As ‘Greenlash’ Spreads, The Economic And Climate Fallout Deepens
As the 30th UN climate conference begins in Brazil, the world stands at a crossroads. The need for urgent climate action has never been greater, yet a powerful “greenlash” against sustainability and net-zero policies is spreading.
Coined from “green” and “backlash,” greenlash has been bubbling for a number of years, but has become a formidable force in 2025, shaping policy, corporate messaging, and investor behaviour. 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.”
What Has Caused This Greenlash?
A resistance in some quarters to environmental, social, and governance policies and climate transition has increased throughout 2025, with political, economic, and cultural forces converging to challenge climate progress. Misinformation and greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry have been ongoing factors, practices that the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change has called to be criminalised, as well as a gap between sustainability “talk” and “walk.”
Political polarization and economic anxiety have supercharged the recent backlash against ESG efforts. “Net-zero sceptic populist parties” have denounced green policies “as a costly elitist plot against working people,” shared Pilita Clark of Financial Times. With Conservative and Republican politicians saying that green policies impose financial burdens such as higher energy bills or fuel costs.
In contrast, leading economists warn that scaling back environmental protections could raise long-term costs related to climate impacts and public health, and cause economic volatility.
Growth of Greenlash in the U.S.
At least 11 anti-ESG bills have passed across various U.S. states this year alone, and over 100 more have been introduced. These laws target banks and asset managers that consider ESG factors in investments, accusing them of political bias or harming fossil fuel-dependent economies.
Corporate America has responded. 52% of executives are reworking their sustainability messaging in 2025 according to research released in May. Just 6% of S&P 100 companies used “ESG” in report titles this year, down from 40% in 2023. 90% believe greenlash will persist, or even intensify, over the next few years.
Companies are now recalibrating “how they approach, communicate, and integrate these issues into their businesses,” said Andrew Jones, author of the report and principal researcher at The Conference Board. Earlier this year we witnessed many large corporate businesses expunge website references to climate change, and have since seen references to “resilience” or “responsible business” instead.
“I can’t help but worry about this,” says Oldridge, “if we’re serious about breaking out of business as usual, we need language that’s both robust and ambitious. Clarity and urgency move people; euphemisms don’t.” Allen Hershkowitz, former senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and current environmental science advisor to New York Yankees agrees. The words “climate change” are technically descriptive and informative, he told me recently. They aren’t “inherently political or judgmental.” So avoiding these words “will be less effective in communicating about the life-threatening (and economy destroying) phenomenon we are trying to address.”
Public-opinion surveys suggest that while the language of backlash is loud, many citizens still back strong corporate climate regulation. 75% of respondents in a ten-country European poll said major firms should be legally accountable for environmental harms.
Greenlash: A Dangerous Setback
Shareholder support for environmental and social proposals have hit record lows, according to Share Action, who research the level of asset managers’ support for shareholder resolutions aimed at tackling these issues. This is a “worrying retreat from ambition when it’s most needed,” shared Claudia Gray, head of financial sector research at the organisation, “at a time when the climate breakdown is already devastating lives around the world – from prolonged droughts to deadly wildfires – the finance sector should be driving urgent environmental action, not slowing it down.”
Efforts to advance environmental action through finance face new obstacles after a landmark U.S. court ruling. Chief District Judge Reed O’Connor recently entered a final judgement that American Airlines and its benefits committee had breached their duty of loyalty by allowing ESG factors to influence investment decisions in its employee retirement plan. Monetary damages were not awarded to plaintiffs, but the decision is significant for those seeking to integrate such principles into investing.
In spite of the ESG rollbacks we are seeing, many companies are maintaining or increasing their sustainability investments, it was noted in a mid-2025 report from Ecovadis. However, they are promoting them less due to the political climate.
This phenomenon, known as “greenhushing,” creates risks. When organisations downplay sustainability or don’t talk about it publicly, they reduce transparency and accountability. Academics have noted that this could be as dangerous as greenwashing, due to the broader sustainability conversation being weakened, saying the “opportunity for businesses to be agents of social change could be lost.”
Navigating the Greenlash Crossroads
The United States will be notably absent from the formal climate negotiations in Brazil, although U.S. governors, members of Congress and mayors are expected to attend. This underscores the deep domestic divide over climate policy. Against this backdrop, global leaders gathering at COP30 face an increasingly narrow window to reframe climate action as the smartest investment of the century. Keeping climate goals on track will require “grim determination at this particular moment in geopolitics,” stated the EU’s chief negotiator at COP, Jacob Werksman, this week.
Greenlash is ultimately driven by fear. Fear of change and fear of costs. The bigger fear however should be that of inaction. Every credible forecast shows the cost of this inaction will dwarf the cost of transition, and compound long-term economic pain. As Nick Oldridge shared, “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.”
