Just a few years ago, pledging to tackle climate change was a staple of corporate PR. Amazon Trumpeted that climate pledge It is engraved on the name of Seattle’s largest arena. Walmart promised to slash Gigatons of carbon emissions It has received $11 trillion investments from the supply chain and BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager. Companies that put pressure on To come up with a plan to bring the emissions to zero by 2050.
Today, many companies are eschewing the subject completely. During the revenue call, many well-known climate-related conditions mentions have fallen by 76% compared to three years ago. Recent analysis of S&P 500 companies by Bloomberg. The most sharp decline came from financial and consumer discretionary companies. This is a category of people who offer purchases of options such as Starbucks and Airbnb.
Hesitant to talk about climate change, sometimes referred to as “green shootsing,” can reduce pressure on polluters in large businesses that are slow to reduce emissions. This trend is linked to growing resilience towards sustainable investment and the ongoing changes in the political landscape of President Donald Trump’s second term. “I think big companies in particular are very cautious,” said Hortense Bioy, head of sustainable investment research at financial services firm Morningstar.
Companies were caught up in a tug of war: On the other hand, Investors are putting pressure on them to be serious About the risks to the business of climate change. On the other hand, references to words related to so-called ESG – polarized acronyms referring to investments in “environmental, social and governance” – Threatening the blow from the Trump administration. The way experts suggest is to move the needle away from flashpoints like ESG and speak specifically about the financial risks that a warming planet poses to businesses.
John Marshall, CEO of the Potential Energy Coalition, a nonpartisan marketing company focusing on climate action, says silence is not a winning strategy. “We don’t think voters or consumers were impressed at all by removing the concept of climate change from any language, regardless of their political stripes,” Marshall said.
His research shows that investors and the public want companies to talk about climate change, not as a moral issue, but as an investment risk. According to Potential energy report from September last yearthree out of four Americans surveyed believe that businesses are responsible for limiting their climate impact. Additionally, around nine in 10 US retail investors hope that companies will be prepared for ways that reduce emissions and lead to risks like increasingly unpredictable weather, such as supply chain disruptions and rising insurance costs.
The first indication of Greenhushing came in 2023 when Swiss consultant South Pole discovered that a quarter of the largest companies around the world had decided not to publicize progress on their climate targets. The reason Southport later discovered was because businesses wanted to avoid the legal risks associated with famous pledges. This was a response to the country that created a new law against the term “green wash,” a deceptive environmental advertising.
Businesses hide climate progress. The new report explains why.
At the same time, financial institutions were already dealing with the backlash against ESG, which had already become hot in 2022. The lawsuit targets asset managers, pension funds and federal agencies, claiming that “awakening capitalism” puts politics in financial interests. Red states, including Florida and Texas, have withdrawn billions of dollars in state funding from BlackRock and other ESG-friendly companies. BlackRock, which supported nearly half of its shareholder proposals to address environmental and social issues in 2021, pulled out a U-turn. Between July 2023 and June 2024, Only 4% of those helped.
“They were so visible, they were vocal about what they were doing in that field,” Bioi said. She expects that companies with large climate plans may have to disclose their opposition to ESG as a risk in their annual report. That sense of attention is also reflected in the market. Over the past two years, the US has had more sustainable funds remaining than what it comes in. According to a study by Morningstar.
Bioi suspects that there is still room for the trend given Trump’s hostility to climate action. Already, including companies Apple, Walmart and Siemens have left the climate coalition It was formed between Trump’s first terminology. Bioy pointed to circulating guidance in government organizations Warnings for Terminology Use “pollution”, “clean energy”, “climate science” etc. “Companies that manage or deal with state organizations should be careful not to use those terms,” ​​Bioy says.
In the past, some companies have used languages ​​primarily around climate change and have embraced “moral framing.”Do the right thing. “But two-thirds of Marshall believe that businesses should avoid stance on political issues, according to his company’s research.
When many of the terms used by environmental advocates can cause knee responses, it raises a broader question of how normal people should talk about climate change. “I think the climate movement needs to be very thoughtful and strategic about whether it’s a DEI or ESG initiative,” said Austin Whitman, CEO of The Change Climate Project, which provides non-profit tools to help businesses reduce emissions. “I think for all of us, regardless of why we are fighting, we need to distance ourselves from these lightning acronyms and topics.
