In an era where sustainability is front and centre of public and regulatory discourse, companies are finding themselves walking a tightrope. Say too much about your green credentials and risk being accused of greenwashing. Say too little – and you may be guilty of greenhushing.

So what is greenhushing, and why is it suddenly at the centre of conversations around ESG strategy and stakeholder trust?

What is Greenhushing?

Greenhushing is essentially the inverse of greenwashing. Instead of overstating sustainability claims, companies deliberately under-communicate – or avoid talking altogether – about their environmental or social initiatives. Why? This phenomenon may be a response to regulatory, social, or institutional pressure, with companies selectively choosing which information to share in order to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of some stakeholders and avoid raising their expectations regarding further actions.

The Regulatory Ripple Effect

Over the past few years, EU legislation like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) have ramped up the pressure on companies to report on their sustainability performance.

At the same time, new legislation is emphasising accurate communication on environmental issues, such as the upcoming Green Claims directive aimed at combating greenwashing within the EU. This infamous trend undoubtedly has led to growing scepticism about the credibility of corporate sustainability efforts and has also contributed to the proliferation of misinformation. In light of this, the importance of a well-thought-out approach to implementing ESG aspects in business is becoming increasingly crucial, while also creating uncertainty within companies about how to communicate with stakeholders.

The need to adapt to changing regulations, growing expectations from investors, business partners, and society regarding transparency in sustainable development actions can significantly impact companies’ communication strategies. In the face of these challenges, will companies resort to ‘greenhushing’?

Why are Companies Going Quiet?

In the face of the growing complexity of sustainability-related regulations, which encompass both business, strategic, and communication aspects, companies fear that their actions may be misinterpreted or considered greenwashing. As a result, instead of presenting their progress, they choose to withhold communication about their efforts to avoid accusations of dishonest or unclear approaches to environmental issues.

Additionally, organisations at an early stage of the sustainability transformation may opt for this approach out of concern that their actions will be deemed insufficient. The motivation to report on progress and show the path the company has taken is lower, with more emphasis placed on presenting goals that have already been achieved.

It is also worth noting a certain fatigue with the ESG topic (due to information overload and dynamic regulatory changes), and in some countries, such as the United States, a clear opposition to actions in this area. At the same time, international events such as last year’s COP29 in Baku and the recent World Economic Forum in Davos clearly emphasise the importance of transparency within this subject. To effectively navigate through the growing misinformation, sustainable development clarity is becoming crucial.

The Hidden Costs of Greenhushing

A reduction in communication related to sustainability can lead to a loss of trust among stakeholders, including consumers, investors or NGOs, for whom – in the face of increasing disinformation – I becomes a challenge to distinguish companies that are genuinely committed from those that remain passive.

Last year’s report from Connected Impact, for example, shows that nearly two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies disclose more facts about ESG than they communicate within their messaging. The authors of the report suggest that this may be driven by the fear of greenwashing, which leads us to a kind of looping of the two phenomena and may undermine the meticulously built credibility.

Today, when transparency has become a key element of corporate strategies, withholding information about sustainable actions and progress may also be perceived as a lack of commitment and demotivating, for instance, employees who play a crucial role in the transformation process.

This approach also influences how organisations are perceived by potential investors, who, as indicated by EY research, are increasingly evaluating companies’ approach to ESG in their investment decisions. Thus, we are talking not only about potential reputational damage but also about the loss of opportunities for growth and building a competitive advantage. The company may also be seen as insufficiently “progressive” by stakeholders, even if it is genuinely achieving its goals and implementing appropriate regulations.

Interestingly, the practice of greenhushing can have effects that go beyond the organisation itself and negatively affect the market. Researchers point out that this phenomenon inadvertently suppresses the dissemination of innovative solutions and technologies, which may hinder other companies from learning from industry leaders and drawing positive inspiration from best practices.

In the field of sustainable development, data has become one of the most valuable assets, enabling companies not only to meet regulatory requirements but also to build credibility in their communications with stakeholders.

Silence is Risky. Speak Strategically.

Greenhushing may feel like the safer option – especially when the threat of greenwashing looms large – but in reality, silence can damage your brand, hinder your impact, and cost you stakeholder trust.

In the face of growing expectations from various audiences, transparency is no longer an option but a new standard in business communication. The role of communication teams is therefore to analyse the company’s actions taken within ESG acronym and provide real support for its transformation by building understandable, fact-based narratives that focus not only on the organisation’s needs but also on the expectations of its stakeholders. This way, the risk of falling into the traps of both greenwashing and greenhushing can be minimised.