In the U.S., recent governmental shifts away from investment and support have thrown climate and sustainability tech companies into a moment of great uncertainty. In light of these radical shifts, is it now necessary to amend or change messaging to downplay environmental benefits? Should businesses and non-profits avoid terms that might seem “too green” for the times?
“Greenhushing” initially arose as a reaction to legitimate concerns about the insufficient rigor and transparency of many ESG efforts
The current greenhushing phenomenon has seen B2B businesses and manufacturers walk back or avoid the discussion of both legitimate company ESG efforts and solutions’ environmental benefits. This initial response reflects a widespread fear of the federal government’s opposition to sustainability efforts as it seeks to undo Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) investments in EVs, wind and solar energy, and other innovations, while moving to renew and expand financial support for the fossil fuel industry.
It’s also a pendulum swing to the other side of “greenwashing,” when companies did everything they could—and sometimes more than they should—to appear environmentally conscious as a response to customer pressure, as well as new laws and regulatory requirements. The advent of ESG strategies, too, could go beyond planning for a company’s corporate health and into convincing board members and investors of exaggerated practices and plans to garner their approval and investment. This move toward greenwashing often erred on the side of not telling a brand’s basic story and instead only extolling environmental benefits. This focus on changing hearts and minds by appealing only to audiences’ sense of “the good” runs the risk of losing the plot of any brand story.
Like greenwashing, greenhushing risks damaging brand reputation by signaling insincerity and a lack of authenticity
Moreover, masking a genuine mission of climate change reduction or sustainability can also cause a number of issues, from staff disillusionment to customer loss. Big changes in established, core messaging about a company’s ESG principles translates to reneging on promises made to stakeholders about a company’s intentions, vision, and offerings. We have already seen what can happen when organizations step away from DEI programs, including boycotts, negative press and loss of positive brand perception. Likewise, stepping away from sustainability can damage the trust that is foundational for stakeholder relations.
Messaging rollbacks also run the risk of appearing to be an unwarranted overcorrection. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act, a Biden-era law, created massive investment in clean energy technology and enacted tax breaks for relevant consumer purchases such as electric vehicles. While there are attempts to undo the act at the time of this writing, state and local level investments have spurred officials to work to preserve these goals.
Other legislative and policy efforts continue to address greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, waste and more at the community and state level, as well as in jurisdictions around the world. One example is Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) in the EU and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in some U.S. states, both of which place responsibility on packaging producers to reduce packaging waste and ensure greater recyclability of their materials. Businesses operating across state lines and/or in foreign countries at any point in their supply chain still must meet compliance that may differ from their headquartered location. In short, climate change technology and solutions are still needed and still good business both economically and environmentally.
Today, there is a renewed opportunity to embrace sustainability messaging while leaning into the total gains
The IRA was developed in part on the ground truth that climate change and sustainable technologies, produced domestically at scale, will reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies, create jobs, and reduce companies’ environmental impact, with myriad benefits that follow.
Similarly, today’s climate change messaging is strongest when it is both true to the brand and holistically embraces the advantages of sustainable solutions to include economic and community concerns as well as environmental impact. Some guiding questions to strike a balance between a company or product’s climate benefits and its business case could include:
- How does the company’s product or service improve customer operations?
- Can you partner with customers to improve their bottom line and increase efficiency?
- What are the waste and pollution concerns where your customers do business?
- What compliance issues do you solve? Can you reasonably forecast future compliance concerns and help your customers prepare for them?
A compelling, cohesive sustainability narrative can drive business success, even in an era of uncertainty. Clear communication is especially important in this moment to build credibility, reinforce trust, and define organizations as leaders in their fields as they navigate, rather than shy away from positive change through technology.
