Last week’s Climate Week NYC was driven by the theme “It’s Time,” a rallying cry meant to emphasize the urgency of climate action. However, a new term emerged in that highly charged environment, “greenstalling.”

This concept, according to some of the radical environmental movement voices at the New York event, is the idea that businesses are deliberately stalling their climate efforts posing a significant risk to global climate change mitigation. There is a chasm between the iconoclastic, uncompromising, discontented radical global warming crowd who believe in taking direct action in defense of the planet versus the concern of many businesses over denigrating the current way of doing things before there is a replacement.

But is “greenstalling” really a thing? Or is this label just a misguided attempt by those frustrated with the coopting of mainstream environmentalism to explain complex business realities?

The Reality: Businesses Face Economic and Political Uncertainty

Businesses in the U.S. and around the world grapple with more than just environmental goals.

Businesses face economic and political instability that affects their ability to plan long-term including climate strategies. Newly proposed regulatory schemes including where governments will for the first time cap carbon are inconsistent, with environmental rules often swinging from stringent to lenient depending on location and political shifts. One minute, there’s a push for aggressive decarbonization; the next, the rules are relaxed or delayed, like in the case of courts ruling ill conceived Building Emissions Performance Standards (BEPS) local laws are preempted by longstanding federal statutes, where potentially far reaching SEC greenhouse gas (GH) emission regulations are voluntarily stayed by the federal agency in court proceedings, etc. This back and forth creates an uncertain playing field for companies, making it difficult to justify costly decarbonization investments when there’s no clear regulatory path ahead.

Moreover, businesses must contend with greenwashing reputational risks and litigation. Companies that announce their environmental commitments or compliance with government mandates (e.g., reporting required BEPS data can be misleading) can face lawsuits and public backlash. These lawsuits, coupled with the high costs of decarbonization and the complex regulatory landscape, have made some companies rethink their bold public facing climate pledges. A target like “Net Zero by 2045” might sound great in a press release, but when companies are sued for greenwashing in making such a claim because part of their solution includes offsets or the like, when the regulatory framework is unclear and the economic outlook is shaky, companies are naturally more cautious.

The Public’s Changing Priorities: Climate Takes a Backseat

In the early 2010s, sustainability was the buzzword on everyone’s lips. Companies rushed to declare their green credentials, and consumers clamored for environmentally responsible products. But today, the fervor has cooled. Climate change, while still a concern for many, has lost its shine as the most pressing issue for businesses. Other priorities, such as inflation, supply chain disruptions, and technological innovation, have taken center stage. As a result, some businesses have started to walk back their public facing ambitious GHG emission reduction goals. Others have delayed investing in unproven and unavailable decarbonization technologies and are instead pursuing innovation based solutions.

This shift away from in your face climate action has left some radical environmentalism advocates frustrated, which may explain the rise of terms like “greenstalling.” But blaming businesses for “stalling” their climate efforts ignores the broader context. The issue is not that businesses don’t want to act. It’s that the cost, uncertainty, and shifting broader societal and regulatory demands make it hard to act. In many ways, it’s less about stalling and more about recalibrating in the face of competing demands and an unpredictable future.

Enter “Green Bleaching” – The Silent Approach

While environmentalists mistakenly cry foul over “greenstalling,” a quieter and more nuanced practice has actually emerged, “green bleaching.” Unlike “greenwashing” which involves exaggerating or falsely claiming environmental achievements, green bleaching is the opposite, it involves concealing sustainability efforts. Companies engaging in green bleaching deliberately downplay or omit their green initiatives in public communications.

Why would a company choose to keep its environmental actions under wraps? One reason is fear of backlash. In today’s hyper connected world, where any claim can be scrutinized and litigated, businesses might find it safer to keep their sustainability programs out of the spotlight. The rise in lawsuits tied to greenwashing has made companies wary. Instead, they prefer to quietly do the work without attracting too much attention. There’s also the fear of public perception: if a company announces a climate target and fails to meet it or it does not meet some group’s ideal of how far the business should go, the reputational damage can be severe.

Green bleaching, then, is not about inaction but rather about protecting the company from potential risks associated with being too vocal about its environmental efforts.

Can the Market Police Itself?

As climate rhetoric heats up (.. likely faster than the planet itself), a growing number of voices are calling for a less activist government role in regulating greenwashing claims. After all, these are often consumer protection issues at their core. Shouldn’t the marketplace police itself? Some argue that letting consumers and watchdog organizations hold businesses accountable for false environmental claims would be more efficient and effective than government mandates.

However, this hands off approach is not without risks. Without regulatory oversight, the door could be left open for companies to mislead consumers under the guise of green marketing or, conversely, to hide genuine sustainability efforts out of fear of litigation.

The Middle Ground: Balancing Authenticity and Reputation Management

As companies navigate the tricky terrain of sustainability, they must find a balance between transparency and caution. Greenwashing erodes trust, while green bleaching can make it difficult for consumers and stakeholders to assess a company’s true environmental impact. Today there is no middle ground, where authentic communication avoids overblown promises but still provides enough transparency to maintain public trust, although I am confident that businesses, not government, will drive the innovation that will be central to the solutions.

What’s clear is that “greenstalling” isn’t real. The term oversimplifies the challenges businesses face and unfairly paints them as villains in the fight against climate change. Businesses are not deliberately stalling but are instead reacting to a complex mix of regulatory, economic, and public pressures. If anything, the current times call for more nuanced discussions about corporate sustainability, where the focus is on fostering innovation and genuine action rather than pointing fingers at alleged stalling tactics.

As businesses, large and small across the globe, work to find their footing in an ever evolving landscape, it’s essential to recognize that sustainability is not a linear journey. The path forward will be filled with setbacks, recalibrations, and, yes, even some silence, but I am optimistic that doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening.