Greenhushing?why? and the Impact?
- EcoVision
- 7 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Green hushing is when companies intentionally hide, downplay, or avoid publicly communicating their sustainability goals, climate targets, or ESG progress, even when they are taking real action.
In other words, it’s the opposite of greenwashing.
Why does green hushing happen?
Common reasons include:
• Fear of scrutiny or backlash
Companies worry that if they announce climate targets, stakeholders will criticize them for not being ambitious enough or for missing interim milestones ==> Public Pressure...
• Regulatory and legal risks
With stricter rules on sustainability claims (example: EU Green Claims Directive, advertising standards, assurance requirements), companies fear being penalized for statements that could be interpreted as misleading.
• Uncertainty about data accuracy
Organizations may feel their ESG data, baselines, or methodologies are not yet strong enough for public disclosure.
• Competitive secrecy
Some firms view sustainability strategies—especially emissions reduction technologies—as competitive advantages they don’t want to reveal.
• Lack of confidence in long‑term targets Companies may hesitate to publish net‑zero or science‑based targets if they aren’t confident they can deliver.
• Avoiding the perception of greenwashing Ironically, concern about being accused of greenwashing pushes companies to say less, even when progress is genuine.
Why Greenhushing is consider to be harmful??
1. It reduces transparency Definitely true, when companies hide sustainability goals or progress, stakeholders—investors, customers, regulators—cannot assess whether they are genuinely improving or doing nothing at all.
2. It slows climate progress
Public targets create pressure, accountability, and industry competition.
Without disclosure, there is less momentum for collective improvement.
3. It weakens stakeholder trust Silence can look like avoidance, uncertainty, or poor performance, even when the company is doing good work internally. Lack of communication damages credibility.
4. It reduces comparability between companies Investors and analysts need comparable ESG data to allocate capital to sustainable performers. Green hushing prevents this, creating an uneven market.
5. It blocks learning and industry collaboration When companies don’t share approaches, data, or innovations, others cannot learn from them—slowing sector‑wide progress. Again transparency and the possibility for the benchmarking process.
Some publicly reported examples of Greenhushing
1. Companies with approved SBTi targets choosing not to publicize them (2022–2023 trend)
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) reported that an increasing number of companies were submitting climate targets for validation but choosing not to list them publicly.
Reason: They feared scrutiny from investors, NGOs, or media before confidence in data and pathways had matured.
Source referenced by many outlets: Bloomberg, Financial Times, Euronews Green.
2. Agriculture and food-sector companies (Euronews Green 2023)
Euronews Green reported that some large agriculture and food‑processing firms reduced public disclosure of their climate progress after facing criticism about slow Scope 3 emissions cuts.Rather than eliminate efforts, they shifted strategies internally and cut public communication.
3. Asset managers reducing climate‑target disclosures (2023–2024) Several global asset managers were widely reported as withdrawing from voluntary climate alliances (e.g., GFANZ subgroups like NZAM) or reducing public detail on interim climate‑action plans. Reason: Legal risks, political pressure, and fear of being accused of inconsistency. Note: Their actions were related to disclosure reduction, which many analysts classify as green hushing.
Quite conclusion
Overall, green hushing limits transparency, reduces accountability, and can slow collective climate progress. It also prevents companies from gaining recognition for real sustainability work and reduces stakeholder trust.