Insights

Between Exaggeration and Silence:
The Harm of Greenhushing

ㅣJong-oh Lee CIO of KoSIFㅣ

“Now is not the right time to wave a red flag in front of a bull.”

These were the words of Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech Global, as reported by Bloomberg in early March.

LanzaTech Global specializes in technology that captures carbon dioxide and converts it into feedstock for chemical production. As a climate solutions company, it would be expected to communicate the urgency of climate action actively, not least because its business success depends on it.

Yet its CEO said the company plans to shift its stakeholder messaging over the next four years away from emissions reduction and toward economic growth and job creation. The reason is the changing political environment. In the “Trump era,” this is no longer considered a favorable time for “climate talk.”

     The Rise of Greenhushing

With Donald Trump’s return and tighter regulation against greenwashing, a growing number of companies are adopting a strategy known as greenhushing.

Greenhushing is a communication strategy in which a company intentionally withholds or minimizes information about its sustainability-related targets, efforts, and achievements, including those related to climate change.

In responding to growing demands for environmental and sustainability disclosure, greenhushing companies often adopt a strategy of “radio silence.” The term refers to switching off some or all radio communication for safety or security reasons. In corporate communications, this typically takes the form of avoidance or refusal.

In January, Kraft Heinz removed its target of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030 from its website. American Airlines deleted language highlighting its commitment to a low-carbon transition in November last year, the month Donald Trump was elected. Walmart, Meta, and other companies have taken similar steps. Unilever, which had faced scrutiny from UK regulators over alleged greenwashing, also significantly reduced its climate-related communications.

The term greenhushing was first coined in 2008 by the environmental consultancy Treehugger. It began to gain wider attention after being featured in Net Zero and Beyond, a report published by climate consultancy South Pole in 2022.

In Destination Zero, published in January 2024, South Pole concluded that greenhushing had become so widespread that it could be described as a new normal in corporate management.

According to the report, around three-quarters of the 1,400 companies surveyed said they were investing more resources in reducing emissions. However, they were reluctant to share this information with stakeholders. Fifty-eight percent said they had reduced their external climate communications over the previous year. Greenhushing was particularly prevalent among companies in the environmental, consumer goods, and fossil fuel sectors, as well as among European companies, including those in France.

It is important not to misunderstand what greenhushing means. Companies that engage in greenhushing may still establish and implement sustainability-related goals and strategies internally. The defining feature is that they either do not disclose this information or report it only partially to stakeholders.

Environmental activist Roma Danani identifies six main reasons why companies engage in greenhushing:

• fear of criticism and reputational damage;
• a desire to reduce customers’ sense of guilt;
• negative perceptions of sustainable products, such as the belief that natural products are lower in quality;
• uncertainty about whether corporate targets can be achieved;
• difficulty meeting expectations, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises; and
• uncertainty over how to communicate sustainability efforts.

Among these, the core motivations are fear and a lack of confidence in achieving stated targets. The objective is to protect the company from scrutiny, criticism, and litigation by regulators, shareholders, NGOs, and other stakeholders.

In the United States, greenhushing has emerged as ESG issues, including climate change, have become increasingly polarized. In Europe, it has developed in response to stricter greenwashing regulation. In both contexts, it can be understood as a strategic option intended to protect companies—a form of shelter built through silence.

BlackRock was one of the first financial institutions to move into this shelter. Concerned about the politicization of ESG, it announced that it would stop using the term altogether, effectively adopting a form of “ESG hushing.” For BlackRock, which serves clients across both Republican- and Democratic-led states, the move was a difficult but pragmatic choice.

A growing number of companies and financial institutions are now entering this apparent safe zone. Greenhushing can be seen as an extreme swing of the pendulum away from greenwashing.

The question, however, is whether this shelter is truly safe. Can greenhushing really remain separate from greenwashing? Answering this requires a clearer understanding of greenwashing itself.

[Images]

     Greenwashing Through Selective Disclosure

Greenwashing occurs when organizations make claims and take promotional, advertising, or marketing actions concerning the environmental characteristics and performance of their operations, products, or services.

Its principal strategies are symbolic action and selective disclosure. Positive information is exaggerated, while negative information is minimized, omitted, excluded, or concealed.

Related practices include brownwashing and climate washing, as well as greenhushing and greenwishing, although the latter two occupy a less clearly defined area.

Greenwishing is the practice of expressing hopes or intentions regarding environmental sustainability without taking concrete action. It may begin with genuine concern for sustainability, but it lacks the commitment and follow-through required to bring about change. Duncan Austin, who first used the term, described greenwishing as “wishful thinking that undermines sustainable business ambition.”

According to ESG data provider RepRisk, greenwashing incidents rose consistently from 2019 before declining by 12 percent in 2024 compared with the previous year. Cases fell sharply by 20 percent in Europe but increased slightly in the United States.

In Europe, stronger environmental regulations—including rules on green claims and consumer rights—were identified as a major reason for the decline. In the United States, the politicization of ESG contributed to the modest increase.

One notable point in RepRisk’s analysis was its observation that stronger regulatory scrutiny may itself create risks. While it can discourage greenwashing, it may also encourage greenhushing. RepRisk does not classify greenhushing as greenwashing, but it nevertheless recognizes the risks involved.

Civil society organizations and nonprofit research institutions, however, do classify greenhushing as a form of greenwashing. In The Greenwashing Hydra, published in early 2023, Planet Tracker identified greenhushing as one of six major forms of greenwashing.

     The Harm of Greenhushing Is Far-reaching

Greenwashing exaggerates. Greenhushing remains silent.

Greenhushing is a corporate defense strategy, but its harmful effects are far-reaching. It can slow collective progress at both industry and national levels in addressing climate change and other environmental challenges.

For example, when a leading climate company engages in greenhushing, it may continue to meet its internal targets. However, by underreporting its efforts, it reduces industry and public attention to climate issues and limits opportunities for other companies to learn from and benchmark its practices.

This delays progress on challenges such as the climate crisis, where urgency and collective action are essential. That is the most serious harm greenhushing causes to society.

Greenhushing can also be damaging from the company’s own perspective. By remaining silent, companies may lose the potential and actual benefits of actively communicating their environmental sustainability performance.

These benefits include product and service differentiation, cost reductions, price premiums, expanded partnership opportunities, favorable treatment from regulators and other stakeholders, talent attraction, risk reduction, and the protection and enhancement of corporate reputation.

From the perspective of consumers and investors, greenhushing ultimately produces effects similar to greenwashing.

Consumers need accurate and sufficient environmental information to choose green products and services. Investors need such information to assess a company’s current and future competitiveness.

Greenhushing, whether through silence or underreporting, increases opacity and information asymmetry across the market. It also reduces comparability between products and companies.

This weakens the ability of consumers and investors to make informed choices and may lead to both direct and indirect financial harm. Capital may also be allocated inefficiently, hindering the development of sustainable finance.

Greenwashing is like a Trojan horse: it wears the appearance of sustainability while undermining its foundations.

Greenwashing strategies continue to evolve. Greenhushing is a sophisticated strategy that retreats into an area where greenwashing is more difficult to identify.

Ultimately, the most effective weapon against greenhushing is transparency. One of the most powerful tools for securing that transparency is mandatory disclosure.

[Image] Jong-oh Lee