Are businesses staying silent about their climate pledges

As political winds shift and environmental policies undergo major changes, a growing number of companies appear to be pulling back from their public climate commitments. The trend, dubbed greenhushing, describes organisations that choose to stay quiet about their sustainability goals rather than champion them. While it may seem like a simple reaction to pressure from politicians, particularly in the United States, the reality is far more layered.

The retreat began slowly and then accelerated. Early this year, an alliance of international banks committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions saw several of its biggest members walk away. The timing coincided with the months leading up to Donald Trump’s return to the White House, where he revived calls to drill for more fossil fuels and dismissed regulations aimed at cutting carbon emissions. By the time he took office, momentum within the banking alliance had already weakened.

A few months later the Net Zero Banking Alliance, once considered a cornerstone of financial sector climate action, withdrew its most ambitious target, the pledge to limit global warming to 1.5C. The move was seen as a sign that companies were no longer confident in publicly tying themselves to goals that required large scale investment and long term strategic change. For some members, it was less politically risky to lower expectations quietly than to openly fail to meet them.

The final blow came in October when the alliance, which at its peak had nearly 150 corporate signatories, voted to disband altogether. Many observers linked the move directly to the White House’s shift in tone, arguing that efforts to encourage drilling and dismantle environmental protections had made climate commitments seem out of step with national policy. Others noted that the Republican Party’s ongoing crusade against what it calls “woke” companies has created an environment where climate leadership is portrayed as a liability.

But experts caution that greenhushing is not purely a political reaction. Some companies are increasingly wary of making bold promises that could expose them to legal or reputational risk if they fall short. In recent years climate litigation has surged, with regulators and activists scrutinising whether firms are accurately reporting emissions and progress. Staying silent, for some, has become a way of reducing vulnerability.

There is also competition to consider. When companies publish detailed sustainability plans, they open themselves to criticism not only from environmental groups but also from rival firms. Greenhushing allows them to work quietly toward their goals without becoming targets in the growing battle over corporate climate credibility.

Yet the silence comes with consequences. Climate groups argue that transparency is essential for accountability and progress. Without clear reporting, it becomes difficult to track whether global emissions are dropping fast enough. Even within business circles, some leaders worry that retreating from public commitments could slow innovation and weaken collective momentum.

For now the trend appears to be spreading, with more companies choosing low profile climate strategies as political and economic pressures intensify. Whether greenhushing proves to be a temporary shift or a longer term corporate habit will depend on future policies, public sentiment and the demands of investors who still view climate action as central to long term stability.