The Economist recently highlighted the phenomenon of greenhushing. This is when firms keep quiet about their genuine sustainability achievements. This is the opposite of greenwashing — which is when firms trumpet dubious claims to sustainability. At first glance greenhushing doesn’t really seem to be a big problem. After all the firm is doing the good stuff, it just isn’t telling anyone about it. That’s wrong to my mind, greenhushing is a major impediment to sustainability. We need firms to not only achieve on the sustainability front but also to tell us all about it.
There Is Some Good News
To those used to keeping a sharp eye out for greenwashing it might seem strange that a firm would ever greenhush. Some believe firms are universally terrible all the time so they can’t have any sustainable achievements to share. That isn’t true though, as the Economist article notes. A number of firms have made significant progress in some areas. (I don’t want to sound too happy, some firms haven’t achieved anything, and nearly all firms still have areas to address). There are industries, especially fossil fuels, that have taken the opportunity of the current political climate to abandon some of their pledges and more sustainable actions. Still, the Economist article notes how some industries have made progress, such as moving away from unverifiable carbon offsets.
A report published in March by PWC, an auditor, found that of the 4,000-odd firms that reported climate commitments last year to the CDP, a non-profit, only 16% dialled back their goals, while 47% stood by them and 37% became more ambitious. The analysis also found that 67% of companies with targets were on track to meet them, a proportion which had inched up by three percentage points compared with 2023.
The Economist, 2025
Why Would A Firm Ever Greenhush?
So, why would a firm with a good story to tell not tell it. There certainly are concerns that the firm doesn’t want to encourage scrutiny from those who say “you should have done more”. All firms are imperfect and so all are vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy. Critics are likely right to point out that something else is still wrong whenever a firm reports something positive.
Other firms might want to keep their successes proprietary. I’m not sure how common this is, this behavior is after all secret. Still, I could see this happening with things like waste reduction. If the company can save money cutting waste its managers might be tempted to keep their secret to exploit the competitive advantage of lower materials costs.
In the US in 2025, however, the core problem is likely to be quite different. Firms don’t want to attract attention to activities like cutting greenhouse gas emissions because that can face a political backlash.
Since Mr Trump’s re-election the pressure has been cranked up … companies which are continuing to take action to decarbonise have grown more reluctant to parade their efforts. The number of times climate change is mentioned on earnings calls of companies in the S&P 500 or STOXX Europe 600 indices has dropped from 427 in the first quarter of 2022 to 246 in the first three months of this year.
The Economist, 2025
Greenhushing Is A Big Problem
Is this something to worry about as long as the work is being done?
If the worst accusation that environmentalists can level at a company is its tendency to greenhush, then that is surely a sign of progress.
The Economist, 2025
I would argue that greenhushing is a big problem despite this positive spin from The Economist.
Think of some major challenges that we see in sustainable business
- Managers believing that you can’t make money being sustainable.
- The public thinking all firms are all as bad as each other.
- People not bothering to work on sustainability because “it doesn’t achieve anything”.
- Consumers who care about sustainability not knowing which firms to support.
- The say-do gap is partly driven by a belief that there is no point spending extra money on sustainability as all products are equally bad. (The say-do gap is when you say you care about something, but don’t follow through with actions to support your values).
Reducing Greenhushing Can Help Solve Big Problems In Sustainable Business
These concerns can all be solved when, rather than greenhushing, firms shout about their achievements.
- Yes, you can make money being sustainable. After all Good Company is doing it. Social proof can beat the, frankly very silly, “go woke go broke” argument.
- No, not all firms are as bad as each other. Good Company is taking action, Bad Company isn’t. Public policy can target effective action when we know what is really happening.
- We are making at least some progress on sustainability that people should know about. Information can beat nihilism.
- Good Company is doing X, Bad Company is doing Y. Consumers knowing this can buy from Good Company. Proper comparison can be made when things are in the open.
- Willingness-to-pay for sustainability can be increased when consumers genuinely believe some products are made in a better way. The say-do gap is partly an information and credibility gap which can be reduced by clearer demonstrating of the benefits of sustainability.
Greenhushing is a big problem. Let’s work on getting rid of it.
For more on if firms are making progress Are We Making Any Progress On Sustainability? and A Broad Or A Narrow Church
Read: The Economist (2025), The remarkable rise of “greenhushing”, August 1, 2025
