We Need to Restore Degraded Areas

Discussions and initiatives related to environmental issues are urgent and essential – but I’d like to use this context to reflect on communication. Shall we? During the planning for Climate Week in New York in 2023 and 2024, one point of consensus was that the notion of “maintenance” in environmental sustainability has become outdated given the urgency of the situation. Instead, companies and society must adopt a mindset of “care” – which involves more than simply maintaining the current state. It means “restoring degraded areas” and establishing a “reconstruction” plan to recover what has already been lost.

Key environmental recovery techniques – such as revegetation, erosion control, the use of beneficial plant species, and ongoing monitoring – are critical not only for restoring biodiversity but also for combating climate change. Restoring degraded areas is vital for advancing sustainability and avoiding a point of no return. I’d like to borrow these concepts to emphasize the importance of sustaining a healthy communication environment – particularly in preventing misinformation, a challenge magnified by the rapidly evolving capabilities of AI and other technological developments.

Have you heard about data pollution? The report “Comunicação frente à gestão de riscos de desinformação,” developed by the Centro de Estudos e Análises Econômicas Aplicadas à Comunicação (CEAEC) of the Associação Brasileira de Comunicação Empresarial (Aberje), emphasizes that misinformation is a complex and multifaceted issue. Journalists, digital platforms, governments, companies, educators, and citizens must work collaboratively to build a more trustworthy and healthier information environment.

So when we talk about the “communication environment,” its sustainability must be seen through the lens of restoring degraded areas. Misinformation doesn’t just erode trust in information sources – it also complicates local and geopolitical dynamics. It is deployed to influence elections, sow doubt in conflict zones, and harm the reputation of products, services, companies, and even countries.

The study highlights how the spread of false information feeds AI systems – and the concerns this raises. The ease with which fake news spreads heightens risks related to war, natural disasters, and damage to the reputations of companies and business leaders of all sizes. As technology and AI become increasingly sophisticated, the risks to individuals grow accordingly. As corporate communication professionals, we must stay vigilant, reflect, and act to prevent points of no return in this era of constant and accelerating transformation.

So, how do we address this issue? One key insight from the CEAEC report stems from a discussion held in February of this year at the World Governments Summit in Dubai on the future of technology and AI. During the event, experts emphasized the need to rethink our mindset regarding misinformation. Bob Pearson, Chair of The Next Solutions Group and a member of Page, explained that we have become too accepting of misinformation as an unsolvable problem. This growing tolerance for a deteriorating status quo signals the need to reframe the conversation. Just like air and water pollution, data pollution is a growing concern for both consumers and governments. This term – “data pollution” – deserves our attention, as it helps illustrate the seriousness of the issue. Governments must take steps to enhance the cognitive security of their citizens. Another crucial concept discussed was “cognitive security.” Here is a summary of Pearson’s presentation.

The report also lists several platforms and fact-checking tools, including UOL Confere, Fato ou Fake, Estadão Verifica, Lupa, Aos Fatos, E-farsas, Truco/Agência Pública, Boatos.org, and FakeCheck. These are all valuable and necessary initiatives, but they also give the impression that society’s efforts remain vastly insufficient—as if we were fighting a forest fire with a few buckets of water. In other words, while these actions are important—even heroic—without structural change, they may not be enough to counter the destructive potential of widespread misinformation, including the damage it can inflict on brands.

To “reforest” communication channels where news deserts prevail and to combat the spread of misinformation, we need structural measures. These include digital literacy programs, greater transparency and accountability from platforms, and broader public engagement—particularly through awareness campaigns. It is also crucial for brands to treat the issue with the seriousness it demands, investing in reputation risk management and supporting professional, restorative communication that upholds best practices. Naturally, this includes leveraging the benefits of technology. All of this reinforces the increasingly important role of communication leaders, who must take proactive, responsible steps in shaping the future of communication as they adopt new technologies – especially AI. These perspectives are outlined in the CEAEC report and underscore the importance of keeping this debate alive.

Os artigos aqui apresentados não necessariamente refletem a opinião da Aberje e seu conteúdo é de exclusiva responsabilidade do autor.