The sensitive sociopolitical climate has resulted in a backlash against DEI efforts as well as sustainability movements. The ripple effect has caused
many companies to either
scale back their efforts or
quietly remove references on external-facing materials, also known as the greenhushing effect.
“You can talk about the most polarizing topics out there, but if you use the right language, you will find that we actually agree more than we disagree,” says Kirsten Flanik, CEO, North America at Revolt. Flanik is helping to build the London-based, purpose-led consultancy in the U.S. She was formerly president and CEO at BBDO New York.
Revolt’s research also found that those focused on sustainability efforts didn’t just have an increase in EBITDA, but also had a 31% reputational advantage over the companies that did not. It also shows that certain environmental issues consistently shape how leading brands are perceived, no matter the sector. The biggest drivers of reputation accounting for the gap between leading businesses and the average are:
– Renewable energy use (6.6%)
– Responsible resource use (5.9%)
– Water use (4.9%)
The issues that matter most from a business performance perspective vary by industry. In retail, the top issue is cutting carbon emissions, while in automotive, it’s reducing the environmental impact of products.
The findings from “The Cost of Silence” also highlight a significant risk for businesses that fail to communicate their environmental efforts. Financial performance peaks when a company’s actions and communications are aligned. However, less than a quarter (21%) of companies communicate authentically when it comes to their environmental performance, with over three quarters (79%) risking undermining trust by either greenwashing or greenhushing.
Flanik says getting the right balance in the current cultural environment can be tricky, but that’s partly what the study helps companies understand. It’s a matter of perception versus reality.