The term “ESG” has had quite the evolution since its introduction nearly two decades ago. While the acronym spelling out “environmental, social and governance” was first mentioned in a 2004 United Nations report titled “Who Cares Wins” that encouraged consideration of these factors for better risk management, it has since become a highly politicized and often polarizing term.
What started out as a framework to evaluate corporate risks and impact has been at the center of political debates in recent years, even more so under the current federal leadership. Beyond boardroom discussions and corporate sustainability reports, the term “ESG” can now be spotted in the fine print of executive orders, contentious lawsuits, state-led probes and federal deregulation actions.
Consequently, many companies and firms have increasingly resorted to deliberately downplaying, concealing or refraining from publicly announcing their progress on ESG or climate goals, in hopes of safeguarding themselves from potential criticism or backlash — a phenomenon described as “climate hushing” or “greenhushing.”
However, despite this pivot from advertising their actions, most companies are continuing to pursue net-zero and decarbonization targets, experts say.
Ben Carr, a director at public relations and communications agency MHP Group, told ESG Dive that most companies are “holding the course on sustainability and continuing to innovate,” and incorporating strategic changes within business operations. Carr advises clients on sustainability and corporate messaging.
Here’s a look at where ESG stands as a business priority and how companies are talking about it while adapting to the current political landscape.
Why are companies rethinking corporate messaging around ESG?
As the use of “ESG” has increased and the term has become more polarizing, companies have tried to limit its use in public-facing work to avoid becoming the target of scrutiny. This trend began under the prior administration, but has kicked up as President Donald Trump works to reverse Biden-era federal climate policy and initiatives.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of several landmark climate organizations and treaties — including a second exit of the Paris Agreement — paused all wind power development and suspended funding disbursements for Biden-era climate programs. Trump also signed an executive order last year targeting state climate, emissions and ESG policies and directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all appropriate action” to stop their enforcement.
Trump’s return to the White House has created an overall atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that most companies — especially financial institutions — want to steer away from, experts told ESG Dive last year.
Carr said there has definitely been a recent shift in how companies communicate around their sustainability objectives and progress.
“Terms like ‘ESG,’ ‘green’ [and] ‘eco-friendly’ have been rolled back and are being rolled back,” Carr said in an interview. “What we’re seeing is that a lot of [these terms] are being taken away from core parts of communication programs.”
Carr said such terms may not feature as heavily on company websites and members of the C-suite may no longer refer to them as often as they used to.
Companies have been recalibrating communications around ESG to adapt to the current political environment, according to a Conference Board report. Only 25% of large companies listed on the S&P 100 index used the term “ESG” in their annual sustainability reports in 2024, a sharp decline from the 40% of companies that used it in 2023, according to the report. Of the companies that had reported by April 2025, when the Conference Board’s analysis was published, only 6% used the term in their sustainability reports.
Companies have also found that incorporating or promoting ESG may impact their business. BlackRock — the nation’s largest asset management firm — listed “ESG” under potential legal, regulatory and reputational risks in its 2024 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The asset manager said increased focus from regulators, as well as officials, clients and other stakeholders on ESG could “adversely impact” its reputation and business.
The pivot away from “ESG” could also have to do with the term being “fundamentally misunderstood,” according to Carr. The ambiguity around the term, in a way, has lent itself to the problem, he said.
“It’s become an umbrella term for everything that sits within this debate, and critics and opponents have been able to kind of capture it in a way and define it in their terms,” he said. And, Carr added, there have been few major interventions from experts standing up to say: “This is what ESG means. This is how businesses should talk about it.”
Philip Chinitz, a vice president at communications and public relations firm BerlinRosen, echoed the sentiment. The term ESG rose to be a “powerful symbol” in the mid- to late 2010s, when it became more mainstream, according to Chinitz, but mass use of such language or terms can lead them to potentially lose meaning over time.
Why climate or greenhushing isn’t the solution
While greenhushing or limiting communication around sustainability objectives might help shield some companies from potential scrutiny, this approach comes with its downsides.
A recent report from GlobeScan, a data partner of sustainability platform Trellis, found that greenhushing impacts engagement on sustainability and affects consumer trust. The research — which surveyed 30 global markets — found that the “reach and credibility” of sustainability communications had declined in the last year. Only 36% of consumers reported seeing at least “some” sustainability-focused messaging from brands in 2025, down from 49% in 2023. Greenhushing was “eroding public awareness and trust, making sustainability messages less influential on consumer choices,” according to the report.
“Greenhushing is certainly something I’m advising [clients] against,” Chinitz told ESG Dive. “At the end of the day, the impact is what’s really important … companies should not be hiding who they are or what they’re trying to do.”
Chinitz, who advises clients in the green-tech and renewable energy space, said he recommends companies reposition their communication strategy around their impact and maintain a healthy balance on how often they use certain buzzwords, “regardless of the administration, or political dynamics.”
This strategy, according to the BerlinRosen executive, would help companies communicate in a way that really resonates with their audience.
Carr also suggested a recalibration when it comes to how companies communicate. Companies who reframe their sustainability strategy in a way that “directly connects back to business strategy” will still be able to effectively share their sustainability objectives and progress and avoid potential scrutiny, Carr said.
“Instead of talking about doing it because it’s the right thing … [companies can] talk more about how they can link net-zero and sustainability into growth, competitiveness, choice and innovation in a way that benefits everyone,” Carr said.
This type of messaging tends to land better with an audience and reduces polarization around the topic, according to Carr. He said the “de-risking” of promoting sustainable objectives comes from directly linking them to a “business as usual” messaging.
Despite pushback, companies stay the course on sustainability
Even though companies are more wary of announcing ESG goals and programs in the current political environment, most of them remain committed to their net-zero and decarbonization commitments.
A report from Accenture last year found that 41% of the world’s 2,000 largest companies (G2000) had net-zero targets for their entire value chain, up from 27% in 2024. The analysis also found that companies took more action towards those goals this year, with the G2000 adopting an average of 13 of 21 decarbonization levers — or actions that correlate with emissions reductions — up from an average of 11.5 in 2024.
Though the public perception is that companies are pulling back from climate commitments, eBay Chief Sustainability Officer Renee Morin told ESG Dive that “the actual numbers are showing that people are staying the course, or even sometimes increasing.” Though there may be some outliers, eBay is staying the course when it comes to sustainability, Morin said.
The e-commerce platform debuted its first climate transition plan on Jan. 14, outlining the company’s strategy to reach net-zero emissions across its supply chain by 2045.
“My view is that businesses remain on the same trajectory as they were a few years ago, when they were openly talking about their net-zero and sustainability goals,” Carr said. “The mature businesses and smart businesses see that the global transition is inevitable. It's going to happen regardless of politics and politicians in power and government agendas, which are often legislating for the short term. [Companies] know that the direction of the global economy is heading towards low carbon.”
Lamar Johnson contributed to this report.
