Why Staying Silent on Sustainability Could Be Costing Your Business More Than Speaking Up
At a time when sustainability credentials can make or break a brand, a curious phenomenon is emerging across the UK business landscape. Companies are investing significantly in environmental initiatives, setting science-based targets, and implementing genuine decarbonisation strategies. Yet many are choosing to remain conspicuously silent about these efforts. This practice, which is increasingly appearing in boardroom discussions and sustainability circles, is called greenhushing.
Greenhushing refers to the deliberate decision by companies to underreport or withhold communication about their sustainability practices and achievements [1]. Unlike its better-known counterpart, greenwashing, which involves exaggerating or fabricating environmental claims, greenhushing operates from the opposite end of the spectrum. It is the strategic choice to say less, not more, about genuine environmental progress.
The term was first coined in 2008 by brand strategist Jerry Stifelman and writer Sami Grover [2], though it remained relatively obscure until recent years. Professor Xavier Font from the University of Surrey, who has conducted extensive research on this phenomenon, defines it as “the deliberate downplaying of your sustainability practices for fear that it will make your company look less competent, or have a negative consequence for you” [3].
Understanding the Scale of Corporate Silence
The scale of greenhushing has become increasingly apparent through recent research. South Pole, the Swiss climate consultancy, brought widespread attention to this trend in their 2022 Net Zero Report. Their survey of over 1,200 sustainability-minded companies across 12 countries revealed that approximately one in four companies with science-based targets were choosing not to publicise them beyond mandatory requirements [4]. This finding was described as “going green, then going dark.”
The 2023/2024 follow-up research painted an even more concerning picture. South Pole found that the majority of surveyed companies across 9 of the 14 major sectors were intentionally reducing their climate communications [5]. This represents a significant shift from the period leading up to COP26, when hundreds of companies publicly committed to net-zero targets through high-profile campaigns.
Academic research has further illuminated the extent of this practice. A study of 31 small rural tourism businesses in the Peak District National Park found that companies were communicating only 30% of the sustainability actions they were actually undertaking [6]. Remarkably, only one website in the study mentioned climate change, despite all businesses holding environmental certifications.
What is Driving This Silence
Fear of Greenwashing Accusations
The primary driver of greenhushing is the fear of being accused of greenwashing. As public awareness of misleading environmental claims has grown, so too has the scrutiny applied to corporate sustainability communications. Companies find themselves caught in an uncomfortable position: speak about their environmental efforts and risk being labelled hypocritical or insincere; remain silent and avoid the criticism altogether.
This fear is not unfounded. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has taken an increasingly active role in investigating environmental claims. Their Green Claims Code, introduced in September 2021, sets out six key principles that companies must follow when making environmental claims [7]. The CMA’s research found that 40% of green claims made online could be misleading [8]. Investigations into fashion retailers ASOS, Boohoo, and George at Asda, along with other companies, have demonstrated that regulators are prepared to take action against unsubstantiated claims [9].
Regulatory Uncertainty and Compliance Concerns
The evolving regulatory landscape adds another layer of complexity. The UK is developing its Sustainability Reporting Standards, aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board framework [10]. With mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements already in place for certain large companies, and new regulations on the horizon, businesses are uncertain about how to communicate their sustainability efforts without running afoul of emerging rules.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has significantly increased the potential consequences for misleading claims. From April 2025, the CMA can impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover for breaches of consumer law, including misleading environmental claims [11]. This substantial increase in potential penalties has made many businesses more cautious about their communications.
Resource Constraints and Economic Pressures
For small and medium-sized enterprises, the reasons for greenhushing often differ from those of larger corporations. Research indicates that SMEs are less concerned about media backlash and more constrained by challenging financial conditions and wider economic uncertainty [12]. When businesses are focused on survival, crafting accurate and engaging sustainability communications understandably falls down the priority list.
Many smaller businesses also lack dedicated marketing teams with the expertise to communicate complex environmental topics effectively. Without the resources to ensure claims are properly substantiated and clearly articulated, the safer option appears to be silence.
The Strategic Cost of Silence
While greenhushing may seem like a low-risk strategy, the evidence suggests that staying silent carries significant strategic costs that purpose-led businesses should carefully consider.
Lost Competitive Advantage
Companies that fail to communicate their sustainability credentials are missing opportunities to differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded marketplace. Research from NYU Stern’s Center for Sustainable Business found that sustainability claims expanded brand reach by 24 to 33 percentage points above category claims alone [13]. For purpose-led businesses, this represents a significant competitive advantage being left on the table.
An assessment of UK-based SMEs certified as B Corps found that between 2023 and 2024, they experienced a 23.2% increase in turnover, compared to the national average of 16.8% [14]. These businesses actively communicate their sustainability credentials, suggesting that transparency about environmental and social commitments can drive tangible business results.
Diminished Stakeholder Trust and Investor Relations
Transparent sustainability reporting has become essential for building stakeholder trust. PwC’s Global Investor Survey found that 94% of investors believe corporate reporting on sustainability performance contains at least some unsupported claims [15]. Rather than feeding this scepticism through silence, companies have an opportunity to build credibility through measured, evidence-based communication.
For companies seeking investment, greenhushing can impede access to capital. As sustainability metrics increasingly drive investment decisions, companies that fail to communicate clear sustainability strategies and targets risk increasing their cost of capital [16]. The growing sustainable finance sector actively seeks companies with demonstrable environmental credentials.
Talent Acquisition and Retention Challenges
Employees, particularly from younger generations, increasingly expect their employers to demonstrate strong environmental responsibility. Research indicates that employees who feel they are working towards a good cause can increase their productivity by up to 30% [17]. Companies that greenhush risk undermining employee morale and their ability to attract and retain top talent.
The 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Report found that having a societal impact is a strong expectation or deal breaker for 69% of people globally considering new jobs [18]. For purpose-led businesses competing for talent, staying silent about sustainability efforts means missing a crucial opportunity to connect with potential employees who share their values.
Slowing Industry-Wide Progress
Perhaps the most significant cost of greenhushing extends beyond individual businesses. When companies remain silent about their sustainability achievements, they prevent the sharing of best practices across their sectors. Without transparency, it becomes challenging to analyse corporate climate targets, share effective decarbonisation strategies, and calculate Scope 3 emissions, which require widespread reporting [19].
As Renat Heuberger, CEO of South Pole, noted: “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” [20].
Finding the Right Approach to Sustainability Communication
The answer to greenhushing is not a return to the era of bold, unsubstantiated claims. Rather, it requires developing a measured, evidence-based approach to sustainability communication that builds credibility while avoiding the pitfalls that make greenhushing seem attractive.
Prioritise Specificity Over Vague Claims
The CMA’s Green Claims Code emphasises that claims must be truthful, accurate, and substantiated [21]. Rather than making broad statements about being “eco-friendly” or “sustainable,” companies should focus on specific, measurable achievements. Stating that a product is “made with 80% recycled content” is far more defensible and credible than claiming it is “made sustainably.”
Embrace Transparency About Progress and Challenges
Effective sustainability communication acknowledges that the journey towards environmental responsibility is ongoing. Companies that openly discuss their challenges, areas needing improvement, and even failures often gain more credibility than those presenting a picture of perfection [22]. This approach resonates with increasingly sophisticated stakeholders who understand that sustainability transformation is complex.
Invest in Robust Data and Evidence
The foundation of confident sustainability communication is reliable data. Companies should invest in measuring and tracking their environmental impact, using recognised methodologies and, where appropriate, third-party verification. With concrete, verifiable data, environmental claims become far more defensible and compelling [23].
Align Communication with Regulatory Requirements
Rather than viewing emerging regulations as a threat, purpose-led businesses can use them as a framework for communication. The UK’s developing Sustainability Reporting Standards will provide clear guidance on disclosure requirements [24]. Companies that align their communications with these standards position themselves for both regulatory compliance and stakeholder confidence.
Strategic Recommendations for Purpose-Led Businesses
Based on the evidence, purpose-led businesses should consider the following strategic approaches to avoid both the traps of greenwashing and the missed opportunities of greenhushing.
Conduct a comprehensive audit of existing claims. Review all environmental claims across marketing materials, packaging, and communications. Check them against the CMA’s six principles to identify any gaps or risks, and ensure every claim is supported by credible, current evidence.
Develop a clear sustainability communication strategy. This should outline what will be communicated, through which channels, and to which audiences. The strategy should be integrated with overall business communications rather than treated as a separate exercise.
Build internal capabilities for sustainability communication. Ensure that marketing, communications, and sustainability teams understand the regulatory landscape and best practices. Regular training helps maintain compliance as requirements evolve.
Consider third-party verification. Where possible, use recognised certifications and frameworks such as B Corp, Science Based Targets initiative, or sector-specific standards. This provides additional credibility and reduces the risk of accusations of greenwashing.
Engage stakeholders in the sustainability journey. Rather than presenting sustainability as a completed achievement, invite stakeholders to be part of the ongoing process. This approach builds deeper relationships and creates advocates for the business.
Looking Forward
The emergence of greenhushing represents a significant challenge for the transition to a more sustainable economy. When companies with genuine environmental achievements choose silence, they deprive the market of examples that could inspire and guide others. They also miss opportunities to build the trust, competitive advantage, and stakeholder relationships that sustainability credentials can provide.
The regulatory environment is evolving to require greater transparency and accountability. The UK’s Green Claims Code, forthcoming Sustainability Reporting Standards, and enhanced enforcement powers signal that the era of vague or absent sustainability communication is drawing to a close. Companies that develop robust, evidence-based communication practices now will be better positioned for this new landscape.
For purpose-led businesses, the path forward is neither overclaiming through greenwashing nor silence through greenhushing. It is a measured, transparent approach that communicates genuine progress, acknowledges ongoing challenges, and invites stakeholders to be part of the sustainability journey. This approach not only builds credibility and competitive advantage but also contributes to the broader systemic change that our environmental challenges demand.
The businesses that thrive in this new environment will be those that recognise sustainability communication as a strategic imperative rather than a risk to be avoided. They will invest in the data, capabilities, and frameworks needed to communicate with confidence. And in doing so, they will help create the transparency and accountability that the transition to a sustainable economy requires.
References
[1] Font, X., Elgammal, I. and Lamond, I. (2017) Greenhushing: the deliberate under communicating of sustainability practices by tourism businesses, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7) 1007-1023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2016.1158829Â
[3] Fast Company (2023) What is ‘greenhushing’? The new negative sustainability trend, explained. https://www.fastcompany.com/90858144/what-is-green-hushing-the-new-negative-sustainability-trend-explained
[4] South Pole (2022) Net Zero and Beyond: A Deep-dive on Climate Leaders and What’s Driving Them. https://www.southpole.com/publications/net-zero-and-beyond
[5] South Pole (2024) Survey finds that many companies are quiet on green goals. https://www.southpole.com/news/survey-finds-most-companies-going-quiet-on-green-goals
[6] Font, X., Elgammal, I. and Lamond, I. (2017) Peak District National Park study. University of Surrey. https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/813487/
[7] Competition and Markets Authority (2021) Green Claims Code. https://greenclaims.campaign.gov.uk/
[8] CMA Green Claims Code Homepage. https://greenclaims.campaign.gov.uk/
[9] Jones Day (2024) The UK Competition and Markets Authority Takes Action Against Allegedly Misleading Environmental Claims. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2024/05/the-uk-cma-takes-action-against-allegedly-misleading-environmental-claims
[10] UK Government (2025) UK Sustainability Reporting Standards. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-sustainability-reporting-standards
[11] Provenance (2025) DMCC Act: The CMA’s new powers to fine 10% of global revenue. https://www.provenance.org/news-insights/dmcc-act-what-do-the-cmas-new-powers-mean-for-green-claims-compliance
[12] edie (2025) Beyond the ‘Trump effect’: Why are businesses greenhushing? https://www.edie.net/beyond-the-trump-effect-why-are-businesses-greenhushing/
[13] NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business (2023) Effective Sustainability Communications. https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/about/departments-centers-initiatives/centers-of-research/center-sustainable-business/research/research-initiatives/effective-sustainability-communications
[14] edie (2025) B Corp SME assessment data. https://www.edie.net/beyond-the-trump-effect-why-are-businesses-greenhushing/
[15] PwC (2024) Sustainability reporting in 2024: what’s coming, and the actions you can take now. https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/esg/sustainability-reporting/sustainability-reporting-2024-what-is-coming-and-actions-you-can-take.html
[16] Environment + Energy Leader (2024) Greenhushing, Sustainability and Corporate Transparency. https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/greenhushing-sustainability-and-corporate-transparency,52428
[17] Trellis (2016) The rise of the purpose-driven business, citing Center for Economic Studies. https://trellis.net/article/rise-purpose-driven-business/
[18] Cerkl (2023) Sustainable Communication: A Green Revolution in Corporate Messaging, citing Edelman Trust Barometer. https://cerkl.com/blog/sustainable-communication
[19] KPMG (2024) Greenwashing, greenhushing and greenwishing. https://kpmg.com/us/en/media/news/greenwashing-esg-traps-2023.html
[20] South Pole (2022) Press Release: Going green, then going dark. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/going-green-then-going-dark–one-in-four-companies-are-keeping-quiet-on-science-based-targets-301651298.html
[21] Competition and Markets Authority (2021) Green Claims Code principles. https://greenclaims.campaign.gov.uk/
[22] Sustenuto (2023) The five foundations of sustainability communications. https://sustenuto.com/insights/the-five-foundations-of-sustainability-communications
[23] Keenan Recycling (2025) Greenwashing vs. Greenhushing: Why hiding your green wins is hurting your business. https://keenanrecycling.co.uk/greenwashing-vs-greenhushing-uk-business/
[24] ICAEW (2024) UK sustainability reporting requirements. https://www.icaew.com/technical/corporate-reporting/non-financial-reporting/uk-sustainability-reporting-requirements
