Greenhushing: why staying silent about sustainability initiatives is not a good idea

In recent years, many companies have adopted a strategy of silence around their environmental initiatives, a practice known as greenhushing. Although it often stems from the desire to avoid criticism or accusations of greenwashing, silence can prove counterproductive, weakening corporate reputation, limiting consumer engagement, and slowing the spread of sustainable practices. In this article, we explore the phenomenon, its causes, its consequences, and the opportunities that transparency can offer companies, with a focus on sustainable communication through concrete projects such as tree planting with Treedom.

What is greenhushing

Greenhushing is the practice whereby companies choose not to communicate their sustainable actions or strategies, even when these genuinely exist and are underway. It is a phenomenon born out of growing public pressure around sustainability and the fear of criticism for claims perceived as exaggerated or misleading.

Unlike greenwashing—which involves presenting a misleading image of sustainability—greenhushing consists of strategic silence: the company acts responsibly but prefers not to talk about it, out of fear of:

• being accused of greenwashing;

• drawing attention to actions deemed insufficient;

• receiving criticism from internal and external stakeholders;

• running into regulatory issues.

The result is that companies’ real commitment remains hidden and undervalued.

Why companies choose silence

According to studies and specialist articles, the main reasons behind greenhushing can be summarised in six key points:

Fear of being labelled as greenwashers
Companies worry that communicating their sustainability efforts may be interpreted as misleading propaganda. This fear often prevents them from sharing concrete achievements, even when supported by verifiable data.

Fear of negative reactions from consumers and stakeholders
Media attention on climate issues and growing consumer awareness make companies hesitant to communicate, for fear of criticism or boycotts.

Lack of communication skills
Not all companies have the know-how to translate sustainability initiatives into clear and credible messages. A lack of training or adequate tools often leads to silence.

Concern about not doing enough
Many companies fear that their efforts may appear insufficient compared to the scale of the climate crisis, leading them to hold back on communication.

Competitive concerns
Some companies believe that sharing information about their initiatives could benefit competitors, causing them to lose a potential strategic advantage.

Regulatory risks
Regulations such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive or the FTC’s Green Guides in the United States impose strict requirements on environmental claims. Fear of not fully complying with them leads some companies to avoid communication altogether.

Although silence is often intended to protect companies, in the long run it generates counterproductive effects:

• Loss of reputation: consumers tend to reward transparency. Failing to share achievements can create the impression of inaction.

• Lower engagement: lack of communication limits the ability to engage stakeholders, customers, and talent interested in sustainability.

• Slower development of a sustainability culture: corporate silence reduces the spread of best practices across industries and society.

• Difficulty in benchmarking: without shared information, companies and consumers have fewer tools to compare and evaluate environmental performance.

In short, greenhushing turns fear into a strategic brake, undermining reputation and long-term competitive value.

How to communicate in a safe and credible way

The solution is not silence, but authentic, transparent communication supported by concrete data. Some best practices include:

• Authenticity: communicate what is actually being done, without excessive embellishment.

• Transparency: share progress as well as challenges and areas for improvement.

• Consistency: avoid sporadic messaging; build a long-term, sustainable communication strategy.

• Verifiable data: provide concrete evidence, audits, and certifications from recognised third parties.

• Balance between technical accuracy and emotion: communicate creatively while maintaining technical correctness.

This type of approach reduces the risk of greenwashing and helps build trust with consumers and stakeholders.

Sustainable communication through concrete projects

A practical example of safe and effective communication is tree planting through Treedom. Planting trees is a tangible and verifiable action that generates concrete benefits for the climate and biodiversity, allowing companies to communicate their green initiatives in an authentic way. In addition, the Treedom platform makes it possible to tell the story of projects and their impacts, turning concrete actions into credible and engaging narratives.

Thanks to tracking tools and detailed reporting, companies can share the results of their actions without fear of greenwashing accusations or regulatory issues. In this context, greenhushing is unnecessary: the evidence speaks for itself.

Conclusion

Greenhushing may seem like a cautious strategy, but in the long term it is harmful to a company’s reputation, credibility, and the effectiveness of its sustainability efforts. Communicating authentically, based on verifiable data and concrete actions, instead helps build trust and strengthen competitive positioning. From this perspective, tools such as tree planting with Treedom represent a tangible opportunity to demonstrate environmental commitment without risk, transforming silence into a positive and sustainable narrative.