The trend is “genuinely dangerous,” warns Nick Oldridge, co-founder of Climate Science Breakthrough, “because this isn’t a debate we can easily revisit in ten years”. With the US government notably absent from the formal negotiations in Brazil, this growing resistance threatens to derail progress at the most critical juncture.

The Anatomy of the Backlash

The recent surge in resistance to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies stems from a potent mix of political polarisation and economic anxiety. “Net-zero sceptic populist parties” have successfully denounced green policies “as a costly elitist plot against working people,” according to Pilita Clark of the Financial Times.

This narrative is amplified by politicians who claim that green transitions impose unfair financial burdens, such as higher energy bills or fuel costs. This political pressure is compounded by ongoing misinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry, practices the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change has argued should be criminalised.

The irony, as leading economists warn, is that scaling back environmental protections is what will ultimately raise long-term costs, locking in economic volatility and severe public health impacts.

The Corporate Retreat and the Rise of ‘Greenhushing’

Faced with this hostile environment, Corporate America is retreating. Research from May 2025 shows 52% of executives are actively reworking their sustainability messaging. The term “ESG” itself is vanishing; just 6% of S&P 100 companies used it in report titles this year, a crash from 40% in 2023.

This retreat is not just political; it’s legislative. In the U.S. alone, at least 11 anti-ESG bills have passed this year, with over 100 more introduced. These laws target banks and asset managers that consider ESG factors, accusing them of bias. This culminated in a landmark court ruling where American Airlines was found to have breached its duty of loyalty by allowing ESG factors to influence its employee retirement plan.

In response, many corporations are swapping language. Website references to “climate change” are being expunged, replaced with vague euphemisms like “resilience” or “responsible business”. Allen Hershkowitz, an environmental science advisor, argues this is a critical error. Avoiding technically descriptive words, he says, “will be less effective in communicating about the life-threatening (and economy destroying) phenomenon we are trying to address”.

This has created a new, insidious phenomenon known as “greenhushing”. While many companies are quietly maintaining or even increasing their sustainability investments, they are “promoting them less due to the political climate”. Academics warn this could be as dangerous as greenwashing, as it “reduces transparency and accountability” and weakens the entire sustainability conversation.

The True Cost of Fear

The greenlash is ultimately “driven by fear. Fear of change and fear of costs”. But the bigger, more rational fear should be that of inaction. Every credible forecast shows the cost of failing to transition will dwarf the investment needed, compounding long-term economic pain.

As Nick Oldridge states, the true cost is existential. “This backlash isn’t just short-sighted, it’s a historic act of self-sabotage. I would challenge anyone to read the latest Institute of Actuaries report, forecasting a 50% GDP loss from 2070, and then tell me we had better just go a bit slower”.