‘Greenhushing’: Why some companies quietly hide their climate pledges
Last spring, visitors to BlackRocks webpage on sustainable investing saw a striking image of a building covered in bright green moss. Beneath it, the worlds largest asset manager boasted: We are committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. Not anymore. Today, the webpage has been scrubbed of several references to the firms climate commitments. Its an apparent example of what some are calling greenhushing, in which companies keep quiet about their environmental goals, sometimes for fear of public backlash. The trend comes as corporate America sees itself as enmeshed in a tug-of-war over climate change. Liberal activists have sued big businesses for doing too little to combat rising global temperatures, while conservative lawmakers have boycotted firms for even acknowledging that climate change should be part of their business calculations. In response, hundreds of businesses have seemingly gone silent. Among 1,200 large private companies that have set climate targets, 1 in 4 do not plan to publicize them, according to a report released last year by South Pole, a climate consultancy and developer of ways that companies can offset their carbon emissions. For people who care about climate change, such business practices are crucial. Private corporations control trillions of dollars in assets, and can often move faster than governments in working to avoid the worst climate impacts that scientists have forecast. Greenhushing is the opposite of a better-known practice called greenwashing , in which companies overstate their sustainability in an attempt to market to environmentally conscious consumers. The rise of hushing reflects the fear that many corporate executives face when weighing whether to speak out on climate change, said Renat Heuberger, the co-founder and CEO of South Pole. Greenwashing 101: How to decipher corporate claims about climate If youre a CEO who has all the right intentions, you might get sued from both sides from the left and from the right, Heuberger said. And that is not good news if you want to convince more CEOs to get active on climate. The South Pole report did not identify companies by name, because the data was collected anonymously. But over the last two years, the beer company Anheuser-Busch InBev has quietly stopped running Facebook advertisements that tout its goals of net-zero emissions by 2040 and 100 percent recycled packaging by 2025, according to a Washington Post review of the companys ads. The decision comes as conservative politicians and personalities boycott Bud Light , which is owned by AB InBev, over its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney , a transgender actress and influencer. Meanwhile, liberal customers have grown angry with the brewer for not sticking up for Mulvaney in the face of criticism. Ana Zenatti, a spokeswoman for AB InBev, said the company has not wavered in its commitment to combating climate change or publicizing those efforts. Sustainability is core to our business, Zenatti said in an email. We are proud of the progress we continue to make on our 2025 Sustainability Goals and our ambition to achieve net zero by 2040 across our value chain, which you can read more about in our 2022 ESG Report. We communicate our sustainability progress and efforts regularly across our channels including AB InBevs website and company newsroom and social channels, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. At BlackRock, the changes extend beyond the website. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, a top target of conservative politicians, said last month that he has stopped using the term ESG altogether because it has become too politicized. I dont use the word ESG anymore because its been entirely weaponized ... by the far left and weaponized by the far right, Fink told attendees of the Aspen Ideas Festival. But he said BlackRock would continue to discuss climate and social issues with the companies in which it has stakes. A BlackRock spokesman declined to comment on the record for this report. Sign up for The Climate 202, a daily newsletter about climate policy and politics On Wall Street, greenhushing comes amid widespread conservative backlash to ESG environmental, social and governance goals and policies. Republican state treasurers and attorneys general in several states have blacklisted banks that factor climate risks and social concerns into their investment decisions. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee have planned a series of six hearings this month on what they call woke investing. In a report last month, the lawmakers blasted the countrys three largest asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street for using their clout to advance liberal social goals such as ESG and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Against this backdrop, BlackRock and Vanguard have both removed references to climate initiatives from their webpages on sustainable investing over the last year, according to a Post analysis that relied on the Wayback Machine, which archives old versions of websites. In addition to the statement about net-zero emissions, BlackRock has removed language about its membership in Climate Action 100+ , an investor-led climate initiative. Its unclear when the Climate Action 100+ language was taken down. But last December, Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R) grilled a BlackRock executive about the language during a contentious hearing, accusing the firm of prioritizing climate goals over profits. Is BlackRocks Larry Fink blowing it for the climate? This is on your website as we sit here today, at this moment, Hughes said. BlackRocks website says: We have joined Climate Action 100+ to help ensure the worlds largest greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change. Dalia Blass, who was BlackRocks head of external affairs at the time, responded: Sir, what I can tell you is that we have joined Climate Action 100+ to make sure we are participating in dialogues that are important to our clients. The response did not satisfy Hughes, who asked: So is that statement going to stay on the website? Although BlackRocks website no longer includes that specific statement, it does mention that the firm is still a member of Climate Action 100+ and several other industry associations, including those that are related to sustainability and the transition to a low-carbon economy, in order to participate in dialogue on matters that may impact client portfolios. BlackRock is still the most prominent member of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, a consortium of big financial firms that have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. Vanguard quit the initiative as the conservative criticism mounted. Also, Vanguard deleted two paragraphs about its dedication to responsible investing from its webpage on sustainable investing between April 10 and May 15, according to the Wayback Machine. The second paragraph noted that as a signatory to the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment, we encourage companies to conduct business in a socially conscious way. Vanguard still mentions its involvement in the U.N.-backed initiative on a separate page on its corporate website. Another page on the corporate site details its approach to climate-related financial risks. A Vanguard spokeswoman declined to comment on the record. Will Hild, executive director of Consumers Research, a conservative Washington-based group that fights ESG policies nationwide with millions of dollars in undisclosed donations, said he was elated to learn of the changes at both asset managers. This group is sharpening the GOP attack on woke Wall Street It indicates that theres increasingly a negative view of these financial services companies pushing environmental policy, Hild said. Increasingly, he said, companies are shy to brag as much as they previously were about how much they are controlling the American economy. Of the word greenhushing, Hild added: Im jealous. I wish Id come up with the term. Across the Atlantic, European regulators have sought to crack down on greenwashing. The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, plans to require companies to substantiate assertions about their sustainability, including claims that their products are climate neutral or containing recycled materials. While intended to prevent greenwashing, these rules could actually encourage greenhushing among U.S.-headquartered companies that want to sell products in Europe, said Xavier Font, a professor of sustainability marketing at the University of Surrey in England. He predicted that some of these firms would stop touting their sustainability for fear of lawsuits alleging they have violated these directives. If I was a company in the U.S., I would definitely be greenhushing, Font said. Daniel Klier, the former head of sustainable finance at the British bank HSBC, agreed. Greenhushing is a word that didnt really exist six months ago, said Klier, who is now the CEO of climate data provider ESG Book. It was all about greenwashing. But the two things obviously play very, very closely together.