Greenhushing is Not a Win

Remember when "ESG" was all the buzz? As political winds shifted, the term fell rapidly out of favor even as focus on the underlying environmental and social issues remained. Now new language is emerging - call it "greenhushing."

Recent data underscores the trend. S&P 500 earnings call mentions of ESG plunged from 156 in Q4 2021 to just 9 in recent weeks. Household names from Apple to JP Morgan continue Climate commitments but now use vague references to "sustainability" or "positive impact" instead.

Critics of the ESG label celebrate this as a win against so-called "woke capitalism." But for those serious about driving progress, vaguer language risks enabling empty promises over accountability. Just as "greenwashing" overpromises with environmental claims, "greenhushing" vaguely gestures to resonate while avoiding scrutiny.

The original spirit of ESG was transparency on progress towards standardized, measurable sustainability indicators. Research showed customer support for corporate responsibility efforts. Though the terminology proved divisive, public sentiment for company action addressing issues like climate change persists when specifics are shared.

Whatever it's called, we must champion disclosure standards that drive actual accountability versus virtue signaling through hollow branding. The issues matter more than buzzwords, but clear communication remains key. Replacing clarity with fog lets greenwashing evolve rather than puncturing it. We advise re-centering reporting frameworks, offering light instead of obscuring it.

Stakeholders want corporations to be held accountable for environmental impact and social interactions. The only way to fairly determine companies' environmental and social commitment is through standardized reporting.

#ESG #greenhushing #greenwashing #woke