Cutting “ESG” From Our Vocabulary – Is “Greenhushing” the Answer?
The issue is that vague rebranding gives into "greenhushing," where substantive action on issues like climate change risks being obscured.
A recent Wall Street Journal article by Chip Cutter and Emily Glazer examines companies moving away from using "ESG" terminology, with some reverting to vaguer phrases like "responsible business." The authors explain, "Many companies no longer utter these three letters...following years of simmering investor backlash, political pressure, and legal threats." This continues a pattern seen before, when "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) was rebranded to the more measurable "ESG." Now, with ESG in the crosshairs, history threatens to repeat itself.
In the article, Daryl Brewster of Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose notes, "'ESG is complicated...The movement to bake accountability into business decisions stretches back centuries." Yet despite claims that the "E-word" has become too controversial, the data shows most companies remain committed to their programs. AXA Group CEO Thomas Buberl experienced this firsthand with US executives now shying away from "ESG," a concerning new practice dubbed "greenhushing" seems to be taking hold, but simply rebranding efforts as "responsible business" risks sweeping critical issues under the rug.
The issue is that vague rebranding gives into "greenhushing," where substantive action on issues like climate change risks being obscured. Shiny sustainability reports are no substitute for robust operational accountability, and companies need to be held accountable for putting out misleading ESG information. Real progress in stakeholder capitalism requires transparent systems reporting environmental and social impacts against concrete key performance indicators.
Financial grade ESG reporting, backed by robust software and guidelines, will bridge the gaps between policies and actual performance, which brings transparency to governances that need to be improved. Volunteer pledges sound noble but can disguise damaging practices. Mandatory climate risk disclosures exposing carbon emissions and supply chain vulnerabilities, for example, drive meaningful change by shining the necessary light.
Rebranding ESG, like CSR previously, risks more abuses without systemic improvement. At McNees Group, we advise leaders that genuine sustainability requires assimilating ESG into financial reporting and enterprise risk management through strong governance controls – not just cosmetic terminology changes in hopes of minimizing scrutiny. The defense against greenhushing lies in holding ourselves accountable through comprehensive measurement, disclosure, and improvement. With the high stakes, now is the time for transformational sustainability reporting, not rebranding.
