Greenhushing: Why Silence Damages Your Reputation

Remaining silent to avoid greenwashing may seem like a sensible approach. But this greenhushing is becoming a reputational risk for companies.

Over the years, companies have made an increasing number of environmental promises. This has recently given way to a trend called greenhushing, a deliberate choice to remain silent about sustainable actions for fear of criticism or legal action.

This strategic silence may reduce short-term risk, but it creates an additional risk of allowing others to speak on your behalf.

A measurable trend

The data clearly shows that greenhushing is not outlying behaviour. A GlobeScan report revealed that, in 2025, 36% of consumers reported seeing at least “some” sustainability messaging from brands, down from 49% in 2023. At the same time, trust in these messages had also been eroded.

According to a recent MIT Sloan Management Review article, 39% of American companies surveyed had reduced or stopped publicly promoting their sustainability investments in 2025 even while continuing to invest in environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. However, while too many promises can be harmful, it is demonstrated that thoughtful communication regarding advances encourages alignment and progress toward objectives.

A study of 300 hotels in the U.K. found that 62% of websites contained no information on sustainability and that only 2% of social media posts referred to it. The researchers viewed this as a typical instance of greenhushing where actions are taken, but not communicated.

South Pole’s Net Zero Report 2023/2024, which surveyed over 1,400 companies across 12 countries, confirmed this global trend. A total of 9 out of 14 sectors reduced their climate-related communications, while 81% of respondents stated that communicating their commitments to net-zero emissions is good for their bottom line.

This decline is accompanied by tighter regulatory frameworks in several countries. In 2024, the European Union adopted a guideline prohibiting the use of generic environmental claims without evidence. Similar reactions were observed in other markets where rules are being tightened.

However, it should be noted that, based on an analysis published by NewClimate, the shift does not reflect a decrease in transparency, but rather a shift away from insufficiently factual messages.

The Canadian reality: C-59 and the Competition Act

Bill C-59, which received assent in June 2024, introduced amendments to the Competition Act. Any environmental claims must be based on adequate and proper tests or corroborated by internationally recognized methodology. If this is not the case, sanctions of up to $10 million or 3% of annual worldwide gross revenues can be imposed.

Furthermore, as of June 2025, individuals can also contest deceptive claims before the Competition Tribunal.

These rules are primarily intended to protect consumers against false claims and creating equitable regulations for all organizations. The Competition Bureau Canada clearly describes that the Act does not prohibit communication, but rather requires that each statement must be substantiated.

However, certain organizations reacted by erring on the side of caution. For example, Alliance Pathways, a consortium of Canada’s largest oilsands companies, removed all references to its environmental initiatives from its website shortly after the Act was adopted.

Why has silence become a risk?

Transparency is now a prerequisite for trust. Where progress is not visible, stakeholders often assume that it has not been made or is insufficient. This is particularly true in sectors where climate and social challenges are highly publicized in particular.

Greenhushing can hinder organizations in two different ways.

• Firstly, a gap between actual efforts and perceived image is created. Companies that take action, but remain silent lose credibility among stakeholders and consumers.
• Secondly, there is lower differentiation in markets where ESG criteria increasingly influence purchase and investment decisions.

Say more with less

Neither greenhushing nor greenwashing are viable strategies. The solution lies in communication that is simple, precise and verifiable.

The solution does not involve silence, but rather knowing what you can back up.
In concrete terms, this means:

• Mapping your current claims by identifying all your environmental promises (products, activities and communications) and documenting their related sources, methods and perimeters;
• Focusing on precision and not superlatives by avoiding vague terms such as green, sustainable and respectful, and replacing them with measurable and contextualized indicators;
• Acknowledging your limits by explicitly stating what is included and excluded, the relevant hypotheses and areas of uncertainty. Paradoxically, this humility enhances your credibility;
• Considering independent verification since, even where not required by law, third-party certification related to challenging indicators significantly reduces the risk of contesting.

Clarity in leadership

Greenhushing offers no protection and fuels doubt. Maturity involves speaking less but saying more and basing your claims on evidence. Measured transparency is a true sign of good leadership.