What the energy transition can teach communicators: A case study

By Srividya Bhaskar

Communications strategist, Srividya Bhaskar, shares the lessons she learned about the value of transparent communications in the complex world of energy transition.

When I say the phrase energy transition, does your mind jump to photos of wind turbines, solar panels and gleaming electric cars? You’re not alone. The reality, however, is more complicated. The journey to net zero will depend on an evolving mix of technologies, some of which are imperfect or poorly understood. That complexity makes the clean energy sector a powerful case study in transparency for communications professionals, a lesson I had the chance to learn first-hand.

When I worked in communications for a large European multinational producing decarbonization technologies, I expected the challenge would be explaining complicated science in simple ways. What I didn’t expect? Finding myself in the middle of a fierce public debate about palm oil, deforestation in the Amazon and what counts as “sustainable.”

That experience taught me more about the value of transparency than any corporate workshop or media training ever could.

The controversy that forced us to open up

In 2022, the company announced it had been selected as the technology supplier for a new fuel plant in Brazil, in the heart of the Amazon. The plant was expected to produce half a million tonnes of so-called sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) each year, using palm oil as the feedstock.

From a technical standpoint, we understood the rationale. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize. Even the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) net-zero scenarios show that a mix of solutions will be required for decades: advanced biofuels, e-fuels, hydrogen and electrification. In the near term, palm-based SAF was a bridge.

But nuance rarely makes headlines. Within days, a local media outlet ran an exposé quoting experts who described palm oil as “not sustainable in any way.” Photos of rainforest clear-cutting accompanied the article. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO) piled on. The question was stark: how could a company branding itself as a clean-tech frontrunner be linked to deforestation?

Our response

As communicators, we had to act quickly. We issued a detailed written statement that laid out the bigger picture: the role of SAF in global net-zero pathways, the requirements for independent certification, the company’s due diligence processes and the international safeguards in place. We did not deny the risks around palm oil; we acknowledged them.

But it was clear these efforts weren’t enough. Transparency could not be reduced to bullet points in a press release. We needed to broaden the conversation.

So, instead of retreating, we invited the journalist behind the critical story to an expert panel on sustainable aviation fuels. We brought in academics, certification specialists and industry voices to explain the context: why aviation needs SAF, how feedstocks differ, what guardrails exist and where the transition is headed.

The outcome surprised me. The journalist who had originally criticized us praised the access to deeper context. Over time, they became a constructive media contact rather than an adversary. Not because we changed their mind, but because we treated them with candour and respect.

What I learned

That experience reshaped my view of communications. It showed me that transparency in the energy transition isn’t just about “getting the facts out.” It’s about creating spaces where people can grapple with trade-offs.

One of my colleagues captured it perfectly during that crisis: “We carry a critical responsibility to balance truth alongside corporate reputation. If we oversell, we lose credibility. If we under-explain, we lose trust. The only way through is to admit the imperfections while showing how they fit into a bigger transition story.”

That insight has stayed with me ever since.

Trade-offs everywhere

Palm oil is only one example. Every corner of the energy transition is marked by contradictions. Carbon capture is dismissed as a fossil lifeline, yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls it indispensable. Blue hydrogen is branded as “rebranded gas,” even though it features in national climate roadmaps. Even cultural partnerships can backfire: Coldplay’s biofuel deal with an oil company led to headlines calling them “useful idiots for greenwashing.”

The same dilemma runs through renewables. They promise clean power, but rely on lithium, cobalt and rare earths—materials whose extraction often raises human rights and environmental concerns. Demand for critical minerals is soaring, to the point where governments are even exploring lunar and asteroid mining. We talk of global cooperation, yet see countries edging toward protectionism, anxious about overreliance on foreign suppliers even as most technology inputs still come from abroad. And while the transition must be just, that means grappling with uneven impacts: climate finance shortfalls between developed and developing economies, labour rights in mining supply chains, and communities at the frontline of new energy projects.

For communicators, the message is clear. We aren’t simply narrating technological progress…we are navigating justice, fairness and geopolitics. If we only tell the positive story, critics will fill in the rest. What’s worse, we risk having their version dominate. The only credible path is proactive candor: naming the trade-offs, admitting the imperfection, and showing where the trajectory is headed.

What communicators can take away

From my experience in the SAF case, three lessons stand out:

1. Context is everything. Projects look reckless when stripped of their wider trajectory. Anchoring messages in credible third-party scenarios (like the IEA in this case) helps explain why imperfect steps are part of the journey.
2. Engage, don’t retreat. Opening the door, through panels, expert access, or open forums transforms coverage from accusation into dialogue. Journalists and stakeholders can handle complexity if you respect their intelligence.
3. Admit the trade-offs. “Clean” and “sustainable” are words that demand nuance. By acknowledging the downsides and showing how risks are being managed, communicators protect credibility and foster trust.

Transparency as a long-term strategy

Looking back, what preserved the company’s reputation wasn’t the carefully crafted press release. It was the decision to lean into transparency: inviting scrutiny, explaining the messiness and framing the project within the broader transition story.

The truth is, the energy transition will never be neat. It is iterative, contested, often contradictory. For communicators, that makes it both uniquely difficult and uniquely instructive.

Our role is not to tell perfect stories, but honest ones. Stories that acknowledge imperfection while pointing toward progress. The energy transition, in all its messy reality, is a masterclass in why transparency matters. And for communicators, it offers a reminder that truth, when delivered with candor, context and humility, is the most powerful tool we have.

Note: AI tools (CoPilot and ChatGPT) were used for spell check and to assist with editing and refining portions of this article.