In a context where consumers are increasingly demanding when it comes to companies’ environmental commitments, communicating about sustainability is both an opportunity and a challenge.
According to a study by the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME), 85% of French people expect concrete evidence to believe in a brand’s commitments, and 31% of consumers no longer trust environmental claims, seeing them as nothing more than marketing tactics. This climate of consumer distrust, fueled by greenwashing fatigue, is pushing some companies toward the opposite strategy, greenhushing, for fear of criticism. Between greenwashing and greenhushing, striking the right balance is becoming increasingly difficult.
Definition of greenhushing
Greenhushing, also known as greenhiding, combines "green" with "hush" (meaning silence) or "hide." It was created as the opposite of greenwashing, which is when companies exaggerate or lie about their environmental efforts in order to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are. Greenhushing, on the other hand, is based on deliberate silence: the company chooses not to communicate its environmental actions, even when they are genuine. This approach is often driven by fear of criticism or being accused of greenwashing. To avoid being seen as overstating their sustainability efforts, some companies prefer to minimize or completely hide their initiatives. However, by creating this climate of silence whether intentional or not greenhushing fails to provide a sincere response to business transformation and does not help rebuild consumer trust.
Causes of greenhushing
Due to the widespread misuse of environmental ambitions as a means to gain market share, the gap between companies’ claims and their actual commitments is increasingly being exposed. The fear of criticism and accusations of greenwashing is leading some companies to avoid the risk of being labeled as dishonest or exaggerated. This fear of being called out prevents them from showcasing their initiatives unless they are seen as flawless.
Indeed, many companies are still in the midst of their sustainability transition and feel that their actions are not advanced enough to be promoted. hey prefer to wait until tangible results are achieved before communicating publicly. The emergence of new laws, such as France’s AGEC law (Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy), and regulations like the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), is imposing stricter requirements in terms of transparency and sustainability reporting. As a result, some companies choose to remain silent until they are fully compliant, fearing criticism for efforts that may be perceived as insufficient.
However, not all companies share this interpretation of greenhushing. Other companies use it strategically to conceal their lack of real climate action, adopting a cautious and silent stance under the pretext that their efforts will inevitably be scrutinized and criticized.
Difference between Greenhushing and Greenwashing
Greenhushing and greenwashing are two opposite strategies, but they share one key issue: both prevent honest and balanced communication about companies' environmental commitments.
Greenwashing, which emerged in the 1990s, refers to the practice of exaggerating, embellishing or even lying about environmental efforts in order to attract consumers. Companies using this approach aim to appear more environmentally responsible than they truly are, relying on misleading marketing messages.
Greenhushing, by contrast, means deliberately downplaying or remaining silent about environmental actions, even when they are genuine. This often stems from the fear of being criticized for efforts considered insufficient or from the fear of being accused of greenwashing. Some companies prefer to stay quiet about their progress until they achieve fully measurable results, which can slow the sharing of good practices and weaken collective momentum.
While greenwashing misleads the public by overstating efforts, greenhushing limits the visibility of positive initiatives and can also lead to confusion among consumers. Striking a balance through transparent and factual communication is therefore essential to avoid both pitfalls.
Consequences of greenhushing
Failing to communicate about environmental commitments can create a climate of mistrust. Consumers and investors need clear and verifiable information to assess a company’s genuine efforts. Moreover, without the sharing of best practices, companies miss out on the ripple effect that could drive progress within their sectors. Employees involved in sustainability initiatives may also feel discouraged if their efforts are not acknowledged, leading to a lack of recognition and reduced motivation. In short, silence slows the adoption of innovative solutions and hinders collective progress toward a more sustainable model.
Solutions to avoid greenhushing
In its guide to responsible communication, the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME) highlights three key pillars: transparency, eco-communication and communication on commitments. Responsible communication does not mean over-communicating, but rather informing with transparency, explaining without exaggeration, presenting results objectively in a realistic and measurable way, and accepting that perfection does not exist. Progress can be valued as long as it follows a coherent sustainability objective.
It is essential to take a transparent approach and involve consumers, experts and other stakeholders to legitimize actions and avoid mistrust. The best strategy is to explain what has been done without overstating it. Consumers appreciate honesty. Saying “we are in transition—here’s where we are and what still needs to be done” sounds more credible than presenting a polished but misleading narrative. However, it is important not to highlight only a portion of the efforts, but to communicate on all actions and impacts, whether positive or still in progress.
Reliable certifications such as B Corp or frameworks like the CSRD can help reinforce a company’s commitments. Still, labels are not absolute guarantees. Some are awarded too easily and may dilute the true value of environmental engagement. They should be seen as complementary tools rather than stand-alone arguments.
Importance of transparency
Transparency is essential to building trust between companies and their stakeholders. Clear and honest communication helps demonstrate a genuine commitment to sustainability. By objectively sharing both progress and challenges, companies show that they are engaged in a sincere process rather than an opportunistic strategy.
According to ADEME, responsible communication relies on three pillars: transparency, eco-communication and communication on commitments. This means it is not about over-communicating, but about providing accurate and realistic information based on concrete data and measurable objectives.
Consumers expect companies to be honest about their progress and areas for improvement. A message that acknowledges limitations and ongoing efforts is perceived as more credible than excessive or misleading communication. Saying “we are in transition, here is where we are and what remains to be done” has more impact than pretending to be exemplary without solid foundations.
Moreover, transparency encourages stakeholder involvement. By regularly sharing updates and collaborating with experts or NGOs, companies reinforce the legitimacy of their approach. Using credible certifications like B Corp or frameworks such as the CSRD can also strengthen the company’s commitments, provided they are backed by concrete actions and ongoing monitoring.
.
Conclusion: Finding the right balance between communication and action
In conclusion, although greenhushing is often less criticized than greenwashing, it can also slow down the ecological transition and the collective transformation of our systems. It is essential for companies to communicate about their efforts in a measured, transparent and sincere way. Rather than remaining silent or exaggerating their commitments, they must find a balanced approach that meets consumer expectations and positions them within a more sustainable world, where new business models continue to drive positive societal change.
Sources :
https://shs.cairn.info/revue-decisions-marketing-2013-3-page-93?lang=fr
https://communication-responsable.ademe.fr/comprendre-le-marketing-responsable
Share this
What is greenwashing and how to avoid it?
Our Greentech ClimateSeed Achieves ISO 27001 Certification
