November ONLY: 35% OFF
APS IS OFFERING 35% OFF ALL ITEMS GET YOUR QUOTE NOW
APS IS OFFERING 35% OFF ALL ITEMS GET YOUR QUOTE NOW
The term “sustainability statement” causes more confusion than it should, and that confusion has consequences. Businesses produce vague declarations that don’t satisfy anyone. Development applications get rejected or queried because the sustainability documentation doesn’t address what planners actually need. And readers searching for guidance find articles that cover only one interpretation of the term without acknowledging that others exist.
The confusion is understandable. “Sustainability statement” is used in two quite different contexts — corporate and planning — and the expectations, content, and purpose of each are quite different. Understanding which type you need, what it should contain, and what separates a credible statement from an empty one is the point of this article.
In the building and construction sector, sustainability statements are often closely tied to the real-world performance of materials and upgrades being specified. Decisions around energy-efficient window replacement or investing in sustainable double glazing solutions are typical examples where environmental claims need to be backed by measurable outcomes like reduced energy use and improved thermal performance. Referencing practical upgrades like these helps ground sustainability statements in actions rather than broad intent.
Before getting into structure or content, this distinction needs to be clear.
A business or corporate sustainability statement is a formal declaration of how an organisation approaches environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibility. It communicates values, commitments, and actions to customers, employees, investors, procurement partners, and other stakeholders. This type of statement typically lives on a company website, in annual reports, or in tender documentation.
A planning or development sustainability statement is a technical document submitted as part of a planning application or development proposal. It demonstrates how a proposed project addresses sustainability criteria — including energy performance, water use, materials, ecology, community impact, and related factors — to satisfy the requirements of a local council or planning authority. This is a different document with a different audience and a different purpose.
Plenty of the confusion around this topic comes from these two types being conflated, or from readers finding content about one when they were looking for the other. The sections below address both clearly.
This is particularly relevant in construction and home improvement sectors, where sustainability claims are often tied to product performance and installation quality. If you’re reviewing supplier proposals or contractor quotes, knowing how to spot inconsistencies or vague claims can help — especially when paired with guidance on double glazing quote red flags, which highlights common warning signs in documentation that can undermine both value and credibility.
A corporate sustainability statement is not a sustainability strategy, a sustainability report, or an environmental policy — though it’s often confused with all three.
A sustainability strategy is an internal document that sets out how an organisation plans to achieve its sustainability goals. It typically includes detailed workplans, responsibilities, resource allocation, and long-term targets. It’s the roadmap.
A sustainability report is a retrospective account of what the organisation has done, usually covering a defined period. It includes performance data, metrics, progress against targets, and disclosure of both achievements and shortfalls. It’s the evidence trail.
A sustainability statement sits between the two. It’s a current-tense declaration of where the organisation stands and what it’s committed to. It’s shorter, more accessible, and publicly facing. Done well, it provides a clear and honest account of the company’s environmental and social priorities, what’s currently being done to address them, and where the organisation is heading.
An environmental policy is narrower — it typically covers compliance obligations and internal procedures rather than the full ESG picture. A sustainability statement is broader and more strategic in tone.
The quality gap between a credible sustainability statement and a generic one is large, and most readers can sense the difference even if they can’t immediately articulate it. The generic version reads like it could apply to any company in any sector. The credible version is specific, honest, and grounded in what the business actually does.
This section should go beyond “we care about the environment.” It should identify the specific environmental impacts most relevant to your operations — energy use in manufacturing, waste from installation or production, transport emissions, packaging, supply chain sourcing — and explain what the company is doing about them and why those particular areas were prioritised.
Wherever possible, include targets or measurable intent. “We are reducing packaging waste by 30% by 2027” is credible. “We are committed to reducing our environmental impact” is not. The difference matters both for integrity and for how the statement is received by procurement teams, lenders, or customers who are evaluating suppliers against ESG criteria.
Sustainability is not only environmental. Strong statements address how the business treats its people — workforce conditions, safety standards, diversity commitments, and employee development. They also consider community impact: how the business engages with the communities in which it operates.
In the construction and building products sector, this often includes commitments around subcontractor treatment, fair payment practices, and local procurement. These aren’t peripheral issues — they’re increasingly scrutinised in tender responses and supply chain assessments.
A sustainability statement without governance accountability is just a wish list. Strong statements name who within the organisation owns sustainability performance, how progress is tracked, and how the organisation will report on its commitments over time. This doesn’t require elaborate disclosure mechanisms — even a simple commitment to annual review and public reporting demonstrates that the statement is backed by intent.
One of the most credibility-building things a sustainability statement can do is acknowledge current limitations. “We have not yet measured our Scope 3 emissions but have committed to baseline assessment by [date]” is far more trustworthy than vague claims of ongoing commitment. Progress, not perfection, is the right framing — but progress requires an honest starting point.
No discussion of sustainability statements is complete without addressing greenwashing, because it’s endemic and it undermines the purpose of the entire exercise.
Greenwashing occurs when a sustainability statement — or any sustainability communication — creates an impression of environmental or social responsibility that isn’t supported by the organisation’s actual practices. It’s not always deliberate deception; often it’s the result of well-intentioned but vague language that hasn’t been tested against real performance data.
Common greenwashing patterns include: claiming products are “eco-friendly” without defining what that means or against what baseline; making broad net-zero commitments without any interim targets or credible pathways; listing certifications or accreditations selectively while omitting areas of underperformance; and using sustainability language that applies generically to any business.
The protection against greenwashing is specificity and honesty. If your sustainability statement wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny from a journalist, a sophisticated procurement officer, or a lender with ESG lending criteria, it needs to be revised — not made more elaborate, but made more honest.
The planning sustainability statement is a different document with a different purpose, and treating it the same as a corporate sustainability statement is a common mistake.
When submitted as part of a development application or planning proposal, a sustainability statement demonstrates to the relevant planning authority — whether that’s a local council, state planning body, or other regulatory entity — how the proposed development addresses sustainability requirements and objectives relevant to that jurisdiction.
What this document needs to cover depends on the scale and nature of the project, the applicable planning framework, and the specific sustainability criteria the authority has identified. Typical areas include energy performance and efficiency, water use and management, stormwater and drainage, materials selection and embodied carbon, biodiversity and ecology, waste management during construction, transport and accessibility impacts, and thermal comfort for future occupants.
Critically, a planning sustainability statement is not the same as an energy statement or an energy efficiency assessment (sometimes referred to as a NatHERS assessment or BASIX certificate in the Australian residential context). Those are separate technical documents. The sustainability statement is broader — it situates the development within the planning framework’s sustainability objectives and explains how design and construction decisions respond to those objectives.
The level of detail required scales with the project. A small residential development may need a relatively brief sustainability narrative. A large commercial or mixed-use development will typically require a more comprehensive document, potentially supported by specialist consultants in areas like ecology, hydrology, or transport.
Most businesses and developers don’t need to produce both types. But some situations — particularly for construction companies, manufacturers in the built environment sector, or developers — may require both: a corporate sustainability statement for their public-facing business identity and ESG positioning, and project-specific planning sustainability statements for individual development applications.
If you’re a business that doesn’t engage in development, you need a corporate sustainability statement. If you’re submitting a planning application, you need a planning sustainability statement that addresses the specific requirements of the relevant authority. If you’re both, you need both — and they serve different audiences and purposes.
Structure varies, but a well-ordered business sustainability statement typically covers these elements:
An opening commitment that sets the context — what sustainability means to the business and why it matters for your specific operations and sector.
An environmental section covering your most material impacts and what you’re doing about them, with specific targets where these exist.
A social section covering workforce practices, health and safety, community engagement, and supply chain expectations.
A governance section identifying ownership, oversight mechanisms, and reporting commitments.
A forward-looking section identifying priorities for the coming period and acknowledging areas where further work is needed.
The whole thing doesn’t need to be long. A well-written, specific sustainability statement of five hundred words will outperform a generic three-page document that says very little. Substance over length, always.
A few patterns reliably undermine sustainability statements across both types.
Generic language that could apply to any organisation — “we are committed to a sustainable future” — without any specificity about what that means for your business or project.
Commitments without timelines. “We will reduce our energy use” is not a commitment. “We will reduce energy use by 20% by financial year 2027 against a 2024 baseline” is.
Selective disclosure — highlighting areas of strength while omitting known areas of weakness or ongoing challenge.
Claiming sustainability outcomes that are really just legal compliance. Meeting building energy codes isn’t a sustainability achievement; it’s a minimum requirement.
Confusing aspiration with action. A sustainability statement should describe what you’re doing, not just what you hope to do.
The best sustainability statement — whether for a business or a development application — is one that’s honest, specific, and proportionate to the context. Generic declarations of good intent are no longer sufficient. Procurement teams evaluate them critically. Planning authorities read them looking for substance. Investors and lenders apply ESG criteria that require real evidence.
The standard to aim for: a sustainability statement that would still hold up if someone looked behind it at your actual practices. That’s not an impossibly high bar — but it does require thinking carefully about what you can genuinely commit to, what you’re actually doing, and where you’re honest about having further to go.
That’s what separates a statement that builds trust from one that erodes it.
The term can refer to two different things depending on context. A business or corporate sustainability statement is a public declaration of an organisation’s commitments and actions around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibility. A planning sustainability statement is a technical document submitted with a development application, demonstrating how a proposed project addresses sustainability requirements relevant to the planning authority.
A credible business sustainability statement should cover environmental commitments with specific targets where possible, social responsibility including workforce and community considerations, governance and accountability structures, and an honest account of current limitations alongside future commitments. Vague aspirational language without specifics undermines credibility.
These terms are often used interchangeably, but there are nuances. ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is the broad framework most commonly used in investment, lending, and large corporate disclosure contexts. A sustainability statement may cover all three ESG pillars or focus primarily on environmental and social dimensions. In practice, for most businesses the distinction is less important than the quality of the content.
Start by identifying the sustainability impacts most material to your specific business or project. Set specific, measurable commitments rather than broad aspirations. Address environmental, social, and governance dimensions. Be honest about where you currently are. Name who is responsible for delivery. Avoid generic language that could apply to any organisation.
Specificity, measurable targets, named governance ownership, honest acknowledgment of current limitations, and evidence of action rather than aspiration alone. Statements that pass scrutiny are ones where the claims could be verified against actual business practices.
No. A sustainability report is retrospective — it documents what an organisation has done over a defined period, including performance data and progress against targets. A sustainability statement is a current-tense declaration of commitments, priorities, and intent. Both have a role, but they serve different purposes.
This depends on the jurisdiction, the planning authority, and the scale of the development. Many councils and planning authorities require sustainability statements as part of development applications, particularly for medium to large projects. The content requirements vary — check the relevant planning scheme or contact the authority directly to understand what’s required for your specific application.
No. An energy statement or energy assessment is a technical document focused specifically on energy performance — typically calculating the predicted energy use of a building and demonstrating compliance with energy efficiency standards. A planning sustainability statement is broader and covers multiple dimensions beyond energy, including water, materials, ecology, waste, and community impact. Both may be required for a development application, but they’re separate documents.
Ground every claim in specific actions and verifiable evidence. Avoid broad, vague language like “eco-friendly” or “sustainable choices” without defining what those mean in your context. Include targets with timelines. Acknowledge areas of ongoing challenge rather than presenting an unrealistically positive picture. If a claim couldn’t withstand scrutiny from a sceptical reader, revise it to reflect reality more honestly.