Greenhushing is the deliberate practice where companies underreport or completely withhold information about their environmental efforts and sustainability initiatives. First coined in 2008 by brand strategist Jerry Stifelman and writer Sami Grover in a blog post for Treehugger.com, the term gained widespread attention following a report by consultancy South Pole in 2022. The report revealed that while 67% of large organizations have net-zero targets and science-based targets, 23% do not plan to publicize their science-based emissions goals.
This phenomenon manifests as a “radio silence” approach to environmental goals where organizations actively avoid discussing their climate strategies. When questioned about sustainability initiatives, greenhushing companies typically decline to answer or deflect, creating an information vacuum around their environmental performance.
Greenhushing should not be confused with greenwashing. While both practices represent inauthentic communication about sustainability, they operate from opposite directions. Greenwashing involves exaggerating environmental credentials, whereas greenhushing deliberately under-communicates genuine sustainable practices. They function essentially as mirror images of each other, with both distorting the public’s understanding of a company’s true environmental impact.
It is suggested that greenhushing is more prevalent than commonly recognized.
The practice extends across various industries. For instance, some companies maintain complete secrecy about groundbreaking sustainability innovations, refusing to share water-conserving techniques even with their suppliers. This “secret sustainability” arises from concerns that consumers might perceive sustainable products as either lower quality or inevitably more expensive. Consequently, potential industry-wide environmental improvements remain hidden behind this veil of silence.
Companies adopt greenhushing primarily due to concerns about reputation management and strategic challenges. This practice of deliberately downplaying sustainability efforts stems from multiple organizational motivations.
The most significant driver behind greenhushing is fear of criticism. A 2020 study published in Environmental Sciences Europe noted that ‘green skepticism‘ has increased alongside greenwashing, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to assess trustworthiness in green marketing. Many organizations remain quiet about their environmental initiatives specifically to avoid accusations of dishonesty or exaggeration. This defensive mechanism develops directly from the proliferation of greenwashing litigation.
Companies frequently hesitate to publicize environmental targets due to uncertainty about achievement. Nearly two-thirds (73%) of executives believe the current economic climate makes meeting sustainability targets less of a priority. Additionally, 67% report difficulties transitioning to non-carbon energy and meeting net-zero commitments. This uncertainty creates reluctance to communicate goals that might not materialize.
Insufficient expertise in sustainability communication drives greenhushing behavior. Unless companies implement mechanisms to communicate from a position of knowledge, the risk of miscommunication remains substantial. Many organizations lack governance structures to properly validate environmental claims before publication.
A frustrating paradox exists wherein 65% of consumers report wanting to purchase purpose-driven sustainable brands, yet only 26% actually do so. This disconnect creates hesitation among companies to highlight sustainability features. Some businesses perceive that consumers associate eco-friendly products with either lower quality or inevitably higher prices.
When politics are not in favor of ESG -for example in the U.S. under the Trump-aligned administration—companies continue investing in sustainable projects but avoid publicly talking about them. As mainstream media and legal challenges increasingly target firms for overstating their ESG efforts, many choose to avoid both political scrutiny and accusations of greenwashing by downplaying or hiding their environmental commitments.
A report by EcoVadis found that nearly a third of companies maintained or increased their sustainability efforts while curbing public communication to steer clear of backlash. The result is a paradoxical situation: sustainability actions continue, but public discourse diminishes, which dampens transparency, peer pressure, and collective climate ambition.
Greenwashing and greenhushing represent opposite yet equally problematic approaches to corporate sustainability communication.
Greenwashing refers to the practice of making misleading or false claims about the environmental benefits of a product, service, or company policy. Companies that greenwash typically spend more resources marketing themselves as environmentally responsible than actually implementing meaningful eco-friendly initiatives. For instance, oil company Chevron ran its “People Do” campaign highlighting environmental dedication while simultaneously violating the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Whereas greenwashing exaggerates environmental credentials, greenhushing downplays genuine sustainability efforts on purpose. They function the opposite way. For example, one company launches “green” beauty products that contain harmful ingredients, while on the other side, another company reduces emissions but does not disclose that information either in reports or marketing materials. Greenwashing operates in a brazenly deceptive manner, aiming to mislead consumers, while greenhushing occurs in a deliberately quiet way when achievements are genuinely legitimate.
Both practices, even though they operate differently, slow down progress on sustainability and create misleading ideas: greenwashing provides a false picture of how well a company cares for the environment, confuses consumers, and weakens the market for truly sustainable products, while greenhushing stops overall improvements in the industry by hiding useful information that could help more people adopt successful sustainable methods, such as sharing the best ways to reduce carbon emissions.
Ironically, some critics consider greenhushing itself a form of greenwashing because companies claim to take climate action without establishing public benchmarks for accountability. Both practices ultimately manipulate perceptions—greenwashing through fabrication and greenhushing through strategic omission. Certain businesses deliberately employ greenhushing to avoid scrutiny, using silence as a protective strategy to conceal insufficient climate action under the pretext that their efforts will inevitably face criticism.
Overcoming greenhushing requires strategic approaches that foster authentic communication about sustainability initiatives. Companies can implement specific practices to balance transparent reporting with legitimate concerns about greenwashing accusations.
Transparency extends beyond sharing success stories to openly discussing challenges, areas needing improvement, and even failures. Trust develops when organizations communicate consistently and honestly, even when results fall short of expectations. By demonstrating a commitment to sustainability through candid reporting, companies build credibility and reinforce their authenticity. First and foremost, transparency allows stakeholders to understand the context of an organization’s environmental performance.
Third-party certifications from neutral organizations provide objective validation of sustainability claims. In an environment without universal sustainability standards, certifications establish a baseline that helps distinguish genuine efforts from greenwashing. Notably, these verifications build consumer trust by applying consistent standards across industries. Companies should maintain a single source of truth for certification data with clear audit trails.
According to Deloitte, 50% of surveyed leaders are already educating employees about sustainability and climate change, with another 41% planning to launch such programs within two years. Primarily, this education ensures accurate, consistent messaging across all company communications. Training helps employees understand how to discuss sustainability initiatives without overstating or understating their impact.
Effective stakeholder engagement is crucial for successful sustainability initiatives. By involving relevant parties in planning and development, companies ensure their efforts are well-targeted and comprehensively supported. A survey revealed that businesses incorporating stakeholder perspectives into their strategies are 26% more likely to outperform their industry peers in profitability. Continuous engagement helps manage expectations and prevents conflicts.
Even incremental progress deserves acknowledgment in sustainability reporting. Regular updates on environmental efforts keep stakeholders informed and engaged. Companies should communicate about environmental goals and implementation plans. Certainly, disclosing credible sustainability information meets regulatory requirements while enhancing the company’s reputation and strategy.
