The corporate practice of ESG is battered and bruised. In a new period of regulatory fragmentation across the U.S., the U.K. and, increasingly, across Europe with the winnowing of the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), many multinational firms have scaled back public-facing data, especially on the more ambitious side of sustainability disclosure, such as targets and goals. Coalitions, such as the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, went from talk of the town to the recycling bin. “ESG” mentions on S&P 500 earnings calls peaked in Q4 2021 and have been in steady decline since.
This trend — often labeled “greenhushing” by the media — has been criticized as retreat by ESG champions. In reality, it represents a vital course correction: a return to discipline, credibility, and alignment between what companies say and what they can deliver. This is a good thing.
How widespread is “greenhushing?” A recent analysis from the Harvard Business Review showed that of 75 companies studied globally from April 2024 to May 2025, only 13% had made public retreats from sustainability and 85% have held steady or accelerated efforts often under the cover of darkness. A Deloitte survey of 2,100 c-suite executives globally conducted in May and June of 2025 found that 83% of respondents had increased their sustainability investments year over year.
Perhaps doing more work quietly is not the dramatic capitulation so many assume? Maybe this is the beginning of an opportunity to mainstream sustainability into something less frothy and more substantive.
The End of the ESG Soundbite Era
The corporate sustainability conversation has been dominated for years by noise in the form of pledges, frameworks, and purpose-driven campaigns. Yet the global backlash against ESG has revealed the limits of talking without doing.
A 2025 Edelman Smithfield private capital survey found that 54% of investors believe the term “ESG” will disappear within three years, yet 58% of U.S. limited partners report that their expectations related to portfolio company management and reporting on ESG and DEI issues have increased. The contradiction signals a crucial shift: investors and stakeholders are no longer persuaded by rhetoric. They’re demanding results.
Greenhushing as Governance
At its best, greenhushing is not withdrawal, it’s discipline. By focusing attention inward, it encourages firms to strengthen the systems, data, and decision-making that make sustainability credible and durable. Here’s how:
- Materiality Over Messaging: Firms are moving away from vague values-based claims toward data-driven discussion of material risks, from energy-related costs and the physical impacts of climate change, to supply chain resilience and labor management.
- Competence Over Commitments: Companies are limiting external communications to initiatives they control and can credibly deliver on, reducing exposure to greenwashing and reinforcing accountability.
- Governance Over Grandstanding: With ESG increasingly treated as a fiduciary and regulatory issue, greenhushing aligns sustainability strategy with enterprise risk management, audit, and investor relations functions. By grounding sustainability in governance and operational reality, companies transform ESG from a communications challenge into a management discipline.
This shift is being reinforced by evolving regulations worldwide. In the EU, new CSRD reporting standards demand data verification over pledges; in the U.S., Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules are tightening; and in Canada, recent amendments to the Competition Act (Bill C-59) have made it illegal to make environmental or sustainability claims without “adequate and proper substantiation.” Together, these frameworks are pushing companies toward evidence-based communication — less about storytelling, more about proof.
In a fragmented market environment, credibility is currency. Stakeholders don’t expect perfection; they expect transparent progress. And while they are not monolithic, here’s what resonates by primary stakeholder groups:
- Investors: trust performance over positioning.
- Employees: see alignment between internal culture and external messaging.
- Regulators: recognize responsibility and restraint as markers of compliance.
- Consumers: value quality, performance and authenticity over amplification.
The shift toward selective, evidence-based communication represents a maturation of the sustainability field itself. Greenhushing helps sustainability evolve from an aspirational movement into a managerial function measured by operational outcomes, not headlines.
Here’s how to put this moment into clarity:
- Reset your strategy: If your firm is not mandated to comply with the CSRD today or likely in the near to medium term, double down on a traditional ESG materiality assessment that captures the current landscape and focuses on a lens of financial risk and opportunity. Lean into the opportunity to reset your sustainability strategy and be sure your management team and board are properly engaged.
- Manage CSRD compliance: If your firm is mandated to comply with the CSRD but not until 2028 or beyond, consider a custom double materiality assessment that analyzes financial and impact materiality, but allows for sufficient time to socialize the results internally before proceeding with any public disclosures.
- Economize: Reassess all public ESG content – from reporting and financial disclosures to website and social channels. While annual data performance updates continue to be critical for investors, customers and regulators, there are opportunities to be more intentional and selective by different stakeholder audiences.
Greenhushing, despite being a buzzy and unvalidated trend, offers business leaders a clarifying moment: a chance to reset the strategic value of corporate sustainability by anchoring it in competence, not claims. In a polarized marketplace, discipline is the new credibility. The companies that understand that — and act accordingly — will not be quiet forever.
When they speak again, they’ll be believed.
By Lane Jost, Head of Sustainability & Governance Advisory, Edelman Smithfield