Will "greenlash" be the next big buzzword in the ESG lexicon?

Sam Meredith, a correspondent at CNBC International in London, published an article on Tuesday on the political backlash against ESG: "From Washington to Warsaw, a ‘greenlash’ is picking up steam despite extreme heat." Mr. Meredith uses the term “greenlash” to refer to the green backlash, or pushback against climate policies. I have heard this term a few times over the last couple of weeks and was curious where it came from.

A little bit of searching took me to a July 12th Guardian article by Nathalie Tocci: “After two years of real progress on climate, a European ‘greenlash’ is brewing.” Ms. Tocci is Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali, which describes itself as a private, independent non-profit think tank founded in 1965 that seeks to promote awareness of international politics and contribute to the advancement of European integration and multilateral cooperation. Her impressive biography is on the IAI website. Ms. Tocci is quoted in the CNBC article.

A quick Google search of news articles over the last couple of years came up with an October 2021 BBC article that used the term, but then nothing until the Guardian article. At the very least, it seems like credit for popularizing the term goes to Ms. Tocci.

Last week, the term also was noted in a Christian Science Monitor article by Ned Temko. I feel “greenlash” may be on the verge of going viral in the ESG community and beyond.

Interestingly, the term has been around for some time – the first references seem to pop up in 2008 – but with a different meaning. The term referred to dramatic changes in the structure and dynamic behavior of ecosystems. A June 2008 National Science Foundation article referred to greenlashing as occurring “when environmental changes localized to a small geographic area have far-reaching effects in other areas.” Another article from that month described “ecological greenlash” as occurring “when human action aimed at increasing the supply of a desired ecosystem service (e.g. food production) inadvertently degrade other ecosystem services (e.g. climatic regulation or pollination) that are essential for the provision of the desired ecosystem service, consequently reducing the supply of the desired ecosystem service.”

Much has been written over the last year about the “anti-ESG” movement in the United States, including by Ropes & Gray. Coming back to Sam Meredith’s article, it provides a good overview of the political backlash to green legislation in Europe for anyone new to this topic, as do Ms. Tocci’s Guardian article and Mr. Temko’s Christian Science Monitor article.     

About our practice

Ropes & Gray has a leading ESG, CSR and business and human rights compliance practice. We offer clients a comprehensive approach in these subject areas through a global team with members in the United States, Europe and Asia. Senior members of the practice have advised on these matters for more than 30 years, enabling us to provide a long-term perspective and depth and breadth of experience that few firms can match. For further information on the practice, click here.