What is behind “greenhushing”?
Greenwashing is the deliberate reluctance to communicate genuine sustainability measures – even if they are actually implemented. In other words, companies hardly talk about their climate targets or environmentally friendly activities in order to avoid possible criticism or accusations of greenwashing. While greenwashing relies on exaggeration and misdirection, greenhushing is the silent counterpart – a form of silencing strategy that prevents transparency.
Why companies remain silent – a look at the causes and consequences
Many decision-makers fear legal risks, regulatory pressure or harsh public criticism. In the EU, for example, rules such as the Green Claims Directive or CSRD could trigger uncertainty as to whether progress can be discussed. At the same time, the fear of not having done enough or not having provided enough substantial figures in public further increases the reticence. However, this retreat damages trust among consumers, investors and partnerships – and therefore also the credibility of the company.
Examples and figures that illustrate greenhushing
For example, in the US, large investors such as BlackRock or Vanguard have been observed to have drastically removed ESG terms from their marketing – although their sustainability efforts have not necessarily changed. The growing political climate in the US against ESG led to this communication freeze. Various surveys also show that the majority of sustainability managers have reduced their communication on net zero targets – partly due to increased regulatory pressure. In addition, analyses such as the Economist report on many companies that are pursuing clear climate targets (Scope 3 targets rose from 28% in 2022 to 67% in 2024, for example) but are refraining from communicating them.
The boundary to the greenwashing debate and the regulatory situation
The phenomenon is becoming increasingly important, especially in times of ESG headwinds – while greenwashing (exaggerated, often misleading communication) used to be discussed critically, the opposite is now happening – deliberate silence. At the same time, stricter regulatory requirements (e.g. EU directives) are making it more difficult to strike a balance between informative transparency and the fear of legal pitfalls.
Why openness about sustainable efforts is better
Transparent communication creates trust, positively differentiates companies from the competition and promotes accountability towards stakeholders. It enables the exchange of best practices, strengthens compliance and facilitates reporting, for example as part of the CSRD. In addition, a visible commitment motivates other companies to follow suit – greenwashing, on the other hand, allows real progress to remain invisible.
Conclusion: More impact through more courage to communicate
Greenwashing may promise protection from criticism in the short term, but in the long term it isolates companies and reduces their influence on change. Openness and responsible communication about environmental measures – even if they are still in development – are essential for credibility, compliance and social impact. Communicating authentically does not mean presenting everything perfectly, but in a realistic, transparent and adaptive way. And anyone who is effectively decarbonizing will look good with a loud, self-confident appearance.
For further information, please contact Andreas Krönke, Executive unit Director, GreenTech: andreas.kroenke@piabo.net
