In recent years, the concept of ‘governance’ has expanded beyond compliance and institutional capacity to include a vital and often underestimated element: communication. Not in the promotional sense, but as a business function that enables transparency, responsiveness and trust. For sustainability to take root within a company, your stakeholders need to understand what policies mean in practice, i.e. why they exist, how they work, and who is impacted by them. Communication is what makes that understanding possible.

Across South Africa, the consequences of communication as a ‘soft skill’ are visible. Let’s look at an example we often see in waste management. While compliance in important, a gap if often found between Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) and communities.  In many instances, IWMPs are presented in formats that are inaccessible to communities, leaving many informal waste pickers and smaller waste entrepreneurs unable to see opportunities within a local waste economy. With many municipal landfill sites under pressure with a shortage of remaining airspace, we need to ensure that the communication along the waste value chain is inclusive, accessible and enables new business opportunities.

When this works, it leads to much more trust and ultimately a more sustainable localised waste economy. When the communication architecture fails, so does accountability. We often find different actors within the waste value chain working in silos. We need to think of communication as something that can close governance gaps.

Turning data into public knowledge

A major shortfall in public or corporate reporting is the assumption that making data available is enough. But transparency without accessibility can still exclude. Visual dashboards, community-centred reporting tools and simplified performance summaries offer a way to turn technical knowledge into accessible public knowledge.

In our work at SUSCO, we have seen how communication can play a direct role in strengthening systems.

A great example is the End GBVF Dashboard developed as part of the End GBVF Movement. The dashboard visualises the country’s progress towards one of the most pressing social issues – gender-based violence and femicide. Through exploring different GBVF indicators, a user can gain real time insight on how a specific locality (district or local level municipality) is doing on progress on the indicators. In addition to this, the dashboard displays GBVF building block which are resources to respond to GBVF, and Collective actions, which are localised projects, like the End GBVF 100-Day Challenges aimed to address GBVF. The End GBVF Dashboard paints a clear picture for the user, whether this person is sitting at a community level, in government, or a private organisation. It unifies the messaging.

In these contexts, communication becomes the connective tissue of governance – making services more transparent, inclusive and real. Tools like this demonstrate how communication can serve accountability – not by simplifying the problem, but by making it visible and shareable in ways that invite participation.

A framework that puts the people first

Rather than a generic checklist, a useful communication approach in governance asks practical, citizen-first questions. When designing reports, programme rollouts, or development plans, here are five foundational questions that can be useful to guide communication plans:

1. What story is this data telling and who is it speaking to?
    This helps to create the foundational key messages from the data, for storytelling that is relevant.
   
   
2. Which formats, platforms or languages are most familiar to the intended audience?
    Opens the way for more accessible communication across different contexts.
   
   
3. What visual tools (timelines, diagrams, dashboards) can clarify complexity without oversimplifying?
    Supports the use of design elements that make information easier to grasp.
   
   
4. Where and how can this information be publicly engaged with or challenged?
    Creates opportunities for feedback, dialogue and accountability or public oversight.
   
   
5. Are frontline staff, educators or the community equipped to explain and share this?
    Lays the groundwork for consistent and informed messaging at every level or beyond a single report or event.

This kind of approach is pragmatic and ensures that communication is embedded into governance processes from the start, not added at the end.

Reimagining public reporting (and participation)

Now let’s end off by talking about the very technical or ‘specialist’ reports that it is often expected that the public will read and understand. We have seen it time and time again, where public participation that is part of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) leaves communities and residents completely baffled. You can’t blame them. The very nature of specialist environment reports is extremely technical, yet many environmental assessment practitioners publish them as a tick box exercise in the public participation process. In most cases, this is not enough. People will feel excluded, they will misunderstand the proposed project, and in extreme cases, we have even seen communities go into protest. Public participation needs to be educational, guiding and inclusive.  We also need to explore how EIA reports or municipal development plans can include a space for citizen interpretation without the interference of political bottlenecks. This will also enable our local governance systems to be more responsive and legitimate according to the actual need of local communities. Tools like Echo, can bridge this gap between complex environmental reports and community understanding.

As sustainability professionals, we need to stop thinking of communication as a soft tool to support governance and start recognising it as governance in practice. It is the means through which policy and strategy meets people, through which decisions are understood, and through which accountability is sustained.