Why 2025 was the Year of Greenhushing

I spoke this summer with a communications professional at a large U.S. company. The company operates a substantial fleet of electric vehicles and I wanted to profile its work. No chance, the employee said: “Trump hates EVs. We don’t want a target on our backs.”

This was the year of greenhushing. Yes, the phenomenon dates back to the beginning of the decade. But thanks to the new U.S. administration, courtroom defeats and new legal attacks, the silence is now broader and deeper. “The wider atmosphere is very chilly,” said Alison Taylor, a business school professor at New York University.

A few years ago, evidence for greenhushing was largely anecdotal. Now the data is growing. In September, for instance, a survey of 75 firms found that while 85 percent maintained or expanded sustainability programs, only 16 percent publicly reaffirmed doing so. The practice is so pronounced, the authors said, that observers have confused it for a lowering of ambitions. “What looks like retreat is widespread greenhushing taking root,” they concluded.

Legal defeats and threats 

Greenhushing’s spread — call it “strategic silence” if you prefer fancier language — has been powered in part by the same playbook used to brand diversity initiatives as woke or anti-capitalist. Legal action by Republican attorneys general is one tactic. In July, the Florida AG subpoenaed the Science Based Targets initiative and CDP, claiming the two nonprofits were part of a “climate cartel.” Two months later, 16 Republican states banded together to attack the use of renewable energy certificates by Google and other tech giants. (Ironically a criticism also made, but with very different motivations, by some environmental organizations.)

The AGs’ attacks may not result in court cases; intimidating the nonprofits and the companies that follow their guidelines could be the main goal. But a series of actual court cases, led by environmental groups and class action lawyers, has also deepened caution around sustainability communications. Ads describing the Apple Watch as “CO₂ neutral” were this summer ruled as misleading and in violation of German competition law. And last month, the world’s two largest meat companies — Tyson and JBS — settled complaints by agreeing to tone down or eliminate “net zero” claims.

These factors have combined to drive levels of some sustainability comms to new lows. Earlier this year, Bloomberg Green looked for mentions of sustainability terms in earning calls for S&P 500 companies and found that the use of such language had fallen 76 percent in three years.

The costs of staying silent

Where does this leave sustainability professionals? There is no sign that the attacks from Republican leaders will lessen. But staying quiet limits their influence, even if sustainability programs continue. “If you’re not setting an ambition and communicating ambition, it’s very, very hard to get internal momentum,” said Taylor. The decision, then, is whether the costs of greenhushing outweigh the risks of going public.

There are certainly costs at the collective level. For better and worse, peer pressure is an important driver of climate action. If a company’s competitors have a science-based target, for instance, it’s easier to convince the CEO to follow suit. And the converse is true: When one company retreats, or even stays silent, the pressure on rivals lessens. The dynamic is one reason why two significant climate initiatives — the U.S. Plastics Pact and the Net Zero Banking Alliance — suffered waves of departures this year.

Risks to a collective or even the climate itself are unlikely to sway executive opinion at this moment, but there are also potential costs of greenhushing at the business level. Investors haven’t stopped considering the potential impact of emissions, particularly as carbon pricing schemes proliferate internationally. Consumers care, too, and so do employees. Staying quiet means ceding status, lowering short-term risk at the potential expense of long-term gains. “For investors, customers and potential partners,” wrote the authors of the 75-firm study, “silence erodes the very trust that fuels long-term value creation.”