Greenhushing - the new trend?
By Paul Sahota
Greenhushing, is the latest buzz word, and hopefully to be forgotten soon enough. Or is it really a tangible and concerning phenomenon in the world of sustainability?
Whether the word itself is here to stay, it seems that there is something lying behind the term – something that business-savvy corporate actors and investors should spend some time considering.
In this article, I outline what ‘greenhushing’ means, why it happens, what it looks like, how we can identify it, and why it is best avoided.
What Does the Term 'Greenhushing' Mean?
The term greenhushing is a term used to describe a lack of communication about a green agenda, or about progress in sustainability. When a company is doing 'the right thing' in environmental terms, we may expect them to shout it from the rooftops. This, however, is not always the case.
A term that derives from greenwashing – the problem of covering up less than ideal practices, obfuscating or lying about sustainability and environmental practice – greenhushing might in some ways be viewed as its opposite.
In greenwashing, untrue, confusing or unclear statements are made. In greenhushing, no statements are made at all, or elements are understated, even when practices are positive.
However, while in some ways opposing one another, greenwashing and greenhushing do actually share some factors in common. Most importantly, they both show a lack of transparency. Where full transparency is lacking, we may suspect greenwashing. But greenhushing may also be to blame.
Reasons for Greenhushing
Understanding greenhushing definitely involves delving a little deeper to understand why this phenomenon is occurring in the first place.
The answer is not as clear-cut and obvious as you may think and there are actually several reasons why a company may select not to reveal its sustainability successes or its green ethos up front.
Companies may engage in greenhushing because they:
· Fear repercussions (from stakeholders, investors or consumers) if their sustainability practice is not 100% perfect in all areas, and so would rather withhold the information entirely rather than be 'caught out'.
· Are worried that outside regulators will find problems or mistakes that could have financial ramifications.
· Want to try things out for a while before committing to and revealing sustainable practices.
· Are aware that their consumers/ users may not value sustainability highly.
· Know that their customers/ client base may equate a 'green' product or service as somehow inferior.
· Are worried that in a given area, green efforts may mark them out as on the 'fringes' of society rather than at the heart.
· Actually have something to hide. (Want to cover up their poor sustainability credentials.)
As you can see from the above, many of the reasons for greenhushing revolve around perceptions, or expected perceptions of the company and a fear that reporting openly on sustainability and environmental practices may have negative rather than positive results. But some greenhushing can be more insidious and cause a lot more harm.
Let's take a look at these potential reasons for greenhushing in a little more depth:
Worry About Scrutiny & Negative Perceptions of Sustainability Reporting
Put your head above the parapet and you can become a target. Often, greenhushing can be a response to the pressure cooker that is the world of sustainability. Companies fear that by publishing their sustainability progress and broadcasting their credentials to the public, they reveal themselves for scrutiny and risk being 'shot down'.
Companies may choose to remain quiet beyond what they are legally obliged to report to avoid anyone catching them out if everything is not 100% as it should be. Staying quiet about sustainability – even when positive changes are made – allows them to avoid the scrutiny that publishing the details would attract.
Concern About Regulation and Financial Penalty For Getting Things Wrong
Companies may also be reluctant to reveal all the details of their sustainability and green credentials because they fear financial repercussions, as well as potential blows to their reputations.
With an increasing number of jurisdictions demanding that companies report of their ESG and sustainability, companies may be tempted to report only what is legally required and nothing above and beyond, in case they get things wrong and are penalised for greenwashing, or for infractions of another kind.
Desire to Trial Certain Materials or Practices Before Reporting Fully
A fear of failure or a need to backtrack may also lead companies to withhold information about their sustainability practices.
They might be frightened that a new policy or strategy will fail to deliver the desired results, or that something could go wrong with a particular approach or supplier, perhaps. So not reporting might seem like the safer option, at least until things are more bedded in.
Negative Perception of Sustainability and a Green Agenda
A public understanding of the necessity of change when it comes to climate change, biodiversity losses etc. is growing. More and more people are choosing to take steps towards sustainability in their own lives – and are basing their purchasing decisions on how sustainable, ethical and green a company may be.
However, there is still, in some regions and sectors, a bit of a backlash against a focus on sustainability and the green agenda. Some companies may fear that their customers or client base will be reluctant to embrace changes in this arena, and so will keep quiet rather than publicising their successes.
Negative Perception of Sustainable or Green Products
Even where sustainability in general is viewed in a favourable light, the public can still have misconceptions about green products, thinking them inferior to 'mainstream' synthetic solutions. For example, if a cleaning product is advertised as green, consumers may not believe that it will be as strong or do as good a job on tough dirt and stains as another product.
Companies may find, in specific sectors, certain misconceptions or prejudices hard to overcome, and so may choose to go quiet on sustainability rather than making the claims that they might.
Concern that They Will Be Sidelined if Viewed as Sustainable
Increasingly, it is sustainable companies who are finding themselves front and centre, and those that fail to keep up who are pushed to the margins. But in some cases, companies may fear being viewed as 'fringe' if they keep focus on sustainability and the environment.
Companies still occasionally feel that the safest way is to maintain the status quo and not rock the boat by broadcasting more extreme positions that may find them positioned on the edges of society, or outside of the conventional way of doing things.
Greenhushing When There is Something to Hide
Sometimes, unfortunately, greenhushing is more damaging – in truth a type of greenwashing which seeks to under-report or hide green credentials from view to avoid scrutiny.
Sometimes, beneath the silence may lie positive actions. But sometimes, the vagueness or silence might actually denote that something is not as green as it may at first appear.
Blackrock and HSBC have been accused of this type of greenhushing in recent months. The asset management firms downgraded a number of Article 9 funds - exclusively invested in sustainable assets - to an Article 8 category: funds that promote environmental or social factors but do not need to target a sustainable outcome.
HSBC said this was to comply with stricter EU regulatory standards and that it would not change the objectives or policies of the funds. However, the accusation has been made that in fact, this step was taken to avoid investor scrutiny.
Examples of Greenhushing
Greenhushing is unfortunately becoming more widespread. A 2022 pole by South Pole revealed that the equivalent of 25% of surveyed UK-based heavy-emitting companies are choosing to set environmental targets, but are choosing not to publicise them completely. The same was true of around 20% of companies around the world, who are also, as South Pole puts it, 'going green then going dark.”
Nadia Kähkönen, South Pole’s deputy director of global communications said in an interview with earth.org, “Greenhushing is almost the opposite of greenwashing. There are companies who have set very demanding science-based emissions reduction targets and are now deciding not to publicise them beyond what’s mandatory.” She put this down to three reasons: fear of failure, fear of scrutiny and fear of litigation.”
One example of greenhushing given in this article from eco-business is that of Lazada. Just months after the company was accused of greenwashing for labelling less-plastic products as 'green' in an Earth Day sales promotion, the e-commerce firm's head of sustainability left quietly and the company stopped communicating its green efforts.
Greenhushing is nothing new. It has been widespread for quite some time. A 2014 study of 31 tourism businesses in the Peak District, all of which had been awarded the Environmental Quality Mark, showed that just 30% of their sustainability actions were communicated to their customers. Similarly, in a 2016 survey of over 2,000 hotels across 44 countries, only 48% of respondents stated that they had a page on their website dedicated to their sustainability practices.
Identifying and Recognising Greenhushing
Greenhushing is not challenging to recognise, though working out the underlying cause for this greenhushing can be more problematic. In many cases, the silence about sustainability might not forecast a serious underlying problem – but in a minority of cases, it can.
The key thing to look out for when ascertaining the credentials of any company is transparency. Ensuring transparency in all dealings and throughout companies themselves and supply chains is the only way to determine for sure how sustainable our efforts will be.
To mitigate risk and avoid greenhushing, we always need to make sure that we can see clearly where the successes are, and where there are areas for improvement.
Why Greenhushing is a Problem
A lack of proper reporting about sustainability might not seem as bad as forms of greenwashing that involve disseminating false or misleading information. But a lack of reporting, whether or not the underlying practices are good, can also be extremely detrimental to companies themselves, and to sustainable progress.
For one thing, failing to report sustainability measures, for whatever reason, means that progress cannot be clearly measured.
And this inability to properly monitor and record progress can actually become a barrier to that progress, and mean that a company stultifies and fails to improve over time. This can not only be detrimental in broader terms but can significantly impact a corporation's bottom line.
What is more, as the South Pole report stated, going green and then going dark: “makes corporate climate targets harder to scrutinize and limits knowledge-sharing on decarbonization, potentially leading to less ambitious targets being set, and missed opportunities for industries to collaborate.”
So, greenhushing can have an effect far beyond the company itself, within the industry or sector as a whole, and in our decarbonising economies in general.
Of course, in the context of our burning world, greenhushing can also be a problem because it slows the speed at which sustainability and green and eco-friendly practices become the new normal, and the uptake of sustainable solutions.
As South Pole CEO Renat Heuberger said in a statement: “The speed at which we are overshooting our planetary boundaries is mind-blowing. More than ever we need the companies making progress on sustainability to inspire their peers to make a start. This is impossible if progress is happening in silence.”
Greenhushing is a problem with a simple solution – honesty and transparency in business, investment, and in a broader context too. The more we all talk about what we can do and are doing to improve our practices and be better businesses, the more smoothly we can transition to a better future for all.