Zugzwang. A chess term, which describes a scenario in which, no matter what move one makes, you somehow worsen your position. And a concept with which sustainability pros will sympathise.

Champion environmental action and you risk the attention and censure of vocal, emboldened deregulation zealots, suddenly found across the media, policymaker and investor stakeholder spectrum.

Retreat from environmental action and you risk the attention of the regulators and the law, and the censure of people who expect and demand continued or increased action on the climate crisis, who are found across that same spectrum.

Which way to turn? It’s a quandary, and if our conversations with CSOs, sustainability clients and corporate affairs directors recently are anything to go by, a confusing, depressing one. Right now, trying to beat the sustainability drum with conviction and positivity can feel a thankless, hopeless task.

Clearly, giving up isn’t a solution. So how to proceed and communicate as a business and brand with confidence when the reputational climate has materially changed?

There is a path between this rock and hard place, and spotting it involves understanding and acting upon two principles.

The first is that demonstrating positive impact beats demonstrating mitigation of negative impacts, every time. The latter is vital for disclosure and reporting but is technical, ESG compliance territory that rubs up against the deregulatory zeitgeist and doesn’t excite anyone.

People do get excited about and inspired by the positive difference you make to the world, however, and in these culture war times publicly focusing on provable positive impact to society or people’s lives is a risk-free reputational approach.

But note the word provable. We can’t return to the days of vague CSR, in which abstract amounts of money are diverted to a selection of community schemes as a form of guilt-offsetting.

Companies need to apply the measurement and governance rigour of ESG (the ‘harm reduction’ agenda) to their positive impact (Purpose) strategy. At Blurred, we talk to clients about setting what we call an ‘Anchor Goal’: an ambitious but credible, quantifiable target that ‘anchors’ your overall impact strategy and narrative. It specifies positive impact not harm reduction. And it should reinforce the company’s commercial strategy.

That’s the first principle for sustainability comms today: evidence the good you do, not just the harms you’re doing less of.

The second is acknowledging the reality of the political, socioeconomic climate right now. Rightly or wrongly, the public and policy zeitgeist is one in which domestic concerns are prioritised: housing, jobs, cost of living. “The economy” is the number one issue for UK voters today (YouGov) just as it was for US voters choosing between Trump and Harris.

Framing sustainability in terms that speak to this reality is critical not only for engagement but for avoiding getting dragged into the culture war.

The shift companies need to make is to present environmental action as first and foremost a net social gain, and moreover do so in a way that is local and tangible.

Part of the problem with the green agenda is the rhetoric has drifted away from the need to place people’s basic needs first. Too much of the sustainability discourse focuses on ‘banning’ and ‘curtailing’, or on forcing change to protect ‘the planet’ rather than to enable prosperous human life on that planet.

The result is that people see the sustainability agenda as something being done to them, not for them or with them. London’s ‘Ultra Low Emissions Zone’ (ULEZ) is an instructive case study: a program focused on immediate risks to health (especially children) from car diesel particulates that has morphed in the minds of the right as an attack on ordinary people by the elite who care more about green ideology than human lives. Bizarre.

So while companies and sustainability teams need to pursue environmental targets (because the law demands that they do so, and also, clearly, because the climate reality requires that they do so), when it comes to communicating that action externally, there’s a lot to be said for reframing ‘E’, or ‘planet’, things as ‘S’, or ‘people’, things.

For example, talk about spending billions on wind turbines to meet your net-zero goal, and you can expect a cynical headline in the right-wing media. But act on and talk about investing in renewable energy because it’s important we protect British/American/insert nationality here people from energy price shocks and because it’s important for our national energy security… well, an ‘environmental/net zero’ issue becomes a society/people issue.

And suddenly it’s not ideological, it’s just logical.

The end goal is the same. If you’re acting with true Purpose, then your Board-level decision-making should be optimised, always, in a way that promotes the long-term wellbeing of people and planet. It’s sad that we’re enduring a time when such ambitions risk real cynicism and criticism as ‘woke’ or ‘anti-growth’, as if this is a zero-sum game or economics can exist independently of planetary wellbeing. But good strategic comms can help navigate what feels like a quagmire.

There's another term in chess on which sustainability pros might like to dwell. The "swindle" describes a situation where a player escapes from a seemingly impossible position, usually through some sort of ruse: using unexpected moves or psychological manoeuvres to turn the tables.

Co-opting and subverting the opposition's tactics – reframing environmental priorities as people priorities, making contentious topics feel like inarguable common sense, and communicating that action is in the best interest of domestic society and local people – well, that feels like just such a ruse.

And the fact that comms ruse is called a "swindle"? Well, given this is a stratagem for navigating the era of Mr Trump, that just feels beautifully fitting.