For years, we have debated greenwashing in ESG —the act of exaggerating sustainability claims. But a quieter trend is emerging: greenhushing. Instead of overstating environmental efforts, some companies are choosing to say very little, or nothing at all, about their sustainability progress.

A recent Wall Street Journal report highlighted how sustainability chiefs are recalibrating their strategies. Many are pulling back on public commitments, worried that if targets shift or results fall short, they will face backlash.

As someone who has worked globally on ESG strategies, I see this silence as a critical challenge. Greenhushing is more than a communication choice—it’s a risk to trust, accountability, and long-term impact.

What Does Greenhushing Mean?

Greenhushing describes when companies intentionally underreport or avoid discussing their sustainability progress, even when genuine action is being taken.

Unlike greenwashing, which can damage reputations by exaggerating, greenhushing creates its own set of problems:

• Reduced transparency makes it harder for stakeholders to evaluate performance.
• Missed leadership opportunities, since sharing best practices can inspire others.
• Lower ESG ratings, as disclosures remain incomplete or unclear.

In today’s world, silence can be as damaging as misinformation.

Why Companies Are Going Quiet

From my experience working with executives across sectors, there are three main drivers behind greenhushing:

1. Regulatory Fear
   Global disclosure rules, such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the SEC’s proposed climate rules, create pressure. Companies fear being accused of misleading stakeholders if they adjust targets or miss deadlines.
2. Backlash and Polarization
   ESG has become a polarizing topic in some regions. Executives fear criticism from both activists, who demand faster action, and skeptics, who see ESG as unnecessary.
3. Measurement Challenges
   Calculating Scope 3 emissions or measuring social impact is complex. Many organizations delay communication until data is perfect, which often leads to silence.

The result? Companies stay quiet, hoping to avoid trouble. But silence itself creates a credibility gap.

The Risks of Staying Silent

Choosing not to communicate progress has real consequences:

• Investor Confidence: Investors increasingly expect clarity on ESG. A Morgan Stanley survey found that 88% of investors see sustainability as a value driver. Silence raises doubts about whether companies are truly prepared.
• Employee Engagement: Younger employees especially want to work for transparent and purpose-driven companies. Lack of communication risks disengagement.
• Reputation: In the age of global sustainability frameworks like GRI and constant stakeholder scrutiny, silence can be interpreted as lack of ambition—or worse, lack of action.

In short, greenhushing undermines the very trust that sustainability strategies are meant to build.

A Path Toward Responsible Transparency

So, how can companies avoid the trap of greenhushing while still protecting themselves from criticism? I recommend several key steps:

1. Set Realistic Goals
   Overpromising creates fear of failure. Science-based targets help companies align with climate science and build credibility.
2. Communicate Progress Honestly
   It is better to say: “We are not there yet, but here is our progress.” Stakeholders value honesty over silence.
3. Use Third-Party Verification
   Independent assurance of ESG data, through initiatives like IFRS Sustainability Standards, boosts trust and reduces the risk of being accused of misrepresentation.
4. Create a Culture of Transparency
   Communication should not be an afterthought. Embedding it into company culture ensures consistency, even in difficult times.

Lessons for ESG Leaders

The shift toward greenhushing shows how difficult today’s ESG landscape has become. Yet, I firmly believe that silence is not a sustainable strategy.

Sustainability is about continuous improvement, not perfection. Companies should not fear acknowledging challenges—progress often comes through trial and error. By sharing both successes and setbacks, organizations show accountability and leadership.

In my own work across industries and continents, I have seen the strongest reputations built not by those claiming perfection, but by those who speak with integrity.

Related Perspectives

If you want to go deeper, these published posts expand key angles:

• ESG backlash—and why it can drive progress. Sustainability Persists—Despite (and Because of) ESG Backlash.
• Net zero and credibility. Greenwashing in Net Zero Commitments: Why It Matters.
• EU policy signals. The ESG Ripple of the EU 2040 Climate Target.
• Standards convergence. Mastering ESG Alignment: Navigating the Three Leading Global Standards.
• Reporting relief and focus. ESRS Simplification 2025: What the Reforms Mean for Companies and ESG Strategy.
• Business value case. Sustainability as Value Creation: A Business Imperative.

Together, these blogs highlight a simple truth: silence and inaction carry just as much risk as overstatement in ESG communication.

Final Thought

Greenhushing in ESG may feel like a safe option in a polarized and highly scrutinized environment. But in reality, silence delays progress and weakens trust.

To move forward, companies must embrace courage in communication. The future of ESG depends not only on the actions we take but also on the willingness to share them openly.

Transparency, even when imperfect, is the foundation of credibility. The businesses that thrive will be those that continue to speak up—responsibly, honestly, and consistently.