US Firms Sustain Green Investment Quietly Amid Regulatory Pushback

A new study by EcoVadis finds that 87% of US-based organizations either sustained or boosted investments in sustainability in 2025 even as they weathered political opposition and mounting regulatory pressure. The trend is only one aspect of a larger phenomenon of "quiet sustainability," where companies keep environmental, social, and governance (ESG) programs under wraps but issue statements keep comments to the barest minimum to steer clear of controversy.

The 2025 U.S. Business Sustainability Landscape Outlook report asked more than 250 business leaders and presents that although outward-looking sustainability talk seems to grind to a halt, organizational action remains constant or increasing. Organizations are re-prioritizing efforts by investing in compliance, supply chain resiliency, and risk avoidance ahead of media coverage or public relations efforts.

The "greenhushing" phenomenon—where companies intentionally tone down open dialogue about their sustainability efforts—has become entrenched. The survey indicated that 31% of US business leaders affirmed that while spending on sustainability is up, outward communications are down. Another 8% have no public communication to speak of but maintain internal sustainability programs. An unusual minority of fewer than 7% admitted scaling back on complete sustainability investments, and 6% reported doing the minimum to stay in compliance.

Supply chain sustainability is increasingly becoming a top driver of ongoing ESG investments. Almost 65% of the surveyed executives stated that focusing on sustainability in their supply chain provided their business with a competitive advantage. This is compared to the industry consensus that sustainable practices enhance long-term operating resilience, support the preservation of supplier relationships, and instill consumer confidence.

More contrary to common opinion, the research reveals that the majority of businesses consider regulatory schemes to be more than mere compliance hurdles, but disruptors if not taken seriously. Almost half (47%) of C-suite leaders are of the opinion that eliminating ESG regulations would contribute to instability and supply chain risk. What this indicates is heightened awareness that regulation, while convoluted, helps create standardized global norms and shields businesses against operational and reputational harm.

But keeping ahead of rapidly changing ESG requirements is an ongoing challenge. Just 13% of the respondents said that they were compliant or "on track" with newer global sustainability regulations, such as the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), California Senate Bill 253, and Canada's Modern Slavery Act. The majority of businesses are in the early stages of preparation, and up to 19% of them admitted not yet beginning data collection on the required supply chain ESG information. Another 15% admitted delaying in hopes for relaxation of deadlines or policy amendments.

To meet these needs, firms are seeking digital technologies that make their suppliers more transparent and traceable when it comes to their performance. Spending on risk management software and data analytics is increasing to meet regulatory requirements and customer expectations for accountability. Most firms are also developing in-house expertise in auditing their ESG preparedness according to domestic and international models.

The unobtrusive but consistent movement of sustainability in US corporate strategy indicates that environmental stewardship is becoming more embedded in the culture of business practice, if no longer the explicit topic of marketing hype. It is a move away from perception-based green marketing to results-based sustainable performance. ESG is increasingly being seen as an indicator of resilience, competitiveness, and regulatory imperative rather than optional corporate virtue.

Businesses are also evolving to polarized regulatory climates, where green policy can turn on its head depending on federal or state-level dominance. Under these circumstances, keeping comparatively low public profiles serves to avoid the risk of becoming entangled in political or cultural controversy, while remaining compliant with climate obligations within.

This sort of behavior, while not as obvious, indicates that companies still view the economic risks of doing nothing with climate change. They are physical supply chain disruptions from extreme weather, scarcity of resources, and shifting consumer behaviors. In addition, the majority of investors and foreign buyers are increasingly demanding strong ESG reporting by their suppliers, which is putting local companies in pressure to keep up standards in the face of domestic policy changes.

The future suggests that with mounting global pressure for emissions cuts and sustainability reporting, those firms that have hung in there with internal ESG developments will be in stronger positions to maintain pace with future regulatory standardization. Delaying now may not allow for subsequent convergence once transparency becomes unavoidable because of global reporting obligations or investor demands.

The EcoVadis report is evidence of an increasing trend that firm management is retooling its sustainability strategy to be less about flashy gestures and more about being resilient, humble, and aligned with long-term compliance. Though public campaigns are faltering, investment in environmental responsibility finds solid ground in the operations core of most US companies.

Source
EcoVadis through Sustainability Online