From St. Nick to sustainability reports, what role does complete honesty play in maintaining trust? Ask an Ethicist columnist Vera Cherepanova examines when — and if — it’s acceptable to emphasize positive stories while downplaying disappointing realities.
“As part of my role in marketing, I’m responsible for communicating company initiatives, including our sustainability efforts. Recently, leadership asked me to draft messaging about our ‘green’ achievements for the year. While we’ve made some progress, such as reducing paper use and energy consumption in offices, these are relatively minor steps compared to the ambitious sustainability goals we announced last year. I’m struggling with how to present this information. Leadership wants to highlight our wins to boost morale and public perception, but I worry that emphasizing small successes without mentioning the bigger goals we’ve yet to achieve could come across as misleading. Is it ethically acceptable to frame the message positively without addressing the full picture?” — Name Withheld
Your dilemma touches on a common tension in corporate communication: balancing honesty with the need to inspire confidence and engagement. It reminds me of the Santa Claus debate many parents face — should they preserve the magic of childhood by perpetuating a beloved story, or be radically honest with their kids from the start? The stakes may be higher in your scenario, but the core question is similar: What role do truth and honesty play in building trust?
There’s a general consensus that honesty is ethical. Yet, sometimes, lying is seen as the socially accepted “lesser of evils.” It’s OK to tell your parents you love the Christmas present they gave you, even if you don’t. And it’s OK to tell children about elves, reindeer flying across the sky and a jolly man squeezing down chimneys because it sparks wonder and joy, enriching their childhood. Children may even choose, on some level, to sustain the pretense, avoiding hard questions themselves. Pragmatically speaking, truth is sometimes what’s useful to believe, isn’t it?
Sustainability efforts, like the Santa story, carry symbolic weight. People want to believe in a company’s commitment to making the world better. But unlike Santa, your company’s sustainability progress — no matter how small — has to be based on real-world actions. If the story doesn’t align with reality — or if stakeholders later discover that achievements were overstated — credibility takes a hit. As “The Polar Express” reminds us, “The bell still rings for those who truly believe.” Your goal is to ensure that the “bell” of your sustainability message rings true — not through embellishment but through honest acknowledgment of progress paired with a clear commitment to improvement.
Your messaging should be both honest and motivational. It must balance inspiration with verifiable truth. Celebrate your small but real achievements and pair these wins with an acknowledgment of the larger goals yet to be achieved. End by reaffirming your company’s commitment to sustainability and outlining clear next steps.
Done right, your messaging can reinforce the trust and respect of those who rely on your leadership. In 2025, let’s make sure we don’t breed more Santa skeptics by trying to preserve belief at all costs — let’s keep the magic alive through authenticity.
Which Hills Are Worth Dying On?
Whistleblowing & the delicate art of knowing when to push back — and when to let go
Read moreDetailsReaders respond
The previous question came from a project manager who uncovered leadership’s plans to cut quality checks to reduce costs. The dilemma centered on the boundaries of moral responsibility — whether to push harder in voicing concerns about a decision that felt wrong, though not illegal, or to step back and let it go.
In my response, I noted: “The decisions you’re describing don’t sound morally wrong. Since these quality checks were never legally mandated, the decision doesn’t reflect overt misconduct; rather, it’s a cost-cutting choice that changes established practices. Many people misunderstand hotlines as catch-alls for any complaint or discomfort, rather than channels for reporting significant ethical breaches or misconduct. While raising ethical concerns is important, not all disagreements rise to the level of whistleblowing. As a project manager, part of your role involves raising concerns when decisions might undermine quality or reliability. You’ve done that by making your views known. Ultimately, however, higher-ups hold the decision-making authority and bear the responsibility for the potential impact of these changes. In workplaces, responsibilities are distributed, and once concerns are voiced and noted, you’re not morally obligated to persistently oppose the decision. I’m afraid I’m a strong believer in a pragmatic approach that values expressing valid concerns but also respects boundaries.” Read the full question and answer here.
Here are some reader reactions:
Often, the easier route is to simply seek a legal opinion and follow instructions. The more challenging path involves recognizing and addressing ethical blindness—acknowledging that ethical tunnel vision and rationalization are real. Ethical decision-making is like a muscle that must be consistently exercised. As you say, we often neglect this skill amid the demands of corporate realities and daily responsibilities and when the right and wrong is very contextual as in your question. — Anna Romberg
I think this is an issue for anyone in our field. But there is also much to consider about the tactics people use. There is a tendency to think in the collective, i.e., how do I convince “the board” or “management.” But it can be more effective if you think in terms of the individuals in the group. In your scenario, one person or one group wants to cut quality checks. But maybe another board member or senior manager has experience in and a deep commitment to safety and quality control. You might be able to swing this individual. Together you might be able to swing another leader. So it might not be a decision like “I fight this one battle and have to decide if this is the hill I die on.” Instead you might decide that the answer is to sneak up on some other hills and outmaneuver the opposition. Before you give up, consider if there are other strategies. — Joe Murphy
These types of investigations and raised concerns are common in manufacturing operations. What is also very common is that the person who raises the issues is not provided with an investigation outcome beyond; “because I’m your parent” kind of approach. Unfortunately, it is also common to have a non-SME give a blank check to management without evaluating the actual event and its significance. Many consent decrees and adverse outcomes can often be traced back to lack of proper investigation of speak-up events. This violates the trust of a speak-up culture if there is no outcome of why it is not valid concern:
On one hand imagine the inspections checks are for the doors of a Boeing plane, combined with a series of similar raised events? Most likely this may not be an explicit legal requirement but …
On the other hand, the extra checks could have been to establish a conservative baseline that has now passed and there is no value in continuing. This type of explanation can go a long way to promote trust in speak-up lines and cultures.
I’ve had the benefit of auditing in these spaces and when these issues are included in audits, they can go in either way; a big issue or easily explained but requires respecting the reporter. — Julio Rivera
Vera Cherepanova
