledges the environmental harm linked to apparel production, including impacts from materials, energy use, and consumption. Its sustainability content clearly separates activism and brand values from measured impact. Responsibility is presented as ongoing, not as a completed achievement.

Supporting evidence

• Patagonia’s environmental footprint and materials impact disclosures

• Patagonia’s explanation of responsibility, activism, and impact

Why this matters

Patagonia shows restraint in how it communicates sustainability. By avoiding language that suggests problems are solved, the brand reduces the risk of overclaiming and builds credibility through consistency and honesty, even when this limits marketing opportunity.

Eileen Fisher

What we see in their communications

Eileen Fisher makes sustainability claims that are narrowly defined and usually linked to specific programmes or materials, rather than broad brand statements. Circularity initiatives are discussed with reference to learning and iteration, not just success. Communications also acknowledge where scale, infrastructure, or supply chain realities slow progress.

Supporting evidence

• Eileen Fisher Impact Report and sustainability disclosures

• Circular by Design and take back programme explanations

Why this matters

Eileen Fisher presents sustainability as an evolving practice rather than a competitive advantage. This approach is fair to audiences and reduces the risk of oversimplification in a sector under close scrutiny.

Innocent Drinks

What we see in their communications

Innocent provides increasingly detailed explanations of packaging impacts, including trade offs between different materials, recyclability, and existing infrastructure. There is a clear separation between brand tone and formal sustainability disclosures. The company also acknowledges areas where progress is slower than ambition, particularly on emissions and packaging systems.

Supporting evidence

• Innocent Drinks sustainability and environmental commitments

• Packaging and recycling trade offs explained by Innocent

Why this matters

Innocent shows signs of maturing communication governance. Tone is not used as a substitute for evidence, and sustainability information is shared with appropriate clarity and qualification.

The Body Shop

What we see in their communications

The Body Shop clearly distinguishes between advocacy campaigns and impact reporting, reducing the risk of confusion. Supply chain challenges, especially around human rights and sourcing, are explained using contextual language. Absolute claims are avoided in favour of progress based framing.

Supporting evidence

• The Body Shop sustainability commitments and progress updates

• Community Trade and human rights sourcing explanations

Why this matters

The Body Shop shows that values led communication can remain credible when advocacy and evidence are clearly separated. This balance is particularly important in purpose led consumer sectors.

Tony’s Chocolonely

What we see in their communications

Tony’s provides clear explanations of what “slave free chocolate” means in practice, and what it does not mean. Communications openly discuss systemic barriers within cocoa supply chains, including where progress slows or stalls. Delays, partial success, and ongoing risk are acknowledged.

Supporting evidence

• Tony’s Chocolonely annual FAIR reports

• Explanation of “slave free chocolate” and system change limits

Why this matters

Tony’s communicates limits as clearly as progress. By avoiding simplified resolution narratives, the brand reduces the risk of misleading stakeholders and signals a serious commitment to long term change rather than short term reassurance.

What this evidence shows

Across these examples, a shared approach is clear.

The corporate communicators truMRK admires in early 2026 consistently:

• Qualify their claims carefully

• Explain scope, boundaries, and trade offs

• Separate values, ambition, and delivery

• Communicate uncertainty without becoming vague

• Maintain consistency across time and channels

These behaviours require internal alignment, clear governance, and a willingness to prioritise trust over immediacy.

Why truMRK is highlighting this now

As sustainability communication faces closer scrutiny, the difference between ambition led marketing and responsible communication is becoming clearer.

truMRK’s role is not to judge sustainability performance. It is to identify and encourage communication practices that stand up to scrutiny and support long term credibility.

The organisations highlighted here show that responsible communication is not about saying less. It is about saying what can be supported, explained, and defended.