.jpeg)
Since the 90s and the growing awareness of the need to combat climate change, many economic players have taken steps to limit their impact on the environment. This commitment has steadily accelerated in the face of ever more stringent demands from consumers, investors and legislation that is spreading across the world to steer our society towards an ecological transition.
But this trend has also led to unbridled greenwashing by companies that favor communication over action, resulting in growing mistrust among consumers. This greenwashing is now gradually being replaced by greenhushing, i.e. a desire on the part of companies to be discreet about actions they may have taken in favor of the climate.
What is Greenhushing?
Greenhushing: definition
Greenhushing is a new trend that has emerged in direct opposition to the notion of Greenwashing. It characterizes companies that ignore their environmental efforts and results, and the actions they have taken to reduce their impact on the climate. First mentioned in 2008 in a study conducted by the Treehugger consultancy firm, this practice is becoming increasingly widespread.
Regularly explained by the desire to be discreet in the face of pseudo climate inaction, or the fear of being singled out by certain activists or NGOs for their carbon footprint, the causes of Greenhushing turn out to be far more complex, and its consequences far more harmful.
According to a survey conducted by consultancy SouthPole of 1,400 companies worldwide with climate commitments, 58% of them have scaled back communication efforts on their climate targets and environmental initiatives in 2023, and 18% of them don't even plan to publish the SBTi targets they've set themselves.
How it differs from greenwashing
The GreenwashingGreenwashing, which had its heyday in the 90s and 2000s, consisted in companies using their communications to extol the supposedly ecological virtues of their products and services, or their actions in favor of the climate.
The words "environmentally friendly" and "biodegradable" have proliferated on packaging, without any concrete proof of environmental benefits or the veracity of the facts. An airline could blithely claim to be carbon-neutral by investing in carbon credit programs on the other side of the world, bringing opprobrium on projects that were initially intended to be virtuous.
Greenhushing, on the other hand, encourages companies to conceal their climate objectives, environmental efforts or the ecological performance of their products.
Why do companies resort to Greenhushing?
The reasons for this growing trend towards Greenhushing are not yet known, but in the absence of concrete results, we can only speculate.
Increasingly demanding stakeholders
The fight against global warming involves all the players in our societies, and many of them have been raising their standards in recent years, particularly in view of the looming climate crisis.
A survey conducted by Goodvest in 2023 showed that 75% of French people are suspicious of companies' environmental promises, and 72% of them would like to see these promises better regulated.
This lack of confidence on the part of consumers is matched by increased demands from investors, who are increasingly scrutinizing companies' climate objectives and relying solely on tangible data to conduct their analyses.
Prudence being the mother of safety, companies prefer to scale back or be discreet about their climate objectives rather than suffer the distrust of stakeholders essential to their business model.
Increasingly stringent legislation
Faced with erratic environmental communications likely to mislead consumers, new legislation has emerged around the world, drastically regulating these practices. These laws have often gone hand in hand with new regulations aimed at increasing corporate transparency in the dissemination of environmental data.
France has been a pioneer in this field with the 2021 Climate and Resilience Act framing misleading commercial practices with regard to environmental promises. Thus, since January 1, 2023, it has been forbidden to state that a product or service is "carbon neutral", "biodegradable" or "environmentally friendly" without tangible proof.
At European level, a law was passed in similar terms in January 2024 by the European Commission, prohibiting all unjustified environmental claims and not allowing carbon neutrality to be boasted solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emission offsetting processes. EU member states now have 2 years to implement it in their national legislation.
At the same time, various European Green Pact laws have established standards for the disclosure of environmental data, to ensure that each company demonstrates transparency and has a common frame of reference in this area. These include the CSRD, the SFDR and the CSDDD.
This regulation, while necessary, has had the perverse effect of encouraging companies to be overly cautious, and in this sense may have contributed to greenhushing.
Risky communication
CSR communication remains a sensitive subject within organizations. Companies often lack clear data on the results of their actions, and are therefore reluctant to communicate openly. They fear being exposed to virulent criticism and contradictions. The risk of "bad buzz" would then counterbalance the benefits of a communication campaign, to the detriment of their brand image.
Changing governance models
Governance models have also played a part in the shift from Greenwashing to Greenhushing. While CSR used to be largely the preserve of corporate communications departments, its growing importance within organizations means that it now often has its own dedicated department.
However, CSR professionals, and particularly those dealing with carbon issues, are not communicators. In view of the new regulations, these departments are more often than not made up of engineers and data professionals whose primary objective is to analyze the existing situation, set clear objectives and implement concrete actions to reduce their company's environmental impact. Communication is by no means their priority, and should only take place once all the data has been validated. Added to this is the fact that these departments are still often relatively isolated within organizations, even if in recent years this model has evolved to see CSR integrated into corporate management.
What are the consequences of Greenhushing?
Compared to Greenwhashing, Greenshushing seems at first sight to be a lesser evil. However, some of the consequences of this practice are harmful to the company, its stakeholders and society in general.
Greater corporate responsibility
Is greenhushing a cause or a consequence of greater corporate accountability?
The problem is difficult to solve. Nevertheless, it has enabled many companies to better assess their responsible communications campaigns, and to demonstrate greater transparency to their various stakeholders by prioritizing concrete, sourced - in short, quality - information. The main benefit of Greenhushing remains that it has put an end to Greenwashing.
It thus augurs better management of environmental data by companies, forcing them to set achievable objectives and implement concrete action plans, a sine qua non condition for being able to communicate about them in the long term, if they so wish.
But there's a risk that ecological initiatives will become less visible and less important.
However, keeping quiet about your environmental efforts is bound to have damaging effects.
- Companies can be reluctant to make a commitment to the environment.
By preventing themselves from communicating about their environmental actions, companies may see a cost-benefit calculation too unbalanced to make a real commitment to sustainable development. The fear of doing the wrong thing or doing too little can ultimately lead to environmental objectives being scaled back or even abandoned altogether. However, the fight against global warming requires a commitment to ambitious objectives and the creation of an internal ripple effect, mobilizing the company's employees.
- A loss of confidence and opportunities
A company that hides its sustainability efforts can be distrusted by customers, investors and other stakeholders. The latter may get the impression that the company is not sincere in its commitment to the environment, or that it is not doing enough. The first risk is therefore to create a Streisand effect: by concealing information, a company can instead become the center of attention. The second risk is of missing out on opportunities that would enable it to build a real competitive advantage, whether with customers or potential investors.
- Reduced knock-on effect for companies
Communicating about sustainable initiatives generally creates a ripple effect that encourages competing companies to take similar steps. This effect is an important driver of progress towards sustainability, as it spreads best practice and encourages systemic change. Greenhushing breaks this ripple effect by depriving other companies of valuable sources of inspiration and information.
Companies: how to avoid greenwashing by avoiding the pitfall of Greenhushing?
In the end, Greenhushing may be an easy solution for many companies. But its perverse effects can create a negative halo around its activities, a source of mistrust and dissatisfaction for its internal and external stakeholders.
Yet it is possible to communicate on your environmental actions without falling into the trap of Greenwashing.
Be sure of your carbon data
Communicating on your objectives, actions and progress in the fight against global warming requires first and foremost concrete, reliable and verifiable data. By collecting environmental data year after year, you will be able to demonstrate transparency by providing clear, objective information to your stakeholders.
This is also the primary objective of the CSRD. It provides a framework and methodology for CSR reporting that harmonizes extra-financial reports across the European Union, making them easier to process and compare. Tools such as Traace enable you to simplify the collection of environmental data, and to publish them in the formats expected by the main global extra-financial reporting standards.
Develop a real strategy
Based on the data collected, you will be able to put in place a serious decarbonization and impact reduction strategy. This will involve setting short, medium and long-term objectives, estimating their feasibility and cost, and finally implementing them. Setting up a climate trajectory trajectory enables you to communicate transparently with your stakeholders and reinforce their confidence in the seriousness of your carbon reduction objectives. It is also a way of building a competitive advantage by meeting consumer expectations, and of financing your future developments by reassuring investors, who are now keen on this type of information.
Communicate responsibly
The final step is to communicate transparently and, above all, objectively. Collecting data and setting up a carbon trajectory will enable you to make a concrete commitment. There's no need to use superlatives or exaggerate the environmental performance of your products and services. Your responsible communication must be based on sourced, audited and verifiable information. This is exactly what will make the difference between environmental communication and Greenwashing, between you and the competition.
Conclusion
While Greenwhashing hasn't totally disappeared, its sharp reduction, as a result of scandals and legislation, has been largely beneficial. Nevertheless, the parallel, and ultimately quite logical, development of Greenhushing has also had its negative effects. However, silence is not the best solution to poor communication.
Companies need to relearn how to communicate their environmental commitments. This is all the more important as pressure from stakeholders on this issue grows ever stronger. To this end, frameworks and methods exist, enabling economic players to communicate more effectively.
However, their recent development suggests that greenhushing is just a passing phase. Having communicated indiscriminately over the years, companies must now build ambitious climate strategies based on concrete data, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Let's hope that the implementation of these climate trajectories and the collection of the first results will encourage companies to communicate again, and create the ripple effect needed to guide society towards carbon neutrality on a planetary scale.
Sources :
- "Greenhushing, a counterproductive trend?"Enola Gambey, L'Assurance en Mouvement, 02/29/2024
- "After 'greenwashing', 'greenhushing'?"Mathis navard, The Conversation, 11/02/2024
- "Stopping greenwashing: how the EU regulates green claims"European parliament, 15/01/2024
- "'Greenhushing': Why some companies quietly hide their climate pledges"Maxine Joselow, The Washington Post, 07/13/2023
- "Greenwashing: the French don't believe companies' promises, according to a Poll&Roll survey for Goodvest"Cdurable, 05/30/2023
- "Advertising: the fight against "greenwashing" has begun"notre-environnement.gouv, 20/04/2023
- "Going green, then going dark - One in four companies are keeping quiet on science-based targets", South Pole, 18/10/2022
