Greenhushing: Climate Concerns Take a Backseat in the Corporate World
In an era marked by shifting political landscapes, businesses are increasingly choosing to downplay their climate-related initiatives. This trend, known as “greenhushing,” involves companies quietly reducing or ceasing public communication about their environmental efforts. The motivations behind greenhushing are complex, ranging from concerns about regulatory scrutiny to a desire to align with evolving political priorities.
Scott Graybeal, CEO of Caelux, a California-based startup producing high-efficiency solar panel glass, exemplifies this shift.
“We have very quickly shifted gears to the other type of conversations,” Graybeal stated. This means emphasizing the company’s contributions to job creation, domestic manufacturing, and energy independence rather than focusing on its role in producing carbon-free electricity.
Graybeal’s approach reflects a broader trend. Following shifts in the political climate, companies find it more important to tailor their messaging to resonate and build relationships with the current administration’s priorities. This is not about “being manipulative,” he explained. The reality is that with careful messaging, executives can gain the most receptivity.
This approach is often taken in the face of actions by political leaders. For example, the US government has pulled out of international climate agreements, frozen funding for environmental projects, and targeted climate-related programs.
Meanwhile, European companies also face pressure and potential scrutiny for appearing to overstate their environmental claims, driving further adoption of greenhushing.
A recent analysis by Connected Impact, a research firm, revealed that a significant number of major companies are under-promoting their environmental protection work. In Britain, 63 out of the 100 largest publicly listed firms downplayed their sustainability efforts. The trend was even more pronounced in the US, with 67 firms resorting to greenhushing.
According to Connected Impact CEO Lucy Walton, “People were under-communicating and under-promoting what they were doing.” Walton anticipates the gap will widen further in the coming year.
Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech Global Inc., is also recalibrating her messaging. LanzaTech specializes in capturing carbon dioxide and converting it for chemical production.
While Holmgren’s technology curbs planet-warming emissions, she now emphasizes job creation and economic growth over emission reduction. “I think we have to stop talking about, ‘Everything we do is climate change,’ because it’s almost like there’s a visceral reaction to those words,” she says. She added that “This isn’t a good time to put a red flag in front of the bull.”
This phenomenon occurs against the backdrop of some major corporations scaling back their climate commitments, due in large measure to concerns over their financial performance and operational challenges. The US leadership change is only making this trend more prominent.
In January, six of the largest US banks curtailed their ties with the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a UN-backed program that encourages financial institutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Matthew Blain, a principal at the US venture firm Voyager, observes a similar hesitance among companies in carbon-intensive sectors. While these businesses continue to develop low-carbon technologies, they are increasingly cautious about publicizing their climate-related work. Concerns about political blowback, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny weigh heavily on companies, particularly outside the US.
In Europe, where tackling climate change remains on government agendas, companies are also reducing public statements about their green initiatives to avoid accusations of greenwashing.
Unilever, the British consumer group, has faced regulatory and consumer backlash over alleged greenwashing. Last year, the company announced it would be watering down some of its environmental promises after executives were “cautious and possibly scared by greenwashing investigations.”
Across Europe, regulators are increasing efforts to crackdown on greenwashing. In the UK, penalties can reach up to 10% of a company’s global annual turnover. According to Walton, “People are so frightened of doing the wrong thing, potentially accidentally greenwashing without intending to.”
The divergent political climate across the Atlantic further complicates promoting green credentials for large global corporations. However, as Walton notes, silence introduces risks of its own. It can damage trust and confuse consumers who have watched companies shift from enthusiastic pledges to a more reserved approach.
Some industry experts view greenhushing as a reasonable strategy. Edward Maibach, who specializes in climate change communication at George Mason University, states that companies are “smart to play whichever cards are most likely to win at any given moment.” He adds, “The most important thing is that their products succeed in the marketplace so that we can bring the fossil fuel era to a rapid close.”
Maibach concludes, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
