Greenhushing: When Companies Don’t Want To Publicize Their Climate Progress – CleanTechnica

---

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

---

At first glance, it seems as if lots of companies are reneging on their original net zero goals. But a closer look reveals that many organizations haven’t given up at all — in fact, they’re just de-emphasizing their climate progress in public communications. It’s a phenomenon known as greenhushing, and it’s becoming increasingly common.

Greenhushing happens when organizations deliberately under-communicate or even remain silent about their environmental efforts. It’s interesting that, even with the backdrop of greenhushing, the number of companies making climate commitments continues to grow. In fact, more than 4,000 companies reported targets to the Climate Disclosure Project in 2024, up nine-fold over the last five years — 37% of companies were increasing their ambitions while only 16% were getting less aggressive.

The sustainability trend is moving along, even if reports don’t seem to indicate such progress.

Greenhushing pressures arise when companies try to balance consumer benefits while downplaying complex, often political and economic issues. Not surprisingly, social media had been identified as a key greenhushing space. Yet greenhushing undermines trust that’s essential for building relationships with consumers — isn’t transparency crucial for shaping consumer choices?

Corporate social responsibility, as defined by the European Commission, refers to “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society.” Many consumers are keen to demand socially and environmentally engaged behavior from companies while pressuring them into stronger commitment to sustainability — 70% of consumers want to know how the brands they support are addressing social and environmental issues, and 46% pay close attention to these efforts when making purchase decisions.

Yet research finds that the majority of surveyed companies in 2024 made the conscious decision to speak less openly about their climate goals, even though they want to be good corporate citizens. The external pressures to suppress their intentions are too much, and many companies now refrain from using explicit, experiential, or active language that legitimizes behind-the-scenes sustainability practices.

Why are so Many Companies Hiding their Sustainability Successes?

Conscious efforts to selectively communicate minimal pro-sustainability actions by businesses result from a variety of pressures.

Politicians penalize companies for their continued net zero goals.  In 2024 the Department of Energy (DOE) announced $10 million in funding for innovative Climate Resilience Centers (CRCs) in 10 different states. Since then, the Trump administration stomped into the White House, and USDA projects that use climate-friendly terms such as the following have been targeted for cost-cutting.

• “climate adaption and resilience planning;”
• “environmental education/workforce training;” and,
• “biodiversity and ecosystem resilience related to climate change.”

A stark example of penalty retreat is the Net Zero Banking Alliance, once the hallmark of sustainability endeavors. Members of the Alliance originally voluntarily committed to follow science-based targets for achieving net-zero portfolios by 2050 and to publicly report on their carbon footprints. Conservative critics, particularly in the US, derided the Alliance as anti-competitive collusion.

The Trump administration’s mafia-like influence pushed the North American financial industry toward what Bloomberg has termed “anticipatory obedience,” so that analysts now bow their proverbial heads to climate skepticism and evade punishment targeted for those who don’t follow its lead.

Fear of greenwashing accusations. Known as “hypocrisy avoidance,” this fear is a type of strategic silence that prevents inconsistent sustainability claims, particularly when the company has shown behavior that contradicts their environmental certification claims. Major companies are retracting unsubstantiated carbon neutrality claims, which is a positive development.

Among less sustainable companies, there may be a lack of confidence in their sustainability practices. James Gaines reports on Anthropocene that, when companies “do appear to back down from climate goals, they might actually be cleaning up their act.” In some cases green claims have been retired because they contained vague or misleading promises. Companies are becoming more cautious in their claims, leaving less room for greenwashing practices.

Consumers may perceive sustainability messaging as manipulative. It’s more common for marketing to focus on environmental issues — say, reuse your towels in a hotel — than to analyze their adherence to social sustainability — like Scope 3 emissions.

Risk avoidance is easier than pursuing difficult goals. Risk avoidance is the strategy of steering clear of high or extreme risks that cannot be easily mitigated, especially when the potential Annualized Loss Expectancy outweighs the Return on Investment, or when legal or regulatory requirements dictate so. Greenwashing can have its own perils, for it carries with it reputational, regulatory, and litigation risks.

At the least, consumers may react negatively if the underlying information about actual sustainability efforts are not being sufficiently, or accurately, disclosed.

Consumer backlash about ESG needs. The process to achieve environmental, sustainability, and governance successes is rigorous and can affect business profitability. Information about the risks and opportunities arising from a company’s interactions with its stakeholders, society, the economy, and the natural environment is essential to economic and investment decisions — never mind the welfare of everyday citizens. Consumers are savvy and can smell the dissonance.

However, soon after inauguration Trump issued executive orders that dismantled all favorability for sustainable investing. His executive order read, in part, “These state laws and policies weaken our national security and devastate Americans by driving up energy costs for families coast-to-coast.” Businesses were listening closely.

Limited resources don’t allow sustainability goals. Organizations may view sustainability communication as irrelevant — this seems to be the case in small and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources and regulatory constraints. They may hold a lack of ESG-related knowledge and capabilities, which  presents difficulties for organizations when they are attempting to make, and validate, socioenvironmental claims.

The Downsides of Failing to Share Climate Goals and Progress

Research suggests that green marketing and communication are essential today to show corporate engagement in sustainability. Greenhushing has negative economic and market consequences by limiting the benefits of transparent communication.

• Reluctance to report authentic sustainability gains increases consumer resource consumption.
• It prevents organizations from reinforcing their green identity to consumers who value sustainability.
• Public climate commitments place pressure on their competition to match achieved goals.
•  Masking climate successes reduces climate recognition and like-minded industry influence.
• Greenhushing hinders environmental progress. It limits opportunities to attract environmentally responsible clients and influence competitors.

What’s needed to address such sustainability communication gaps? It’s time for companies to embrace data-driven strategies for transparency and credibility and then follow up with clear and balanced advertising.

But all is not lost. In April 2025, the International Maritime Organization passed a binding climate policy. The agreement commits international shipping to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “by or around 2050.”

Similar focus moving forward should be on pushing for stricter regulations and standards to improve the transparency and integrity of corporate climate claims.