Tree planting has become one of the most visible and widely adopted ESG activities. It is easy to understand, easy to communicate, and easy to quantify.
But for organisations serious about environmental responsibility — and accountable under increasingly rigorous ESG and governance frameworks — visibility alone is no longer enough.

The question ESG leaders must now ask is not how many trees were planted, but how many will survive, mature, and remain protected over the long term.

A Candid Starting Point: What We Learned First-Hand

At Cloudforest, we have been directly involved in urban and community-based tree planting initiatives. These projects delivered many positive outcomes:

Strong employee engagement
Clear participation metrics
Immediate visual and communications value

They also revealed a fundamental weakness common across many high-profile planting initiatives.

Success was frequently measured by activity — trees planted in a day, volunteers involved, photographs captured — rather than by outcomes such as survival rates, land security, or long-term ecological value.

Those experiences forced us to re-examine what genuine environmental impact actually looks like — and to change our approach accordingly.

When ESG Becomes Performance: The Rise of “Photo Opportunity Activism”

As awareness of ESG has grown, so too has the demand for highly visible sustainability activities. Cloudforest is approached regularly by organisations seeking:

Corporate volunteer days
Staff engagement planting events
High-impact ESG photo opportunities

In many cases, the emphasis is not environmental integrity, but optics.

The most common questions we hear are:

How many people can take part?
How many trees can we plant in one day?
Can this be used in our sustainability report or external communications?

Far less frequently are we asked:

Who owns the land?
What is the expected survival rate after five or ten years?
Who is responsible for long-term maintenance?
What happens if land use changes?
Can these claims be verified in the future?

We refer to this approach as photo opportunity activism — activity designed primarily for visibility rather than lasting environmental outcomes.

Why Photo Opportunity Activism Creates Governance Risk

From a corporate governance perspective, this matters.

ESG initiatives that prioritise short-term engagement over long-term impact can introduce material risk:

Sustainability claims that cannot be substantiated over time
Misalignment between ESG disclosures and actual outcomes
Exposure to accusations of greenwashing
Increased vulnerability under audit, regulatory, or investor scrutiny

As frameworks such as CSRD, ISSB, and TCFD-aligned reporting become more stringent, organisations are expected to demonstrate:

Permanence
Accountability
Evidence-based environmental impact

Activities that cannot meet these standards may ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen, an organisation’s ESG position.

Brand Risk: When Today’s Good News Becomes Tomorrow’s Liability

ESG communications are permanent.
Claims made today may be examined years later — long after the trees have been planted.

If those trees are later:

Removed for development
Lost due to lack of maintenance
Shown to have been planted on land with no long-term protection

the original narrative can unravel.

What was once presented as environmental leadership can be reframed as superficial or misleading. For brands built on trust, this risk cannot be ignored.

The Critical Distinction: Who Owns the Land?

One of the most important — and frequently overlooked — variables in any tree-based ESG initiative is land ownership.

Projects on Land Not Owned

Trees planted on:

School grounds
Municipal or public land
Privately owned sites without binding long-term agreements

may deliver short-term value, but they lack certainty. Land use can change, maintenance can lapse, and environmental claims become increasingly difficult to defend over time.

For ESG leaders, this represents a structural weakness.

Cloudforest Projects: Ownership Enables Accountability

Cloudforest projects are located on land we own outright. Ownership allows us to:

Guarantee long-term protection
Commit to active forest stewardship
Measure survival, biodiversity, and carbon impact over decades
Provide credible, auditable environmental reporting

Ownership shifts the focus from tree planting to forest creation — a distinction that matters under modern ESG governance.

Why Survival Matters More Than Scale

A smaller number of trees:

Planted in appropriate ecosystems
Protected by land ownership
Actively managed over time

will deliver more genuine environmental value than tens of thousands planted in locations with no long-term certainty.

For ESG decision-makers, this approach:

Reduces reputational and regulatory risk
Strengthens audit defensibility
Aligns with science-based climate strategies
Demonstrates responsible stewardship rather than symbolic action

Why Cloudforest Sometimes Says No

Cloudforest supports engagement and education — but we are explicit about our boundaries.

We do not support initiatives where:

Optics outweigh environmental outcomes
Land security is unclear or temporary
Long-term care is unfunded or undefined
Impact cannot be credibly measured or defended

Saying no to certain high-visibility activities is not a rejection of ESG — it is a commitment to doing it properly.

Reframing Corporate ESG: From Events to Outcomes

There is still a place for employee engagement and participation. But ESG leaders must ensure these activities sit within a credible long-term framework.

This means shifting from:

“We planted X trees”
to
“We can demonstrate long-term survival, protection, and measurable impact.”

It requires fewer headlines — and stronger governance.

Choosing Integrity Over Optics

Cloudforest’s approach is shaped by experience — including lessons learned from early, highly visible planting initiatives.

Those lessons were clear:

Planting is not the same as protecting
Activity is not the same as impact
Visibility is not the same as value

For ESG decision-makers, the most responsible choice is often the least theatrical one.

Because in ESG, what endures matters far more than what photographs well.

Tree Planting vs Forest Creation: What ESG Decision-Makers Need to Look Beyond