ESG+ Newsletter – 27 November 2025

Evidence suggests that climate communications are evolving 

Recent suggestions that corporate communication on climate commitments is shifting, with companies becoming less vocal about their environmental efforts, may be misinformed, the BBC reports. Following the rise of anti-ESG sentiment in the US and elsewhere, there has been visible evidence of companies and organisations publicly rolling back previously announced climate ambitions. Certain media coverage has suggested that this reflects greenhushing, the practice of companies deliberately downplaying their climate pledges. Switzerland-based consultancy South Pole, which first coined the term in 2022, argues that today’s greenhushing is largely driven by the growing complexity of sustainability regulation, with more companies choosing to be cautious about the claims they make, rather than disregarding climate disclosures altogether. Thomas Day, an analyst at the NewClimate Institute, supports this view and argues that greenhushing is a red herring, suggesting that companies are shifting toward more realistic climate pledges and that fewer but stronger disclosures should be welcomed by the market.   

Other research suggests that companies may not actually be rolling back climate disclosures at all. Recent research by Harvard, examining 75 top global firms before and after the recent US presidential election, found that only 13% scaled back their sustainability efforts or public messaging, while 32% accelerated them. PwC has reported similar findings, with its recently released 2025 Decarbonization Report, which states that more small companies are making climate pledges and that larger companies are generally maintaining existing commitments.  

US corporates continued to engage at “disappointing” COP30 

Despite, the US government choosing not to attend COP30 this year, a Reuters analysis of attendance lists demonstrates that US corporates continued to show up at the event. 60 representatives of Fortune 100 companies attended COP30, outnumbering the 50 attendees at last year’s COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and even more joined pre-conference events in Sao Paulo and in Rio de Janeiro. Unperturbed by the climate pushback from the Trump administration, executives from both small and large US companies continued to engage in the climate conversation as rising temperatures unleash threats to factories, supply chains and the bottom line.   

As Environmental Finance reports, the overall outcome at COP30 could probably be characterised as delivering progress but falling short on ambition. Notably, the conference failed to agree on fossil-fuel or deforestation phase-outs, which will instead be pursued through future roadmaps. Delegates advanced adaptation, trade and the just transition, launching a Just Transition Mechanism, a Journey Fund to support fair fossil-fuel phase-outs, and a goal to triple adaptation finance by 2035. New indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation and expanded trade dialogues were agreed. For corporates, outcomes signal rising expectations on transition planning, greater scrutiny of adaptation actions, and increasing capital flows – public and private – towards equitable decarbonisation, supply-chain resilience and emerging-market investments. 

Employers turn to healthcare affordability as an ESG priority 

Healthcare affordability is emerging as a top workforce concern, with employers sharpening their focus on cost relief and expanded coverage options. According to ESG Dive, nearly 60% of employees now rate healthcare affordability as their most pressing financial challenge, outpacing housing, debt, and everyday expenses. Employers are responding to this by increasing contributions to Health Savings Accounts, expanding low-premium plan offerings, and exploring value-based care arrangements designed to curb long term costs.   

Companies are also reassessing benefit design through an equity lens, aiming to reduce cost barriers that disproportionately affect lower-wage workers. Many employers are preparing to introduce targeted subsidies, income-tiered premiums, and stronger mental-health benefits to improve access and reduce financial strain. These actions are increasingly viewed not only as workforce retention strategies but also as core to broader ESG commitments, particularly from the social lens.   

Glass Lewis’ op-ed responds to criticism 

Glass Lewis’ new CEO Bob Mann penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal as part of their push back on criticism of proxy advisors, outlining the rationale for impending updates to their long-standing ‘house’ recommendation report. 

Mann highlights that the shift away from a single benchmark report reflects evolving investor demand and the fact that many of their clients already use custom policies. Over and above this, the firm wants to enhance trust in their role as arbiters of good governance through elimination of conflicts and registration with the SEC. Mann says that “inviting SEC oversight will better protect investors and bolster trust in the market.” 

Pressure on proxy advisors is mounting and Glass Lewis is taking steps to strengthen trust in the role they play. There is no doubt that their role has become more complex over the past decade with the emergence of say-on-pay and greater oversight of climate or wider ESG issues. There remains a debate over the extent of the influence they have (or should have) in capital markets. But it’s clear Mann and the team at Glass Lewis want to take control of their own destiny. 

“Inactive or inconsistent” stewardship of climate lobbying

FinanceMap, the research programme of climate think-tank InfluenceMap has issued an assessment of the stewardship of climate lobbying by the world’s largest asset managers. The report concluded that only a small number are “robust’ in their engagement. Many are “inactive or inconsistent” as reported this week by Responsible Investor. The research assessed 39 asset managers with over $75 trillion in assets under management (AUM) with a focus on their stewardship of climate lobbying between 2021 and 2025.  

24 asset managers disclosed engaging with companies on climate lobbying in the period while 15 did not. The most common engagement theme was transparency of lobbying, followed by trade association activities, and lobbying alignment with a 1.5 °C scenario. European asset managers scored higher on average for their activity while North American managers saw their scores decrease between 2023 and 2024. 

FinanceMap identified seven leaders who demonstrate “best practice stewardship on climate policy advocacy”: BNP Paribas, Federated Hermes, Legal & General, Schroders, Boston Trust Walden, Amundi and Sarasin & Partners. Beyond engagement on lobbying transparency, these investors also filed or supported shareholder resolutions, voted against company resolutions, and raised questions related to climate lobbying at company AGMs. 

The scaling back of ESG regulation, political pressure to focus on the primacy of financial returns and a different mindset on either side of the Atlantic is evident in the FinanceMap assessment. Whether institutional investors will place more focus on direct climate and environmental impact (and related business risk) and stewardship of climate lobbying in 2026 is unclear. But the divergence between Europe and the US on ESG means the trends shown in the report may not change any time soon. 

ICYMI

• ESG News reports that the European Union has committed $16.9B to fund Africa’s Clean Energy Transition, in a move that will enable 26.8 GW of new renewable energy generation and extend electricity to 17.5 million households.

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has abandoned legal efforts to restore a law that, according to Bloomberg, would have restricted ESG-related voting guidance that proxy firms can offer investors.