The Silence Falls: A New Corporate Trend

Last year, visitors to BlackRock’s sustainable investing page noticed something missing — a vivid image of a moss-covered building and a bold pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 had quietly vanished. It wasn’t a glitch; it was a strategic retreat. Across the corporate world, many companies are pulling back on public boasts about their ESG goals. Sustainability reports are published with less fanfare, climate targets are kept on a “need-to-know” basis, and buzzwords like net-zero or even “ESG” itself are scrubbed from websites. This phenomenon has a name making the rounds in boardrooms and sustainability circles: greenhushing, the act of staying silent about sustainability commitments. It’s essentially the opposite of greenwashing — instead of exaggerating progress, companies are choosing to say less about the good they’re doing.

Greenhushing is an emergent global trend born of our polarized times. In conversations with sustainability officers, you can often sense a tension between pride and prudence. “We’re still doing everything we promised — we’re just not shouting about it,” confided one ESG manager at a European manufacturer (preferring not to be named) during a recent industry roundtable. The data backs up these hushed anecdotes. A survey of over 1,400 sustainability leaders across 12 countries found that 70% of climate-conscious companies worldwide are deliberately hiding their climate goals rather than promoting them. What’s startling is that this hush isn’t due to lack of action. In fact, many of these firms are stepping up their sustainability efforts behind the scenes – three-quarters said they’re investing more in cutting carbon emissions than before – they just don’t want to talk about it.

From Boasts to Whispers: Why Companies Are Going Quiet

Why would companies pour resources into ESG initiatives only to keep quiet about their progress? The reasons span legal anxieties, political headwinds, and reputational fears – a perfect storm driving even well-meaning businesses into silence.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Legal Risk: A wave of anti-greenwashing regulations is sweeping across jurisdictions, making companies nervous about what they publicly claim. In Europe, for instance, new laws explicitly penalize deceptive environmental advertising and corporate greenwash. France now leads in greenhushing – a whopping 82% of French companies have gone mum on their climate plans, the highest rate globally.

Similarly, in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is tightening guidelines on green marketing, and California enacted one of the first anti-greenwashing laws requiring large companies to disclose emissions data to back up any climate claims. The threat isn’t abstract: companies have already faced lawsuits for over-hyping sustainability. In the last year, Nike and Delta Air Lines were sued over allegedly misleading environmental claims. As one general counsel quipped, “Companies are caught in an ESG paradox — sued for saying too much, sued for saying too little, and sometimes both at once,” encapsulating the no-win situation.

Anti-ESG Political Backlash: In certain regions, talking up ESG can land a company in the crosshairs of ideological battles. Nowhere has this been more visible than in the United States, where the term “ESG” became a lightning rod in partisan debates. Over the past two years, conservative lawmakers in various U.S. states have lambasted companies for “woke capitalism” — punishing some firms that integrate climate or social values into their strategies. Congressional hearings with titles like “Woke Investing” have hauled CEOs in to defend climate initiatives as compatible with shareholder returns. In this charged atmosphere, companies have adjusted their communication drastically.

A telling example: McDonald’s quietly scrubbed the term “ESG” from sections of its U.S. corporate website in 2023 amid criticism from conservative policymakers. Its “ESG Approach & Progress” page was rebranded to simply “Our Approach & Progress,” and other ESG labels were replaced with neutral terms. McDonald’s leadership still affirms its sustainability goals, but it prefers to do so without waving the ESG flag so visibly.

Likewise, major asset managers targeted by anti-ESG campaigns retreated on rhetoric. Both BlackRock and Vanguard removed references to certain climate initiatives from their websites in the past year. BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink even announced, “I don’t use the word ESG anymore — it’s been entirely weaponized by the far left and the far right,” stressing that the politicization of the term was undermining productive discussion.

Fear of Greenwashing Accusations and Reputational Concerns: Even outside the courtroom or legislature, the court of public opinion looms large. Corporate sustainability claims are under a microscope from savvy consumers, activist investors, and watchdog NGOs. No one wants to be the next viral example of “greenwashing” on social media. This fear is driving a communications clampdown. Recent research on the 100 largest U.S. companies found that 58% are “under-promoting” their legitimate ESG progress – essentially self-censoring their sustainability stories. Only 2% were found to be exaggerating or greenwashing, while the vast majority are either striking a cautious balance or erring on silence.

Why the reticence? In a climate of increasing scrutiny, “mistakes can result in fines and reputational damage,” the report notes. Many businesses worry that if they tout ambitious climate goals and fall even slightly short, they’ll be slammed for hypocrisy. It’s a classic reputational risk calculation. Ironically, even some of the greenest companies are hushing up. According to the South Pole survey, 88% of firms in environmental services (like renewable energy and recycling) admitted to cutting back on messaging about their climate targets, despite 93% of that group being on track with their goals.

As Renat Heuberger, CEO of South Pole, explained, a well-intentioned CEO feels caught: “you might get sued from both sides — from the left and from the right. And that is not good news if you want to convince more CEOs to get active on climate.”

READ MORE: Green Isn’t Always Clean: The Dark Side of ESG Certifications

When Silence Speaks Volumes: The Implications of Greenhushing

At first glance, greenhushing might seem a prudent defensive maneuver. No loud claims, no one to call you out – right? But for finance professionals and sustainability officers, this hush-hush trend raises serious concerns. Transparency, after all, is a bedrock of investor trust and stakeholder engagement.

One major implication is the erosion of transparency and accountability. Investors are noticing that some firms now disclose bare-minimum ESG information, or omit previously stated targets from public reports. This makes it harder to distinguish genuine progress from inertia. For example, if Company X quietly drops its headline climate pledge (as Coca-Cola did with a high-profile reusable packaging goal), stakeholders are left in the dark about its true strategy. Was the target abandoned due to feasibility issues? Is the company still committed but just not talking about it?

Moreover, greenhushing can dampen the competitive drive for better ESG performance. In the past, when one company announced an ambitious new climate target, it often spurred peers to match or beat it – a positive “race to the top.” Now, if fewer companies publicize their goals, that peer pressure diminishes. South Pole’s researchers warned that this newfound corporate silence “could impede genuine progress on climate change” by reducing the spotlight and pressure on laggards. Nadia Kähkönen, lead author of the South Pole report, lamented that “we really just cannot afford to not learn from each other” in the climate fight.

In short, greenhushing can protect a company in the immediate term from unwanted spotlight, but the long-term costs to trust and progress may be significant. As ESG veteran Kushal Bhimjiani observed, the current environment has companies feeling damned if they do and damned if they don’t. However, clamming up entirely is not a sustainable solution. The challenge, then, is finding a way to continue communicating authentically without courting the risks that sparked the silence in the first place.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace

Balancing Act: Keeping ESG Commitments Genuine (Without the Noise)

So how can companies maintain genuine ESG commitments and keep stakeholders informed, all while navigating the minefield of new communication risks? The answer lies in striking a careful balance – being transparent but prudent. Here are some strategies emerging from industry experts and forward-thinking ESG leaders:

Anchor Messaging in Data and Substance: When under the magnifying glass, facts are your friend. Instead of glossy marketing slogans, companies are wise to share concrete data about their sustainability performance. By focusing on well-documented progress – think verified emissions reductions, audited diversity figures, clear milestones – firms can speak about ESG in a way that stands up to scrutiny. It’s not about boasting; it’s about reporting. Communicate like an analyst, not an advertiser. For example, rather than saying “We care about the planet,” a company might say “We cut energy use by 30% this year, saving $X million in costs and emissions.” Hard numbers and evidence of business alignment make your case more bulletproof.
Align ESG Goals with Core Business Strategy: Ensure that whatever you communicate about sustainability is clearly linked to your company’s long-term strategy and financial health. If reducing packaging or investing in renewables is framed as integral to efficiency, innovation, or risk management, it’s harder for critics to argue it’s a wasteful distraction. The Conference Board recently noted that the best defense against backlash is making sure “ESG and sustainability goals align with core business strategy, are supported by empirical evidence, and serve the long-term welfare of the company”. In practice, this means executives (from the CEO to the CFO) should be ready to explain how hitting climate targets or improving workforce diversity will drive competitive advantage or mitigate risks.
Mind Your Language (Reframe If Needed): Words matter. One lesson from the anti-ESG backlash is that terminology can become politicized even if the underlying actions are broadly beneficial. Some companies have responded by reframing their message without watering down the substance. As we saw, McDonald’s didn’t abandon its sustainability efforts; it simply stopped calling them “ESG” on the public-facing site. Other firms have similarly swapped out jargon for plainer descriptions – talking about “sustainability” or “social impact” rather than a contested acronym. This is a cosmetic change, but it can defuse knee-jerk reactions. The goal is to tell the ESG story without triggering ideological tripwires. But if certain buzzwords are generating more heat than light, consider communicating the same ideas in language that resonates better with your audience.
Be Consistent and Factual (No Grandstanding): To avoid accusations of greenwashing, consistency is key. Make sure your external statements match your internal realities. If you’ve set ambitious goals, regularly update stakeholders on incremental progress (and setbacks, if any). Admitting challenges can actually build credibility; stakeholders appreciate honesty. When there’s good news, share it with appropriate humility and context. Many companies now take a cautious approach to announcing new targets: they scenario-test them, get internal buy-in from legal and finance teams, and only then go public. This may slow down the PR splash, but it helps ensure that every claim can be backed up. In the current environment, understating and then over-delivering is far wiser than the reverse.
Engage Stakeholders Through Dialogue, Not Just Broadcasts: One way to navigate communication risks is to tailor the channel and tone of your ESG messaging to each stakeholder group. For investors, this might mean detailed discussions in earnings calls or sustainability briefings where they can ask questions – rather than splashy marketing campaigns. For regulators, proactive transparency through disclosures and compliance reports will show good faith. In fact, many companies facing public backlash have increased their internal communications about “E” and “S” topics even as they dial down the external noise. It’s less about “Look at us, we’re green!” and more about “Here’s what we’re doing, and here’s why it matters – let’s discuss any concerns.”
Stay the Course on ESG Commitments (Actions Speak Loudest): Finally, and most importantly, continue to do the work even if you’re not shouting from the rooftops. Greenhushing as a communication strategy should never translate into backtracking on the actual commitments. If anything, a period of reduced publicity is an opportunity to double down on implementation. Then, when the time is right and the regulatory dust settles, you will have a solid track record to share.

In the end, an ESG commitment kept in the dark does little good for stakeholders or society. Finance and sustainability officers must help their organizations find the voice to tell their sustainability story in a straightforward, credible way. By doing so, they can turn greenhushing’s silence into an opportunity – an opportunity to reset the narrative, focus on substance, and emerge with messaging that can weather the skeptics. It’s time to move from a fearful whisper to a confident, honest dialogue. After all, the goal was never to make headlines – it was (and is) to make a difference. And making a difference is something worth talking about.

Read more insightful articles in the Featured column on OneStop ESG News.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.