Climate action needs climate communication. Without it, companies get stuck in incremental, back-office efforts that do little to move the needle. The big stuff – changing the service, the product or how people use it – requires at least customer consent, and often customer demand, to justify the business case.
Over the past decade, however, corporate climate communication has retreated and ‘greenhushing’ has become the norm. Brands fear accusations of hypocrisy, regulatory penalties or consumer backlash. The result: climate action by stealth, delivered as a technical compliance exercise rather than a bold corporate narrative.
Fast-forward to 2026 and, on the surface, greenhushing looks set to continue. With anti-net-zero rhetoric becoming increasingly mainstream, brands could be forgiven for thinking now is the worst possible time to talk climate. Yet there are good reasons to believe the opposite.
I see four reasons to be optimistic about climate communication and climate action in 2026.
Climate is less polarising than you think
The climate debate looks deeply divided on social media, but in the real world, it’s more complicated. Simon Glynn, founder of the think-tank Zero Ideas, has shown that climate worry is moving right. His research finds that the global shift to the right hasn’t driven a comparable decline in climate worry, just that there are now more right-wing climate worriers than left-wing ones.
This shift matters. If climate is no longer coded as a purely progressive issue, brands don’t have to fear that speaking out on climate issues will automatically alienate half their customer base. Instead, ignoring climate altogether risks looking detached from reality.
Consider the insurance industry. US insurers, such as State Farm and Allstate, have pulled out of covering homes in wildfire- and flood-prone regions. Without a connecting climate narrative, the move risks looking callous, leaving home-owners high and dry at the time they need insurers the most. But, for fear of backlash, most brands barely mentioned climate change, reinforcing the ‘uncaring’ counter-narrative.
Brands need to recognise that ‘climate’ isn’t a dirty word with the public and sometimes avoiding the issue is more dangerous than engaging with it.
ENGOs are increasingly pro-corporate and pro-realism
The environmental NGO (ENGO) sector was once the arch-nemesis of big business. Campaigns were built on confrontation: naming, shaming and boycotting. That orthodoxy is fracturing.
Groups such as WePlanet advocate for nuclear power and genetically modified foods – positions unthinkable for mainstream greens a decade ago. Major NGOs now work hand-in-glove with corporates through coalitions such as Mission 2025, where Ikea, Unilever and Octopus EV sit alongside nonprofits to press governments for more ambitious climate policy. Harvard Business Review has documented how ENGOs increasingly act as partners, advising companies on supply chain emissions reductions rather than campaigning against them.
The result is a more pluralistic ecosystem. For brands, that means more allies than enemies – finding an NGO to work alongside, sharing expertise, validating claims, even co-marketing your solution.
Regulatory focus is moving elsewhere
If the 2010s were marked by rising regulatory heat on green claims, 2025 seems to have seen the peak. The European Commission announced in June 2025 that it would withdraw the proposed Green Claims Directive, citing industry pushback and fears of over-burdening small businesses. This was supposed to be the EU’s flagship law to crack down on misleading environmental claims; its collapse shows shifting political priorities. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has stopped defending its contested climate disclosure rule in court. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to rescind the foundational “endangerment finding” that underpins federal greenhouse gas regulation.
The lesson? Marketers still need to be confident they can back up their green claims, but the room to be creative has dramatically increased. Showcasing hero innovations (even if small) and championing transformative ambition (even if the journey is just beginning) is back on the table.
Other heads are already safely over the parapet
The best evidence that climate communication isn’t brand suicide is that some companies have already done it – loudly and provocatively. And they’re still standing.
Vattenfall enlisted Samuel L. Jackson to front a “motherf***ing wind farms” campaign, a bold campaign that took the anti-green rhetoric by the horns. SSAB, through its HYBRIT project, turned the dirtiest of industries into a public story about fossil-free steel that could cut Sweden’s emissions by 10%. Each of these examples shifted the perceived risk frontier. They show that high-budget, climate-centric campaigns can spark debate, even draw fire, without causing brand collapse.
So, how do you get started? Here are three steps:
Find something meaningful to say
Nobody benefits from another green pile-on. Decide if climate is a competitive advantage. Determine if you have something worth talking about. Then get creative in bringing it to the world.
Build your coalition
Don’t go it alone. Reach out to ENGOs, startups and even competitors to reinforce your position and share some of the risk.
Don’t conflate climate and woke
Check yourself before you launch. Is this really about climate or is it a broader progressive position? Is your audience aligned? If not, how can you isolate the climate element?
Brands that embrace climate communication thoughtfully and strategically can unlock a powerful competitive edge while contributing to the global response to climate change. Far from being overly risky, speaking on climate has become an opportunity to engage customers, shape narratives and drive meaningful impact in an evolving market and political environment.
Alex Paine is a partner at Lippincott, a global brand consultancy.
Climate action needs climate communication. Without it, companies get stuck in incremental, back-office efforts that do little to move the needle. The big stuff – changing the service, the product or how people use it – requires at least customer consent, and often customer demand, to justify the business case.
Over the past decade, however, corporate climate communication has retreated and ‘greenhushing’ has become the norm. Brands fear accusations of hypocrisy, regulatory penalties or consumer backlash. The result: climate action by stealth, delivered as a technical compliance exercise rather than a bold corporate narrative.
Fast-forward to 2026 and, on the surface, greenhushing looks set to continue. With anti-net-zero rhetoric becoming increasingly mainstream, brands could be forgiven for thinking now is the worst possible time to talk climate. Yet there are good reasons to believe the opposite.
