A trend known as ‘green hushing’ is growing as companies are increasingly choosing not to publicise details of their climate targets in an attempt to avoid scrutiny and allegations of greenwashing, a new study showed.
According to climate consultancy South Pole, a quarter of the 1,200 companies across 12 countries surveyed said they would not publicise their net zero emissions targets, despite the proportion of respondents setting targets more than tripling from the previous year to 72%.
Emission targets form a companies’ roadmap towards achieving net zero by a fixed date, commonly 2050, and many businesses work with third parties to help them design their strategy.
After the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow last year, many companies quickly declared their sustainability credentials. But the ensuing flurry of climate pledges opened companies up to allegations of ‘greenwashing’ as targets were either unsubstantiated or misleading.
An HSBC ad campaign was recently banned by the UK advertising watchdog, citing the companies lack of transparency on their own emissions. While financial regulators are cracking down on lax oversight of ESG-branded investment funds.
“There is a high degree of scrutiny now around anything to do with professing your sustainability,” said Michael Wilkins, head of Imperial College London’s Centre for Climate Finance and Investment. “Together with the ESG backlash, I think it is scaring a lot of companies.”
The frameworks used to measure sustainability are also being called into question. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which has become the arbiter of corporate climate action, has faced complaints about its governance and potential conflicts of interest.
“You have to pay the initiative to be accredited, which leads to the assumption that you’re paying to get yourself a good score,” said Wilkins. “This can taint the company trying to follow the targets.”
SBTi charges companies $9,500 to have their climate targets assessed.
“Companies may be implementing legitimate targets but not disclosing them due to the politics around climate change in their region,” said Nina Seega, research director for sustainable finance at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.
“We know that climate and sustainability goes hand in hand with profitability. However, if the overarching discourse in their country is contrary to that, they might not want to attract the ire of customers or beneficiaries.”
“Climate groups have long called for stronger disclosure requirements in order to drive competition between companies to up their commitments. Green hushing, by contrast, makes targets harder to scrutinise and could deter businesses from setting more ambitious goals,” said Bethan Halls, sustainability adviser at South Pole.
“If green hushing becomes a trend, it will make inspiring some of the climate laggards even harder,” she said. “As long as companies are transparent about their progress, and communicate that in a transparent way, then they can’t go wrong.” Despite the caution reflected in the survey, South Pole found that companies were setting more net zero targets than ever before, with more science-based targets to back them up, and to more ambitious timelines.
“It’s great that we’ve got more organisations setting SBTs,” said Seega. “Perhaps it’s a sign of climate going mainstream that they don’t feel the need to scream about it.”
