There’s a noticeable shift happening in how companies are approaching sustainability–not in what they do, but in what they say. More businesses are investing in ESG, yet fewer are talking about it. This phenomenon, known as greenhushing, reflects a growing tension between authenticity and exposure.
According to EcoVadis’ 2025 Business Sustainability Landscape Outlook, 87% of companies are maintaining or increasing their ESG investments, yet nearly one-third are intentionally communicating less. Similarly, the Financial Times reports that 71% of the 50 largest U.S. companies remain committed to climate goals despite a growing number of them removing any public references to “ESG”, including Google’s parent company, Alphabet.
It raises an important question: is this quiet confidence a sign of maturity or a risk companies can’t afford to ignore?
So, what is greenhushing?
At its core, greenhushing is the practice of deliberately under-communicating, downplaying, or avoiding publicising sustainability efforts. Unlike greenwashing, which overstates impact, greenhushing is what happens when companies stay silent, even when they’re making progress.
On the surface, this can look like a responsible shift away from performative marketing. In reality, it often signals something more complex: an industry grappling with how to communicate in a time of growing scrutiny.
Why is greenhushing on the rise?
Several factors are driving this retreat from visibility. One of the most obvious is political and legal pressure. In markets like the United States, ESG has become politicised. The fear of public backlash or legal liability has pushed some companies to avoid the topic altogether.
At the same time, regulations are evolving fast. New frameworks like the EU’s CSRD, California’s SB 253, and the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards are raising the stakes for disclosure. Many companies would rather say nothing than say something they later have to retract or revise.
Then there’s the internal challenge of lacking confidence in your data. Without reliable, up-to-date emissions metrics or clear internal alignment, teams may struggle to know what they can safely share. In short, many teams see greenhushing as a risk management tactic, even though it can introduce a different set of risks.
The cost of going quiet
The instinct to avoid overstating progress or making claims without data to support them is a valid one, but going quiet entirely isn’t a long-term strategy. When organisations fail to communicate their sustainability work, several things can happen:
- Undermined trust. Credibility requires transparency. If progress isn’t visible to stakeholders, it’s often assumed not to exist.
- Stalled momentum. Teams working toward climate goals lose motivation when their progress isn’t acknowledged or shared.
- Missed opportunity. Companies with strong ESG credentials are more attractive to investors, partners, and buyers. If your story isn’t told, its value remains hidden.
- Loss of collective learning. Industry-wide progress depends on sharing what works and what doesn’t. Silence slows innovation.
This doesn’t mean that every milestone needs a press release, but it does mean that consistent, credible communication matters perhaps now more than ever. And soon, disclosure won’t be optional. Regulatory frameworks are quickly turning transparency into a requirement by demanding clear, auditable data. Companies that fail to build communication habits now will likely struggle to do so later, when disclosure is no longer optional and stakeholder expectations are higher.
What thoughtful transparency looks like
Finding a way to effectively communicate climate progress can be a challenge, especially when the work is still in motion. There’s a fine line between over-promising and under-communicating. What brands should be moving toward is sustainability communication that’s:
- Backed by real data. Even imperfect progress can build trust if shared transparently with numbers, context, and clear explanations of limitations.
- Plainspoken. Use clear, jargon-free language so both internal and external audiences can understand the message.
- Honest about challenges. There’s no such thing as a perfect strategy. Acknowledging what’s hard comes across as more credible, not less.
- Progress-focused. Don’t just talk about goals; share what’s working, what isn’t, and what’s next.
- Consistent. Better to share modest updates consistently than drop sporadic headline-driven announcements.
- Cross-functional: Align across teams to ensure what’s communicated externally reflects what’s happening internally.
Put simply: Don’t wait for perfection. Communicate where you are, and how you’re moving forward.
What this means for sustainability leaders
The rise of greenhushing doesn’t mean companies are backing away from climate action; it reflects a shift in how that action is being approached and communicated. Many organisations are moving beyond vague commitments and focusing on measurable impact. But when communication stops altogether, progress risks becoming invisible and its value, lost.
The challenge—and the opportunity—now is to shape a more credible kind of sustainability narrative: one that’s rooted in data, guided by strategy, and communicated clearly.
Final thoughts
We’re in a critical moment of rising expectations. Regulators want structured, auditable disclosure; customers are asking sharper questions; and investors are looking for evidence, not just ambition. In this environment, greenhushing might feel like a safer move, but in the long run, credibility isn’t built by staying quiet.
Climate action can’t wait for perfect data, complete certainty, or risk-free conditions. What matters is alignment between what a company is doing and what it’s willing to communicate. The question isn’t should you talk about sustainability, but how to do it well.
If you’re not sure where to start, our team can help.
Get in touch to learn how Zevero supports organisations in building credible, data-backed sustainability strategies and communicating them with confidence.
.jpg)
