Why the new trend in Greenhushing....?
Today's companies are overall more committed to Sustainability goals than ever.
PwC reports that only 16% of major companies have narrowed their climate goals, while nearly half have retained them and over a third have increased them.
However, despite the posivitity, companies are also more likely than ever to keep quiet about this, and as a result we have a new concept in play:
Greenhushing refers to the tendency of companies downplaying their climate pledges. In contrast to greenwashing, where overkill exists on environmental gains, greenhushing occurs when companies are actually doing something but refuse to trumpet it.
But Why..?
Some of the explanation lies in political backlash. US state attorneys general in early 2024 threatened to sue investment banks like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs for their Environmental Social and Governance pledges.
Then of course there's the anti-green stance in the Whitehouse: being bold about your corporate ethics ain't gonna win you any of those big money government contracts these days!
Such threats discourage public disclosure. As Harvard Business Review (2023) hints, many companies now fear that discussing sustainability will attract both regulatory pushback and culture-war politics.
Why Greenhushing Matters
At first glance, greenhushing can seem harmless: after all, what matters is a real emissions reduction, not publicity releases. But transparency lies at the heart of accountability and global benchmarking.
Low-level disclosure has been warned against by the World Economic Forum as undermining investor confidence and falling behind shared climate goals.
However maybe, just maybe greenhushing is a positive trend..?. Instead of buzz that delivers no real substance in greenwashing, perhaps this shift is a subtle but genuine indicator of progress with corporate climate responsibility. Instead of seeking PR stunts, firms are mainstreaming sustainability into their business processes.
And so, "greenhushing" could just be less hype, more substance....?
I guess we'll have to wait 20 years to find out!
Seems the increase in greenhushing indicates that businesses are being more careful about how they talk about their sustainability efforts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anticonsumption/comments/1nbxp1d/why_the_new_trend_in_greenhushing/
This post has been shared on Reddit by @x-rain through the HivePosh initiative.
The anti-green efforts in the US are blatant with their Energy Department tweeting anti-renewables lies. Their fossil fuel backers are pushing the buttons. Meanwhile money is being saved through things like solar. I hope all companies won't be intimidated by this. They need to plan for the long term and I hope this regime is temporary.
You would have thought renewables are the future I mean it is rational!
I believe that companies have been adapting to these changes as clean or green companies, but not everything can be done at once because there are things that, although they reduce costs over time, have an immediate economic impact. Therefore, they do not boast about their changes because these changes are not complete and could be judged.
Yes maybe it's just a sign of a gradual shift!
That’s a neat term and certainly a silver lining way to look at it. With the fiscal irresponsibility of caring for the planet, it is no wonder the corporate infiltration of the government, (now apparently more ever as long as I have been watching) it is no wonder many are just discarding them rather than greenhushing.
The 20 years down the line to find out notion scares me a little as we could be so far past the point of no return while we wait and see!
I think that having investment firms require companies in which they invest to adopt green initiatives for the sake of adopting green initiatives is ill advised. The green initiatives should make financial sense for the organization in terms of generating profit rather than make financial sense aimed at preventing being cut off from capital. Green technologies are not without cost. They come with maintenance costs and are generally financed rather than paid in cash. If you're saving $500K in energy costs but paying more than that in operations and in repaying the loans to acquire it, you are failing as a business.
As much as we want corporations to think globally, their primary focus is on generating revenue for shareholders that goes above the 7% annual inflation rate, which is needed just to break even, not including a return on their investment. Getting more than 7% profit is hard enough without saddling the business with extraneous costs that eat up cash flow.
As a facilities manager, it made sense for us to use LED lighting and energy-efficient assets as they would lower our energy cost. We were exploring the installation of electric car chargers, but we weren't going to do it at a loss. It had to make financial sense to where they would pay for themselves. We were exploring solar panels, but ultimately the financing cost of installation would have cost more than what we would save in energy (thanks to our energy efficiency), even at net zero.
These companies that are greenhushing are likely adopting the sustainability efforts because it makes financial sense to adopt them. It only makes sense to trumpet the sustainability initiatives, as it also costs money to announce such things, if you are trying to appease the investor class that is trying to force sustainability into your business. Any company that relies on the investor class is likely struggling to tread water. They'll take on losing demands by investors so long as the capital investments keep flowing. There is plenty of news about zombie corporations.
I think the current political climate is not about stopping companies from adopting sustainability. Rather, it is about stopping the people with money from requiring companies in which they invest to adopt sustainability, even when it doesn't make financial sense. ESG was more about forcing political initiatives on businesses using financial levers than helping the businesses thrive.
I think every business wants to save money and do right by their customers. Their survival depends on it. When a sustainable practice or product comes around that is the right fit, they'll adopt it out of business necessity. It will be an investment that pays for itself. Otherwise, it's an added burden.
Far too many challenges!
Political backlash you said