The bliss of _____hushing
The risks of what we aren't saying
We are sitting on one of the most significant global transformations ever. It will have the power to reshape humanity, business, and the planet over the next century and beyond.
This transition is the most significant change since the Industrial Revolution and perhaps even bigger than the rise of the Internet, as technology will fuel its future, but will not be the focus.
Over the next five years, new business opportunities could emerge in its wake, and increasingly intense and interconnected risks may be well-managed, driving stability for the global economy.
…just don’t talk about it.
Well, of course, I’ll still talk and write about it! The sustainable transition will unpredictably upend capitalism, drive new trade-offs, create new opportunities, and (hopefully) benefit everyone equitably.
But, many companies don’t have the stomach or stamina for it anymore as traditional models assert themselves over progress and everything becomes politicized, so it’s better just to be quiet and maybe continue the work.
This is what greenhushing is all about. Greenhushing is when companies stop discussing sustainability, even as they continue to do the work.
If greenhushing is silence in the name of reputational risk management, a new movement, Trumphushing is an avoidance in the name of fear. Both leave companies reactive and strategically unprepared.
Trumphushing is the reflex to let a political personality or movement dominate your risk posture without direct debate and through constant, indirect influence. We tiptoe around his name while reshaping efforts in the shadows.
We can’t seem to get our collective heads out of the short-term machinations of this one actor wielding outsized influence on global risk perceptions. We’ve halted any future potential opportunities in their tracks for (checks notes) more reputational risk.
So we say nothing and stay quiet. We work behind the scenes and hope it’s enough.
Despite my previous and valid musings on this person’s influence over the stability of global economies and the governance tipping point he represents, we are giving him WAY too much attention.
Companies cower to name him outright, reacting to headlines rather than managing real risks. This creates an environment where we haven’t defined the problems well, but have created a lot of fear. Fear without focus erodes trust, slows innovation, and paralyzes action.
Like greenhushing, we’re stuck in this new kind of strategic paralysis. By avoiding the issues, peers become isolated, and no systemic progress is made.
The power remains with the perceived threat.
I remember CEOs balking at spending $750,000 to comply with the SEC’s (now-defunct) climate rule. But how much have they spent on consulting fees, war rooms, and wasted cycles reacting to this one person instead of building resilience?
And for what? Are we adapting our business to changing conditions or just reacting to headlines?
Where is the coordinated effort to defend and influence?
Instead, we are left with the news and reactions, and there is no shortage of information on what he’s up to. I was recently asked what journals I read because he’s everywhere, across legacy outlets, alternative social media platforms, and investor feeds. There’s no escape.
Too many companies are caught in a reactive loop, managing to a narrative instead of managing to risk and worried about the next reputational risk at best and new Executive Orders or soundbites at worst.
And look, I get it. Everyone in the business ecosystem, from company leaders to front-line workers and suppliers to entrenched institutions and startups, is nervous about the uncertainty and facing sustained levels of stress.
Out of this, we’ve created a shadow version of greenhushing driven by fear. I’ve seen firsthand how professionals gesture vaguely toward ‘the political environment’ while avoiding the real issues entirely. Rather than directly calling him out or the outcomes he generates, they tiptoe around the man and the issues, and nothing productive is discussed.
We are stuck.
Is the company mitigating complex reputational risks? Are tariffs requiring a change? What about geopolitical uncertainty?
Like greenhushing, Trumphushing leaves us reactive, disjointed, and strategically stalled.
Instead of Trumphushing, we need to get to work.
Some believe a win-win is possible through engagement, that is, until the political winds shift, and any goodwill is swept away with them. This is worse than paralysis, creating exposure and maybe more reputational risk for the company over the long term.
Start by identifying and labeling the manufactured risks in the context of the broader operating environment. Then, drill down to your business while considering material issues and stakeholders. Lead by naming the real risks, not the political environment or personalities.
This identification is a critical step because while myths and stories show us how speaking a name of a person gives it power, when we don’t identify the issues to address, we lose the power to coordinate and collaborate.
Diagnose clearly, plan accordingly, and move with purpose.
You don’t need to engage him publicly; he doesn’t need to live rent-free in your head, and he is not worth pivoting your business strategy for, but recognize there are issues you will need to address.
It’s not about silence but refocusing on what matters to your business and its stakeholders. Name the problems and identify the specific issues with them LOUDLY to hopefully bring in others. Stop internalizing every tweet, soundbite, or tantrum. Lead.
Let’s be clear: There is no managing to the man, and any move you make will have unpredictable trade-offs.
Still, you have a chance to take back some power.
Otherwise, in this new silence, we have stopped talking about other risks, as if they have stopped or gone out of style for this new considerable one.
We need to decenter the person and go back to systems thinking, which is the foundation of ESG.
In other words, if you are considering shifting your supply chain because of tariffs and have started greenhushing, you might miss new climate or humanitarian risks and will likely face a new crisis in the coming years.
ESG is shorthand for dealing with these new, interconnected risks. If you’ve backed away from it because you thought it was values-based, you have dropped the tools, skills, and staff you need to deal with the next risk (and the one after that).
So, why don’t we recognize this and continue to pull away from the wrong thing? Even people who support this space are backing away!
This past week, I spoke with a climate risk startup specializing in near-term catastrophes. One suggestion was to avoid using the word ‘climate' and focus on the risk because of the US political environment.
No, I can’t, and I won’t.
Say what you mean. Do what you say.
Whether it is the new governance challenges, climate risk, shifting social sentiment, or systemic volatility, we remain quiet and dismissive. That’s surrender. The *hushing has to stop, not because talk is cheap, but because silence is expensive. We need more public examples of business adaptation and evidence that the work continues.
Visibility drives normalization, and normalization drives momentum. The risks haven’t stopped, but we’ve just stopped naming them for what they are.
But hey, if you believe that not talking about an issue will make it all better, then stop talking about him, too. After all, if you think the other risks have gone away, then silence might mean less market volatility and geopolitical uncertainty, right?
Leadership today isn’t about predicting an unknown future but about building resilience to navigate it. Stop chasing chaos. Identify the issues, build a strategy around what you can control, and prepare for what you can’t. That’s how we stay resilient, relevant, and ready, no matter what comes next.