How to communicate a BESS investment internally and externally without overclaim

A battery energy storage system is an investment worth talking about. It provides flexibility, can support the electricity grid, and often forms part of a broader energy strategy. But the moment the investment has to be described, the question arises of how much can be said without promising more than can be documented. The answer depends largely on who you are speaking to, and which channel the message goes out through.

This article is a practical communication guide for marketing and leadership. It explains why internal and external communication set different requirements, which formulations are generally durable and which should be avoided, how the requirements shift from channel to channel, and when it is worth involving legal and ESG before a statement goes out. Finally we describe where our responsibility as supplier ends.

Internal and external communication are not the same

The same sentence about a battery system can be entirely unproblematic in an internal decision paper and a breach if it ends up on the front of a campaign. The difference lies in who the message is aimed at, and which rules apply to that audience.

Internal communication (board materials, investment cases, employee briefings and similar) is first and foremost a question of whether the basis for the decision is accurate. Here the main risk is that a system's contribution is overstated, so a decision is made on an overly optimistic foundation. External communication aimed at consumers, by contrast, is bound by Denmark's Marketing Practices Act (markedsføringsloven). The EU rules that tighten this area apply strictly to communication between business and consumer, while communication between businesses falls outside and is instead regulated by the directive on misleading and comparative advertising. That does not mean anything goes between businesses, but it explains why the requirements and the sanction risk are greatest in consumer-facing communication.

The boundary between internal and external is also less sharp than it looks. Information collected for a sustainability report is as a starting point not covered by the marketing rules, because the report is typically aimed at investors and is often legally required. But if a company uses information from its own sustainability report in voluntary marketing aimed at consumers, that communication becomes covered by the rules. A sentence can therefore change status simply because it is moved from a report to an advert. That is why it is a good habit to treat every green statement as if it will at some point end up in an external channel.

Durable formulations and those you should avoid

The safest communication about a battery system is qualitative and conditional. It describes what the system can contribute, without turning that into an absolute property of the whole company.

Formulations that are generally durable share a common trait: they are precise, bounded and accompanied by assumptions. Some examples:

• Grid support: That an industrial BESS system can support the electricity grid and better utilisation of renewable energy. Flexibility from batteries can in some cases defer or reduce the need for grid expansion, which is a system-level observation, not a saving for the individual installation.
• Flexibility: That battery storage provides flexibility that can shift consumption and production in time, depending on grid connection and consumption profile.
• Part of a strategy: That a system can form part of an energy strategy, but does not in itself make the company CO₂-neutral.

What they share is that they remain meaningful alongside a reservation. That is the hallmark of a claim you can substantiate.

At the other end are formulations that sound stronger but rarely hold up. Statements such as "CO₂-neutral", "100% green electricity", "climate-neutral operations" or "green backup" describe the whole company or the whole system, while the actual benefit typically concerns only a part. They therefore belong on the list of formulations one should not use, unless one has documentation that few systems can deliver. Under the forthcoming EU rules, generic neutrality claims such as "CO₂-neutral" and "climate-neutral" become prohibited unless the company can document a recognised, exceptional environmental performance, and vague statements about being "green" or "environmentally friendly" without documentation likewise become prohibited. A concrete figure for CO₂ displacement belongs in the same category: without a documented method it is not a statement anyone can substantiate, and we treat it as described in our article on CO₂ displacement.

Channels set different requirements

It is not only the words that determine whether a green claim holds. The channel does too, because each channel has its own recipients, its own format requirements and its own scrutiny.

Media and campaigns: Here it is not only the text that is assessed, but the overall impression. Images, colours and design also form part of the assessment of whether marketing is liable to mislead. A case from the Danish Consumer Ombudsman (Forbrugerombudsmanden) illustrates the point: a company marketed a product with a conspicuous climate label, even though the actual climate saving was at most 5.17%, and the presentation was assessed as liable to mislead. This is not a BESS example, but the mechanism is the same: a technically correct piece of information can become misleading if it is presented as a larger benefit than it is.

Customers and sales materials: When a green statement appears in a product sheet or on packaging, the explanation that makes the statement precise must appear on the same medium. The EU rules are clear that if there is not room to specify an environmental claim, the claim should as a starting point not be made at all. A loose green headline without the nearby explanation is therefore a worse idea than a shorter but precise formulation.

Applications and tenders: In public green procurement the requirements are formalised. Green considerations must be linked to the subject matter of the contract, labelling requirements must build on objectively verifiable and non-discriminatory criteria, and the supplier must on delivery be able to deliver what was offered, while the contracting authority has a duty to carry out effective checks that the requirements are met. A green narrative that cannot be verified is therefore not only weak in a tender; it can become a contractual problem if what was offered is not delivered. Here even more than in marketing, a statement must be documentable.

Across all channels, the documentation requirement travels with the statement regardless of format. That does not change internal communication, but it does mean that a formulation intended as internal should be able to withstand being read as if it were external.

Involve legal and ESG before major statements

Some statements are larger than a single sentence in a product sheet. That applies, for example, to climate targets, promises about a green transition, or statements in a published report. Here it is worth involving legal and ESG before the message goes out, because the requirements are both stricter and more formal.

Claims about future environmental performance are a clear example. An intention to become climate-neutral is not in itself enough. Under the EU rules, a claim about transitioning to climate neutrality is only lawful if it builds on clear, objective and verifiable commitments in a detailed and realistic plan with measurable, time-bound targets, regularly checked by an independent third party. That type of statement therefore requires a supporting framework, not just an ambition.

The reporting track has its own scrutiny. For companies covered by the EU rules on sustainability reporting, the disclosures are subject to an assurance requirement and must be published together with a statement from an auditor or independent assurance provider. That means a figure or a statement that ends up in a sustainability report must be able to withstand formal assurance. Which operational data a battery system can realistically contribute to that kind of reporting is covered further in an article on ESG data and BESS.

The common thread is that responsibility for an external statement lies with the sender. As a starting point, it is the company that markets itself that is responsible for compliance with the Marketing Practices Act, and that can incur liability. The larger the statement, the more reason there is to have it checked by someone with legal and subject-matter insight before it is published. A broader review of typical overclaims and a checklist before publication is in our article on greenwashing.

ZynexGroup's approach to system assessment

We develop, deliver and optimise industrial BESS systems and make operational data available. That is what we do. We are not ESG advisers or a communications agency, and we do not produce sustainability reports or final communication texts for the customer. Our contribution is hardware, commercial optimisation of the system's flexibility, and access to the operational data that describe the system's actual activity.

That division has a practical consequence for communication. We can provide data that show what the system actually does, for example energy throughput, cycles and availability. But you are the sender when the system is described in an annual report, on the website or in a tender, and it is therefore you who must be able to substantiate the statement. We can support with an accurate data basis, but we cannot take over responsibility for a claim we are not the sender of. In practice, the sober path is therefore also the most durable: a statement that can be documented, and benefits kept qualitative and conditional, holds up better than a green headline no one can substantiate.

Overall perspective

Communication about a BESS investment is less about finding the strongest words and more about hitting the right level for the channel and the audience the message is intended for. Internally, the main risk is an overly optimistic decision-making foundation. Externally, it is bound by rules where the requirements and the scrutiny tighten, and where responsibility lies with the sender.

The useful point is that the benefits of flexibility and better utilisation of renewable energy are worth talking about when they are formulated qualitatively and with assumptions, and that the absolute green claims are the ones that create risk. An investment holds up best when the story about it is as solid as the system itself, and when major statements are checked before they go out. How communication connects to what a battery can actually measure and report is covered more broadly in our overview of pragmatic sustainability with BESS.

Get an assessment of your facility's potential

If you want clarity on what a battery energy storage system can realistically contribute at your site, we are happy to have a data-based conversation based on your own data: grid connection, consumption profile and history. On that basis we make an initial assessment of whether there is a match, and which operational data a system could then make available for your own reporting and communication. You are welcome to contact us.