Corporate climate ambitions continue to rise despite ‘greenhushing’: less talk, more action!

Original title: Is greenhushing the new greenwashing? Or something else entirely

Companies used to be accused of faking sustainability via greenwashing. Now some are hiding actual climate progress.

By James Gaines October 19, 2025 in Anthropocene

Many companies seem to be walking back climate pledges. The sad fate of the Net Zero Banking Alliance is a case in point. But if you peek behind the curtains of this seeming defeat, you’ll find a weird, counter-intuitive phenomenon that seems to be on the rise: many companies are actually continuing or even accelerating their climate goals, while also quietly scrubbing their public acknowledgement of them. In fact, in 2024, the consulting firm South Pole found that in some sectors across the world, the majority of surveyed companies are now intentionally talking less and less about their climate goals. 

counter-intuitive phenomenon that seems to be on the rise: many companies are actually continuing or even accelerating their climate goals, while also quietly scrubbing their public acknowledgement of them

This practice stands in stark contrast to greenwashing—when companies crow about their sustainability without the bona fides to back it up—and its rise has spawned a flurry of studies and think-pieces about this practice. So here we take a look at this new phenomenon and ask: is greenhushing a step backwards for climate accountability—or is it simply companies side-stepping a bigger problem?

• • •

Progress is still progress, even offstage

1.  Quiet ambitions. Even if a few companies are backsliding on climate goals, many are not. One report found that of 4,000 global firms it surveyed, only 1 in 6 had actually dialed back their goals. In fact, it was more common for companies to make their goals moreambitious, even if some were keeping quiet about it. Microsoft, for example, expanded a carbon-removal project and PepsiCo upped its regenerative agriculture goals. Multiple other studies across the U.S. and around the globe have come to similar conclusions. So even if it’s harder to tell what companies are doing, the climate conscious trend seems to be going strong.

Source: PwC’s Second Annual State of Decarbonization Report

2. Anti-greenwashing. When companies do appear to back down from climate goals, they might actually be cleaning up their act. One report found that the green claims that were being retired were often the kind of vague or misleading promises consumers are told to be wary of. So in many cases, greenhushing might actually represent the end of greenwashing.

3. Flying under the radar. Unfortunately, no matter what the trend of the business world is, many of the people in political power at the moment are actively looking to restrict or even punish companies for their sustainability ambitions. So far in 2025, over 100 bills have been introduced in U.S. state legislatures trying to make it harder for businesses to implement what’s known as environmental, social, or governance (ESG) policies. The Trump administration has taken aim at ESGs too. So not going out of one’s way to attract attention right now might be a good business strategy. Of course, even if the United States does backslide at home, China, the EU, and other regions will forge ahead.

• • •

Problems waiting in the wings

1. Adding smoke and mirrors. The obvious problem with being secretive about what you’re doing is. . . that it makes it hard to tell what it is you’re exactly doing. Experts have warned that by muddying the waters, companies that greenhush could provide coverfor those who really are abandoning climate commitments. This, along with greenwashing, can make it harder for buyers, investors, and employees or local communities to know who to trust. Corporate purchasing managers buying all those company cars and computers can fall for green schemes too as Anthropocene covered in April 2025. With great power—or access to the company credit card, at least—comes great responsibility.

2. A momentum killer. One of the nice things about big, public climate commitments is that companies crowing about their green bona fides—and presumably reaping the PR rewards that can come with them—can create pressure on their competition to match. More cooperatively-minded companies might even share their winning strategies with each other. But without the public acknowledgement of green goals, this race to the top can stall out or even reverse and create a vicious cycle with companies feeling pressured to stifle their goals. 

3. A bad side-effect of good intentions. When companies that greenhush were surveyed about their motives, a common answer was that they didn’t want to be accused of greenwashing, particularly since many states and countries have now actually passed new anti-greenwashing laws. Even if the company was making a good faith effort to become more sustainable, a lack of clarity on how to talk about it the right (and legal) way meant it was easier to keep quiet rather than risk negative publicity, or worse, a hefty fine or lawsuit. So a rise in greenhushing may actually represent a failure in terms of how these otherwise well-intentioned laws or best practices are written, communicated, or implemented.

• • •

What to keep an eye on

1. Does greenhushing actually pay off? If companies are greenhushing, it’s presumably because they think it’s good for business. But there’s evidence that greenhushing can not only hurt a company’s reputation, but also its bottom line. 

2. Who’s at the helm? A study described in the Harvard Business Review found that one of the best predictors of whether a company will hold fast in times of political volatility is how long the CEO has been in charge. Long-tenured executives were more likely to keep and even expand sustainability goals. So if you’re trying to guess what any particular company will do, it might be worth looking up their leadership’s CV.

3. Switching to other messaging. If they can’t sell climate benefits directly, some firms might try to find other branding. As Bloomberg covered, if you can’t sell a carbon-fixing project based on carbon sequestration, maybe you can switch focus to its ability to improve crop yields.