Why communicating on climate won’t destroy your brand

Over the past decade Patagonia—famed for its environmental activism—has seen revenue increase fourfold, Sustainable Living has become IKEA’s fastest growing product line, and Brookfield raised more than $30 billion in impact capital.

These companies know something that seemed obvious a decade ago: climate is big business. Since then, however, fear has often driven behavior. As the tides of societal sentiment toward climate and sustainability grew fraught, brands – wary of backlash from consumers, NGOs, or regulators – have retreated from climate communication and greenhushing has become the norm.

Fast forward to 2025, and greenhushing looks set to continue. With anti–net-zero rhetoric becoming increasingly mainstream, brands might be forgiven for thinking now is the worst possible time to talk about climate. Yet there are good reasons to believe the opposite.

The case for climate communication is as strong as ever. Customers care, and companies that tap into this can win big. 

We see four reasons to be optimistic about climate communication and climate action in 2026.

The climate debate looks deeply divided on social media. In the real world it’s even 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. The surprising implication of this is that there are now more right-wing climate worriers than left-wing. 

“The climate worried-right are not only numerous—70 million Americans, for example—but also more positive in their worldview,” says Glynn. “They are more optimistic about the future, and more open to change, than either others on the right or the climate-worried left.”

This shift matters. If climate is no longer coded as a purely progressive issue, brands don’t have to fear that speaking on climate automatically alienates half their customer base. In fact, the opposite may be true: ignoring climate altogether risks looking detached from reality.

Consider the insurance industry. U.S. insurers, like 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 careless, 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 recognize that ‘climate’ isn’t a dirty word with the public, and sometimes avoiding the issue is more dangerous than engaging. 

The environmental NGO 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 like Mission 2025, where IKEA, Unilever, and Octopus EV sit alongside nonprofits to press governments for more ambitious climate policy. And Harvard Business Review has documented how ENGOs increasingly act as partners, advising companies on emissions reductions across supply chains rather than campaigning against them. 

The result is a more pluralistic ecosystem. There is no longer a single “green party line” that corporates must fear crossing. Instead, there are multiple, often competing, environmental voices: some pragmatic, some radical, some openly supportive of business as a delivery mechanism for climate solutions.

For brands, that means more allies than enemies. Where once talking climate meant picking a fight with Greenpeace, today it often means finding an NGO to work alongside: sharing expertise, validating claims, even co-marketing your solution. 

If the 2010s were marked by rising regulatory heat on green claims, 2025 seems to have seen the cycle peak — and decline. In Europe, 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 is a symbol of shifting political priorities. In the U.S., 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.  

The best evidence that climate communication isn’t brand suicide is that some companies have already done it — loudly, provocatively, and on the biggest of stages. And they’re still standing.

Vattenfall enlisted Samuel L. Jackson to front a “motherf***ing wind farms” campaign, a bold, provocative 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%. And, looking back to 2023, Apple’s Mother Nature skit, with Octavia Spencer grilling Tim Cook on climate progress, drew accusations of green gloss but ultimately has (at least) done no harm Apple’s reputation.

Each of these examples matters because they shift the perceived risk frontier. They show that high-budget, climate-centric campaigns can spark debate, even draw fire, without causing brand collapse. 

Regulators will fine you, activists will hound you, customers will mock you. That fear fueled a decade of greenhushing.

But the world has moved on. Climate is becoming politically mainstream, not partisan. Environmental NGOs are diversifying and often partnering with business. Regulators are turning their fire elsewhere. And pioneering companies have proven you can speak climate without committing brand suicide.

So, how do you get started? Here are three steps:

01 | Find something meaningful to say

Nobody benefits from another green pile-on. Decide if climate is a competitive advantage. Work out if you have something worth talking about. Then get creative in how you bring it to the world.

02 | Build your coalition

Don’t try to go it alone. Reach out to eNGOs, startups and even competitors to reinforce your position, and share some of the risk.

03 | Don’t conflate climate and woke

Check yourself before you launch. Is this really about climate, or is it a broader progressive position? Is my audience aligned with this position? If not, how can I 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 a vital opportunity to engage customers, shape narratives, and drive meaningful impact in an evolving market and political environment.