Scott Graybeal, the CEO of Caelux, a tech startup in Baldwin Park, California, is changing how he talks about his company’s work. Caelux makes high-efficiency glass for solar panels, but since Donald Trump was re-elected last November, Graybeal has shifted the focus of his discussions. Instead of emphasizing the company’s role in fighting climate change, he now highlights job creation, onshore manufacturing, and energy independence—topics that align more closely with the new administration’s priorities.
Graybeal believes that tailoring messages to the audience is essential. He insists that this isn’t deceptive; it’s simply a matter of presenting the truth in a way that resonates. In the early days of Trump’s second term, the administration took significant steps against climate initiatives, including withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and cutting funding for green projects. This political climate has led many executives in the U.S. to avoid mentioning climate change in meetings, even as they continue to develop environmentally friendly technologies.
This trend isn’t limited to the U.S. In Europe, companies are also becoming cautious about publicizing their climate efforts. A recent analysis found that 63 of the 100 largest publicly listed firms in Britain are under-promoting their environmental initiatives. In the U.S., the situation appears even more pronounced, with 67 major firms engaging in what some are calling "greenhushing," where companies downplay their environmental actions to avoid scrutiny.
Lucy Walton, CEO of the research firm Connected Impact, noted that many companies are under-communicating their efforts. She suggests that this trend may continue to grow in the coming year. Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech, which captures carbon dioxide from emissions, echoes this sentiment. She plans to focus more on economic growth and job creation in her messaging rather than on emissions reduction, stating that discussions about climate change can provoke strong reactions.
This shift comes as many corporations are scaling back their climate commitments due to financial concerns and operational challenges. For instance, the six largest banks in the U.S. recently withdrew from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which encourages banks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies are becoming increasingly hesitant to discuss their climate initiatives publicly, fearing political backlash and reputational damage.
In Europe, the landscape is different, with climate change still a priority for many governments. However, companies there are also wary of being accused of greenwashing—making exaggerated claims about their environmental practices. Unilever, a major British consumer goods company, has faced scrutiny for its environmental claims, leading it to temper some of its commitments.
Experts suggest that while greenhushing may seem counterproductive, it could be a strategic move to ensure that companies continue their efforts to reduce emissions without drawing unwanted attention. Edward Maibach, a climate communication professor, noted that companies are smart to adapt their messaging based on the current environment. The ultimate goal remains to promote products that can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
As businesses adjust their messaging in response to shifting political winds, the challenge remains: how to balance the need for transparency with the risks of being perceived as overstating their environmental efforts.