Labels – the names, categories, roles a society assigns to people or collectives – not only describe a reality, they construct it. This conviction forms the basis of so-called labeling theory, developed by sociologists Howard S. Becker and Edwin Lemert. According to this perspective, classifying a person as “deviant”, “criminal” or “problematic” is not a simple diagnosis, such an act of naming can transform their identity and condition behavior.
What will I learn from this article?
The so-called Pygmalion effect, or self-fulling prophecy, can lead to stereotypes heading in the said direction. When we treat someone in a specific way, presuming a feature of their identity, they could well end up by behaving like that anyway. We see this clearly in situations of discrimination for reasons of gender, race or social class. Also, when someone tells us we’re not able to do something (for example, because we are a woman, or haven’t studied a subject, or simply because we’re thought incapable of an action), we might end up believing we can’t do it. But when we’re told we are intelligent, responsible or it is good for us to do something, it’s highly probable we end up believing it to be true or that, at least, we try to adapt to what we’re told we are.
If we transfer this symbolic logic to the corporate domain, what happens when a company is described as “sustainable”, “eco”, “green” or “responsible”? Does the label function only as a marketing resource, or does it have a performative effect resulting in a real change in practice? Does declaring oneself to be sustainable oblige us to act that way? If so, is that cheating? Or, can a simple label result in real change?
As well as sending a message to its audience, when a company labels itself as sustainable, it is building an identity and generating expectations internally and externally. There’s no shortage of examples, however, of sustainability being used as a communication strategy without it reflecting a true transformation á la Pygmalion effect. There are many ways of appearing sustainable without ever achieving it, from using the color green in a logo, or using words such as “eco”, to exaggerating a small sustainability-related decision or result. But, if all this is not based on specific actions and measurable results, if there is no real intention behind it, these kinds of actions are incomplete.
Today, the general public is increasingly aware and more demanding. Recent legislation has also strengthened the publishing of sustainability information. For example, EU Directive 2022/2464, known as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), requires verifiable reporting of environmental, social and governance impacts. Meanwhile, EU Directive 2024/825 protects consumers from ambiguous environmental statements and misleading marketing practices, and promotes clear and verifiable labels on products and services.
So, is the Pygmalion effect a chimera? Perhaps the key to success is that only those who believe and are convinced of their label, experience real changes. In the case of companies, it has to be a sincere transformation, borne out of real conviction.
Declaring the intention to become sustainable is only the starting point in a process that requires a huge effort and complex decision-making, such as investing in more efficient infrastructure or changing suppliers after many years of working together. In this context, official certifications – such as ISO 14001 for environmental management, the European EMAS system, or impact marks like B Corp – are also an effective motor of corporate change and the environment in which a company operates.
Institutional and independent accreditation also impose very specific requirements and oblige organizations to review processes, incorporate indicators for evaluation, and consolidate a culture of continuous improvement. In this way, more than simply distinctive, certifications act as structural incentives guiding decision-making and strengthening the commitment of companies who seek to be more responsible, efficient and sustainable.
To conclude, defining oneself as a sustainable company can have a performative effect, but only if there is real purpose behind it. Putting the label into practice requires structures, willpower, resources and, above all, coherence. As such, sustainability must be understood as a dynamic and constant process which involves everyone and all organizational processes. And, as happens with people, labels can result in more prejudice and stereotypes than results. Sustainability is about more than just words, it needs action.