Recently, while preparing a press release for a client in a crisis situation, one of the people involved in drafting it raised their hand in alarm. ‘Highlighting in this statement that the client is taking such and such measures for environmental responsibility reasons could be interpreted as greenwashing. It’s opportunistic; I wouldn’t mention it.’ When the greenwashing card is played, it doesn’t always serve to avoid harm. The term has become almost a catch-all for denouncing communication campaigns that exaggerate or manipulate a company’s environmental commitment. However, there is a less visible but equally harmful phenomenon: greenhushing. In this case, we are not talking about excess, but about silence and shadows.
More and more companies are making progress in sustainability, reducing emissions or launching circular economy projects. Some take more credit than they deserve, but others do well to publicise their progress, because it raises awareness and encourages others to follow suit. This is what I referred to as “green yelling” in an article in El Publicista. However, some decide not to talk about it. They do so because they fear exposure to criticism, accusations of inconsistency or opening the door to uncomfortable scrutiny from authorities, industry organisations and consumers alike. This seemingly prudent self-censorship has a side effect: it weakens corporate communication and limits the positive impact of real progress.
What is greenhushing?
The term greenhushing was coined to describe an organisation’s deliberate decision to conceal, minimise or fail to communicate its environmental actions. This does not mean that the company is doing nothing. On the contrary, it may be developing solid, audited projects with measurable results. What happens is that it chooses not to share them publicly.
This phenomenon has grown in recent years in parallel with social and regulatory pressure. Many organisations believe that if they talk about their achievements in sustainability, they will inevitably be questioned about everything they are not yet doing. As a result, they opt for silence as a self-protection strategy.
Greenhushing vs greenwashing
Let’s clarify the terms. While greenwashing exaggerates or invents commitments to improve reputation, greenhushing does the opposite: it makes real efforts invisible.
Greenwashing erodes credibility because it sells smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, greenhushing limits credibility because it fails to show tangible evidence of progress. In the first case, people are being deceived; in the second, opportunities are being wasted. Both phenomena have one thing in common: they generate mistrust and make it difficult for communication to fulfil its role as a link between business strategy and society’s expectations.
Greenhushing is not a simple omission. It poses a reputational risk in itself, with consequences for the company that practises it:
- They lose visibility compared to competitors who do communicate.
- This weakens the confidence of its stakeholders, who see no evidence of progress.
- It generates internal doubts, because the teams themselves may feel that their efforts are not recognised.
- It renders efforts towards sustainability invisible by avoiding setting a public example.
Furthermore, in a context where sustainability is part of the European regulatory framework, failure to communicate can also be interpreted as a lack of transparency. Communication is not an accessory: it is an essential part of accountability.
How to overcome and avoid greenhushing
The solution is not to swing to the opposite extreme and fall into greenwashing. We must try to construct a truthful narrative, with nuances and a commitment to continuous learning. Some key points that will help us to do this are as follows:
- Rigorous measurement: good intentions are not enough. Indicators must be aligned with recognised standards (GRI, SASB, CSRD). This provides robustness and prepares the organisation for external audits.
- Honest storytelling: communicate not only achievements, but also pending challenges. Explain what has been accomplished, what has not, and why. This transparency generates more credibility than a flawless but unrealistic discourse.
- Graduality: there is no need to wait until you have a perfect strategy to report progress. A pilot scheme or a partial reduction in emissions are already significant milestones if they are properly contextualised.
- Internal training: preparing spokespeople and communication teams to explain projects clearly and comprehensively, avoiding both technocracy and oversimplification.
- Integration into corporate communications: sustainability should not be treated as a separate issue. It is part of the business, and as such should be included in the annual report, financial communications and relations with customers and suppliers.
Ultimately, greenhushing is not an inevitable fate, but rather a symptom of insecurity that can be overcome with rigour, consistency and courage. In a world where trust has become a strategic asset, silence is rarely profitable.
