If you've ever second-guessed a sustainability claim before hitting 'publish', you're not alone.

This blog is for ESG leads, sustainability and supply chain managers, who are stuck in a now-familiar dilemma: speak up and risk being accused of greenwashing, or stay silent and risk being overlooked or worse, distrusted.

As ESG regulations tighten and stakeholder expectations rise, this isn’t just a messaging issue - it’s a strategic one. In this piece, we explore why greenhushing is on the rise, what it signals, and how your organisation can navigate the pressure to communicate less without disappearing altogether.

From Greenwashing to Greenhushing: A New Dilemma in ESG Communication

In the world of corporate sustainability, we’ve shifted from one extreme to another. For years, companies proudly advertised their environmental efforts, sometimes stretching the truth with a bit of greenwashing - the practice of overstating or misrepresenting sustainability credentials is under fire like never before. Regulators are cracking down on vague environmental claims, watchdogs are calling out half-truths, and consumers are asking harder questions. As one industry expert put it, “the era of unspecific environmental claims is over.”

The message is clear: inflated sustainability messaging now comes with real consequences - public backlash, legal risk, and lasting reputational damage.

But instead of leading to better transparency, that pressure has created something else: silence.

Across industries, companies are pulling back. ESG goals are being met, but not marketed. Climate action is happening, but off the record. Teams are choosing not to talk about their sustainability progress at all, fearing scrutiny, politicisation, or being labelled disingenuous.

It is not that greenwashing is gone. It is that a new response has taken its place.

‍Consequences - Greenwashing Under Fire: Regulators Get Tough

Not long ago, corporate sustainability talk was full of grand promises - “100% natural,” “carbon neutral,” “eco-friendly”, often with little proof. Those days are fast waning. Greenwashing has not died of natural causes; it is being killed off by regulation and consumer scepticism. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) rolled out a strict Green Claims Code to ensure businesses prove their environmental claims. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been quick to enforce it - high-profile examples include ads from major banks and airlines banned for glossing over their fossil fuel involvement.

Over in the EU, lawmakers are going even further. In March 2023, the European Commission proposed a Green Claims Directive to clamp down on exaggerated claims. A recent EU analysis found over half of green claims to be vague, misleading or unfounded, and 40% had no supporting evidence. In response, authorities are pushing for claims to be verifiable, standardised and enforceable. Making false environmental promises now carries real consequences - fines, reputational damage, and a loss of public trust.

Trend Shift - From Silence to Strategy: Enter "Greenhushing"

Caught between rising disclosure standards and fear of backlash, some companies are choosing a different tactic: saying nothing at all. This approach, known as greenhushing, is when organisations deliberately withhold their sustainability initiatives from public view, often to avoid criticism or heightened scrutiny. Rather than risk being called out, companies stay silent, even when making genuine progress.

It is not an irrational response. In today’s polarised climate, any ESG claim can be dissected or politicised. Some leaders fear their goals will be judged as too little or their methods picked apart. Others avoid appearing overly progressive or risk backlash for not going far enough. The result: climate targets are met quietly, and positive impact stays off the record.

Recent data supports this trend. A 2023 UK survey showed that nearly a quarter of large and mid-sized companies intentionally under-communicated their sustainability initiatives. The main reason? To avoid drawing attention in tough economic times. Globally, South Pole’s 2022 report found that one in four companies with science-based emission targets do not plan to publicise them.

When even industry leaders pull back from communicating progress, it creates a vacuum. Stakeholders are left guessing. And without visible role models, the entire ecosystem loses momentum.

{{cta}}

Risks - Why Greenhushing Backfires

Strategy - Striking a Balance: Transparency with Credibility

So what is the answer? It is not louder greenwashing or complete silence. It is clear, honest communication, backed by credible data.

Companies should aim to share their sustainability journey, including the challenges and support every claim with verifiable information. Stakeholders value honesty over perfection. It is okay to say, “We’re making progress, but we still have work to do.”

The tools to do this well already exist. Established frameworks such as TCFD, GRI and SBTi provide guidance. Verified metrics and third-party audits help build confidence. By leaning on these structures, companies can report with rigour and clarity, avoiding the traps of both overstatement and silence.

Transparent communication signals confidence. It shows that you know where you stand, where you're heading, and that you're serious about the work ahead. Even imperfect disclosure, when honest, builds far more trust than silence.

Checklist - Where Do You Stand? A Self-Check for ESG and Sustainability Teams

For sustainability and ESG professionals, it is worth taking a step back and evaluating your organisation’s approach. Are you at risk of either greenwashing or greenhushing? Below is a quick self-checklist. These five questions will help you reflect on common challenges and ensure you are on the right track toward credible, confident ESG reporting

Reflecting on these questions can highlight gaps in your current ESG strategy. If some of your answers make you uncomfortable, that is a sign to dig deeper. The good news: every one of these challenges is solvable with the right approach, tools, and mindset.

Conclusion - Towards Trust and Transparency

Greenwashing is not quite dead, but it is on life support, and good riddance to it. Greenhushing, meanwhile, is understandable as a reflex, but it is not a viable long-term solution. The organisations that will thrive in this new era are those that embrace authenticity, data-driven reporting, and measured transparency. Rather than shouting unverified claims or retreating into silence, they will quietly put in the work and let credible disclosures build their reputation over time.

For sustainability teams feeling caught between saying too much and not saying anything at all, it is worth remembering that you do not have to navigate this landscape alone. This is where partnering with the right experts can make all the difference.  

By grounding your sustainability strategy in solid data and clear-eyed honesty (with a nudge of expert support when needed), you can step out of the shadow of greenhushing and tell your story responsibly. In the age of greenhushing, the real leaders will not be the loudest or the quietest - they will be the ones who speak truthfully, with proof to back it up.

Ultimately, the death of greenwashing and the rise of greenhushing point to the same lesson: integrity in sustainability communications is paramount. Those who heed this lesson will not only avoid the pitfalls of ESG missteps, they will also build trust with their stakeholders and drive genuine impact. And that, at the end of the day, is what sustainable business is all about.

{{accordion}}

{{sources}}

‍

‍