[ad_1]
[ad_2]
Susan Gunelius
Source link

[ad_1]
[ad_2]
Susan Gunelius
Source link

[ad_1]
Not long ago, the world’s biggest companies were making splashy promises to tackle climate change. Even those in the business of selling fossil fuels — like BP and Shell — were vowing to slash their emissions. Amazon named an iconic Seattle sports center “Climate Pledge Arena” so neither hockey nor basketball fans could ignore the company’s promise to zero out its emissions by 2040.
But the past year has brought a change of pace, with BP, Amazon, and other companies scaling back some of their targets. Amid this shift, another trend has emerged: Some companies are choosing not to publicize their climate goals, a strategy called “greenhushing.”
“It is really, for us, highly concerning,” said Nadia Kähkönen, global director of communications at South Pole, a Switzerland-based climate consultancy and carbon offset developer. “Now is not the time to stay tight-lipped on how we’re progressing.”
The word is a play on “greenwashing,” a well-established marketing tactic in which companies overstate their environmental credentials. In a way, one has led to the other. Governments are cracking down on greenwashing, and the list of lawsuits over deceptive environmental marketing is growing. It’s not surprising that some companies are reacting to this new landscape with silence, rather than risking a costly court case. But keeping quiet makes it hard to scrutinize what companies are doing, and also makes it more difficult for them to learn from one another’s mistakes.
Some people anticipated that pouncing on greenwashing would result in companies hiding their good environmental practices. Before “greenhushing,” there was “greenmuting,” coined by a former McDonald’s executive in 2007. “I agree there are dangers associated with environmental marketing, but I actually think many companies are reluctant to talk about their environmental efforts because they are concerned they will only be met with criticism,” wrote Bob Langert, then the vice president of sustainability at McDonald’s, in a blog post in response to a report critiquing the “sins” of greenwashing. Langert argued that this “greenmuting” could impede environmental progress by stifling public discourse.
Fifteen years later, Langert’s concern appears justified. Nearly a quarter of large companies from around the globe have decided not to publicize their milestones on climate action, according to a report from South Pole last fall. Of course, as the subject was “greenhushing,” the data was collected anonymously — South Pole conducted interviews with sustainability experts at companies in 15 different sectors, including information technology, finance, and health care. That report popularized the term “greenhushing,” which has recently made the rounds at prominent news outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post. “We definitely brought it into the mainstream,” Kähkönen said.
The silence isn’t the result of fewer companies making climate goals. In fact, according to Kähkönen, there was an “avalanche” of corporate commitments last year, along with budget increases for sustainability initiatives as companies realized that reaching net-zero emissions was going to be harder than they thought.
More and more countries are crafting regulations aimed at countering greenwashing. Companies based in France, one of the few countries that already has an explicit regulation that limits greenwashing, were among the least likely to publicize their climate goals, South Pole found. “Companies may be unsure about how to comply with this legislation and are afraid of being sued: they, therefore, give up talking about their targets altogether,” the report says.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has begun the process of updating the “Green Guides,” the rules that govern environmental marketing. Clarifying those guidelines could make for stronger legal cases against companies that violate them, but lawyers aren’t waiting around for the FTC. In March, a class-action lawsuit in California alleged that Delta Air Lines had misrepresented itself to customers by claiming to be carbon-neutral in advertisements, when in reality it relied on imperfect carbon offsets.
That same month, the European Union released a detailed set of rules, called the Green Claims Directive, aimed at reining in false advertising around sustainability. Since each E.U. member state can meet those requirements in their own way, it’s creating an atmosphere of uncertainty for companies, said Austin Whitman, the CEO of Climate Neutral, a nonprofit that evaluates and certifies climate pledges.
“We really, really, really need a lot more disclosure of all the environmental actions that companies are taking, and we need it to be disclosed regularly and transparently, and we need it to be disclosed quantitatively,” Whitman said. “And companies need to feel like they’re able to disclose in a way that is not going to backfire.” He called for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to speed up the development of a framework that would force companies to disclose emissions data in a standardized way.
Yet another factor at play could be the result of Republican backlash against “woke investing.” Investment giants like BlackRock and Vanguard have scrubbed references to their climate goals on their websites over the last year, according to a recent report from the Washington Post. But Whitman sees the drama over environmentally-friendly investing as mostly separate from corporate sustainability. “I don’t see it as affecting consumer brands as directly as it does asset managers,” he said.
Whatever the reasons for greenhushing, it’s not all bad news. The companies that were blasting everyone with misleading information about their climate progress finally have a reason to stop, Whitman said. “They should be worried about litigation, regulation, and consumer pressure, and they should shut up about it.”
Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org
[ad_2]
Kate Yoder
Source link

[ad_1]
In the beginning, there was greenwashing, and it was bad.
Companies made bold claims about being environmentally conscious for marketing purposes, but they weren’t making any serious sustainability efforts.
But some experts say greenwashing has given way to another disturbing corporate sustainability trend — greenhushing.
Greenhushing is when a company doesn’t publicize its environmental accomplishments. Unlike greenwashing, in which companies exaggerate their sustainable policies, greenhushers are hush-hush about sustainability policies even existing.
A 2022 report by climate consultancy South Pole found that of the 1200 private companies they surveyed that are considered global climate leaders, nearly a quarter did not publicize their eco achievements and milestones.
Most analysts agree greenhushing is happening more often than ever before. But there is some debate over why.
Nicola Stopps, CEO of consultancy company Simply Sustainable, believes it is due to fear of bad press.
“Because of social media and the speed of news, these days [a company’s] reputation can be impacted dramatically very quickly,” Stopps told Raconteur. “The public and stakeholders are definitely becoming more educated and aware and savvy… companies need to take this a lot more seriously.”
In recent years, companies such as McDonald’s and Volkswagen were raked over the coals by the media for greenwashing their sustainable policies. These companies would rather remain silent about the environment than incur the wrath of environmental watchdogs, Stopps says.
Renat Heuberger, the CEO of South Pole, agrees, but in South Pole’s annual report, he asks: “Could the…growing threat of lawsuits be deterring companies who are voluntarily setting targets from being more open?”
South Pole’s report points to other possible motivations for greenhushing, including that companies are unsure they have what it takes to meet their goals so they don’t want to talk about them or that companies lack the technical skills and confidence to talk about complex climate efforts.
If there is any silver lining for corporate sustainability in 2023, it’s that most companies have net-zero policies. According to the South Pole survey, 72% of all respondents said they had set a science-based-target (SBT) towards corporate sustainability, climate, or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction.
“Long gone are the days when announcing a corporate net zero emissions target was exceptional. Today it is expected,”
wrote Heuberger.
In 2023, you can also expect that many companies won’t publicly discuss their SBT.
[ad_2]
Jonathan Small
Source link

[ad_1]
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
It happens all the time in the entrepreneurial world: A team builds an impressive product or service, rigorously test it to make sure it functions well and then they launch it. When a few weeks go by and new business leads aren’t what they expected, there’s a collective lightbulb moment: We need some PR.
If you’ve found yourself in a similar spot, have no fear. You’re certainly not alone. Over the years, I’ve taken what seems like countless calls from business leaders trying to drum up inbounds by getting into public relations post-launch. Sometimes the business in question is only a few months old, while other times the open sign has been hanging on the door for years.
I always preach that a PR strategy should be built out well before a business’s launch date. If you’re trying to retroactively ignite media interest, starting a public relations program is less about how long it’s been since the business was founded and more about how your business is currently functioning.
If you’re thinking about taking the PR plunge, here are three ways to know you — and your business — are ready.
Related: Is Your Startup Ready for PR? Here’s How to Know for Sure.
One of the surest ways to end up being frustrated with a PR program is to look at it solely as a revenue generator. Yes, public relations can help drive business leads, but it inherently is not part of the click-click-buy world. Try tracking the specific dollar value of landing a news article. Actually, don’t. Why? Because you can’t. The same goes for speaking engagements, awards and almost every other PR deliverable.
If your business is cash-starved and you’re in a place where you have to tie every dollar spent to a measurable ROI, hold off on PR. Chances are slim that PR will deliver a sustained and attributable line of revenue. However, if you’re in a place where you’ve got relatively dependable recurring revenue coming in, and you appreciate how investing in things like a halo effect and thought leadership can bolster your organization over the long haul, then you are in a much better position to financially invest in a public relations strategy.
Related: 4 Tips to Launch Your First Effective PR Campaign
While my previous point revolves around monetary resources, this one is geared more toward the resources of time and attention. Many people look at PR as one-off splashes — usually in the form of press releases — and fail to appreciate the many ways sustained public relations efforts can deliver wins for their business. If you’re in the market for someone to simply write and distribute sporadic press releases for you, by all means, that’s better than nothing. But it’s just the tip of the PR iceberg.
Without fail, the most successful clients I work with — yes, measured by revenue growth — are the ones that continuously cultivate a proactive public relations program. Am I saying PR is the most important factor leading to their business success? No. But it is a consequential element contributing to the good standing of the organization. As you think about public relations, I challenge you to refute the big splash worldview. Instead, draw the lens back and think of how public relations can be aligned with all your efforts over the long haul, enabling you to reach your business objectives.
Related: What Startups Should Do Differently When It Comes to PR
Not every time, but many times the folks who only want a big splash out of PR are the same people who aren’t quite sure who their target audience should be. This is problematic for loads of reasons. In the best of the worst-case scenarios, you’ll be fishing where you’ll get no bites. Again, that’s the most preferable bad outcome. It can get much worse. I’ve seen organizations invest in a communications strategy resulting in a deluge of bad leads. They not only invested money, time and energy into a flawed strategy, but also had to allocate resources to sorting through a mountain of bad leads.
One of the foundational rules of PR is to know who your audience is. Once you know that, you can figure out where their attention is placed — I like to say, where their eyeballs are. If you’ve got a solid handle on those two things, then you can build and execute a plan to get in front of them (and influence them) with the most appropriate form of messaging.
I’d bet the majority of businesses investing in public relations today didn’t have a PR strategy in place at launch. If you didn’t either, that is perfectly okay. Consider whether you’re ready to think through the above items. If you’ve got each of them adequately addressed, you can feel confident that your business is in a spot to move forward with PR.
[ad_2]
David Martin
Source link