‘Greenhushing’: Are businesses staying silent about climate pledges? – BBC

Corporate Climate Pledge Communication and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A corporate trend of deliberately under-communicating climate action commitments, a practice termed “greenhushing,” has been observed. While initial analysis linked this trend to political climates, further investigation reveals that its origins are more complex and pre-date recent political events. The primary drivers appear to be a challenging regulatory landscape and associated legal risks. This lack of corporate transparency poses a significant threat to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

The Phenomenon of “Greenhushing”

Greenhushing refers to the deliberate downplaying or non-disclosure of corporate climate pledges and sustainability targets. The trend gained widespread attention following a 2022 report from the climate consultancy South Pole, which highlighted a significant disconnect between setting and communicating climate goals. This failure to report on sustainability initiatives directly impacts the transparency required under SDG 12.

• The 2022 South Pole report found that a quarter of surveyed companies had set science-based emission reduction targets but did not plan to publicize them.

Analysis of Causal Factors

The drivers of greenhushing extend beyond political influence and are rooted in systemic challenges that hinder corporate communication. These factors create an environment of caution that impedes the collaborative action central to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

1. Regulatory Complexity: An early 2024 report from South Pole indicated that nearly half of all companies surveyed were struggling to communicate their climate pledges due to new regulations and complex compliance schemes.
2. Legal and Reputational Risk: The most recent South Pole report, focusing on financial institutions, notes a shift from detailed climate risk plans to more general risk statements. This is attributed to a complex legal landscape where organizations face potential litigation for both insufficient disclosure and for making forward-looking statements that may be difficult to substantiate.
3. Lack of Confidence: The challenges in navigating regulations and legal risks have resulted in a documented lack of confidence among companies in their ability to communicate climate commitments effectively.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The practice of greenhushing has direct and adverse implications for the global sustainability agenda, undermining the accountability frameworks essential for progress.

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): The lack of transparency fundamentally obstructs the ability of stakeholders, investors, and the public to track corporate contributions to global climate targets. This opacity makes it difficult to assess collective progress and hold corporations accountable for their role in climate change mitigation.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): Greenhushing contradicts the core principles of corporate social responsibility and transparent reporting. Without clear information on a company’s environmental performance, consumers and partners cannot make informed decisions that promote sustainable production patterns.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Effective climate action requires robust partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society. When corporations withhold information about their climate strategies, it erodes trust and hampers the multi-stakeholder collaboration needed to achieve the SDGs.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The public declaration of ambitious climate goals can drive market demand for green technologies and sustainable infrastructure. By concealing these targets, companies weaken the economic signals that spur investment and innovation in sustainable industry.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article’s central theme is “greenhushing,” where companies deliberately downplay or hide their climate pledges and “science-based emission reduction targets.” This directly relates to the corporate role in taking urgent action to combat climate change.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The discussion revolves around corporate transparency and communication regarding climate policies. This connects to encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices and report on their environmental impact, which is a key aspect of sustainable production.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article highlights the complex interaction between companies and the regulatory environment. The fear of being “sued for saying too little – and sued for saying too much” points to challenges in the partnership between the private sector and regulatory bodies needed to foster effective and transparent climate action.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
   • The article directly addresses this target by describing how companies are failing to meet it. The practice of “greenhushing,” where a quarter of surveyed companies with emission reduction targets “did not plan to publicly talk about them,” is a direct contradiction to the goal of integrating sustainability information into public reporting.
2. Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.
   • Corporate communication of climate pledges is a form of public awareness-raising. The article shows a failure to meet this target, as companies are “struggling to communicate their climate pledges” and deliberately downplaying them, thereby reducing the potential for raising public and investor awareness about climate mitigation efforts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Implied Indicator for Target 12.6: Proportion of companies publicly reporting on their climate targets.
   • The article provides specific data from a South Pole report that can be used as an indicator: “a quarter of the companies they surveyed set ‘science-based emission reduction targets’ – but did not plan to publicly talk about them.” This percentage directly measures the gap in corporate sustainability reporting. The shift from “detailed climate risk plans” to “general risk statements” is another qualitative indicator of declining transparency.
2. Implied Indicator for Target 13.3: Prevalence of corporate “greenhushing.”
   • The trend of “greenhushing” itself serves as a negative indicator for progress on awareness-raising. The article cites a South Pole finding that “nearly half of companies were struggling to communicate their climate pledges.” This statistic can be used to measure the lack of institutional capacity and confidence within corporations to communicate their climate actions effectively.

Summary of Findings

Source: bbc.com