Words Matter: Why the Language of Sustainability Needs to Mean Something

There is a word I have been seeing a lot more of lately. It appears on event websites, venue brochures, and tourism marketing. It shows up in funding applications and industry award nominations. The word is regenerative.

In many of the places I am seeing it, it does not belong.

I am very familiar with this term as I use it in my professional practice. Language in the sustainability space has real consequences for consumers making values-based decisions, for businesses investing in genuine change, and increasingly, for organisations facing legal scrutiny over the claims they make. When we use words carelessly, we erode the credibility of the entire sustainability project. And in an era of accelerating climate change, that credibility is something we cannot afford to lose.

The spectrum we keep collapsing

Sustainability language exists on a spectrum. At one end sits conventional practice; doing what has always been done, with no particular regard for environmental or social impact. In the middle sits sustainability; reducing negative impact, operating more responsibly, doing less harm. At the far end sits regenerative practice; going beyond neutral to actively restore, replenish, and contribute net positive outcomes to ecosystems, communities, and cultures.

These are meaningfully different positions. But in the race to signal environmental credentials, the distinctions are being flattened.

A sustainable event is one that has genuinely worked to reduce its footprint through its emissions, its waste, its resource consumption and can evidence that work.

A regenerative event is one designed from the ground up to leave the host community, natural environment, and participants measurably better off than before it happened. Not just less bad. Actually much better. That might mean the event actively restores a natural system, builds lasting community capacity, or generates value that continues long after the last attendee goes home. It requires intentional design, genuine investment, and evidence, not a rebrand.

When a venue that has installed recycling bins and switched to LED lighting describes itself as regenerative, it is not just overclaiming. It is making the term meaningless for the organisations doing the real work.

The same principle applies to sustainable versus responsible. These words are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Responsible tourism acknowledges impact and seeks to manage it. Sustainable tourism operates within ecological and social limits over the long term. Using ‘responsible’ as a softer synonym for sustainable  or using ‘sustainable’ as a synonym for regenerative quietly lowers the bar each time.

Net zero and carbon neutral are not the same thing

Another pair of terms that get conflated sometimes innocently, sometimes not are net zero and carbon neutral.

Carbon neutral typically means that an organisation has offset its current emissions to achieve a balance of zero often by purchasing carbon credits. It does not necessarily mean emissions have been reduced. It means they have been compensated for.

Net zero is a more demanding commitment. It requires deep emissions reductions across an organisation's entire value chain, with only residual emissions being offset using high-quality, verifiable credits. It is grounded in science-based targets and long-term transition plans.

An organisation can become carbon neutral relatively quickly, and at relatively low cost, by buying offsets. Achieving genuine net zero takes years of structural change. Describing the first as the second misleads stakeholders, investors, and customers about the scale of commitment being made.

Carbon offsetting itself deserves scrutiny. Offsetting is not the same as reducing. A tourism business that continues to operate a high-emissions model while purchasing offsets is not on a meaningful sustainability journey, it is paying to maintain the status quo. Offsets have a role in a transition strategy, but they are not a destination.

Greenwashing is no longer just a reputational risk - it is a legal one

For a long time, greenwashing, making misleading environmental claims was primarily a reputational concern. Get caught overclaiming and face a social media backlash. That calculus has changed.

Regulators in multiple jurisdictions are tightening their approach to environmental claims. In the European Union, the Green Claims Directive (currently on hold) and the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT) is moving toward requiring businesses to substantiate sustainability claims with independent verification before making them. In the United Kingdom, the Competition and Markets Authority has taken action against companies making vague or unsubstantiated green claims. In Australia, the ACCC has pursued greenwashing cases and issued guidance making clear that terms like ‘sustainable’, ‘eco-friendly’, and ‘carbon neutral’ carry legal weight when used in marketing.

Aotearoa New Zealand is not immune to this trajectory. The Commerce Commission's guidelines on environmental claims are clear that claims must be truthful, substantiated, and not misleading. As consumer awareness grows and regulatory frameworks tighten globally, the risk for businesses making unsubstantiated sustainability claims is increasing, not decreasing.

The practical implication is straightforward: if you use a sustainability term in your marketing, you should be able to evidence it. Not with good intentions. With data, with third-party verification, with documented practice. If you cannot, the term does not belong in your communications.

Why this matters for tourism and events specifically

Our sector is built on trust. Visitors trust that the experiences we offer are genuine. Increasingly, they also trust or want to trust that the businesses and destinations they choose are operating with integrity on sustainability.

That trust is fragile. Research consistently shows that sustainability claims are a meaningful factor in travel decisions, particularly for younger and international visitors. It also shows that visitors are becoming more sophisticated in their ability to identify greenwash. An overclaimed sustainability credential does not just fail to attract values-aligned visitors, it can actively repel them.

There is also a competitive dimension. Businesses and destinations that invest in genuine sustainability practice that do the hard work, build the evidence, and earn the language they use are increasingly differentiated from those that do not. That differentiation matters commercially, and it matters more every year.

A simple test

Before you use a sustainability term in your marketing, ask yourself three questions.

Can I define this term precisely? Not in the way it sounds good, but in the way it is actually understood by the sustainability field?

Can I evidence that this term accurately describes what my business or event is doing?

Would an informed, critical observer such as a sustainability practitioner, a regulator, a values-led visitor agree that the term is warranted?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, use different language. ‘We are on a sustainability journey’ is honest. ‘We are committed to reducing our environmental impact’ is honest. ‘We are a regenerative event’ when you have installed recycling bins or asked attendees to catch public transport is not.

Language shapes perception. In sustainability, it also shapes behaviour - the behaviour of businesses deciding what to invest in, of visitors deciding where to spend their money, and of the sector deciding what standard it holds itself to.

We are in a critical decade for climate action. The language we use needs to be worthy of the moment.