Is green hushing just prudent risk management?

A newly recognized practice, “green hushing,” finds brands deliberately downplaying, underreporting or keeping silent about their emissions and carbon-offsetting targets. The tactic comes amid increased scrutiny over environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals by the media, NGOs, the public and authorities.

If a company is falling behind ambitious goals or even sets overly-conservative goals, they may be called out. Those making claims also have to fend themselves against “greenwashing” or exaggerating their environmentally-friendly credentials.

“There is some sort of a paralysis on what to communicate and how to communicate it, which has led to this blurry notion of ‘green hushing,’” Forrester VP and principal analyst Thomas Husson told Advertising Age. “Traditional advertising on big sustainability claims are not that efficient anyway because consumers are quite distrustful. And 45 percent of U.S. consumers [believe] brands mislead them when they communicate on green initiatives.”

Sustainability claims also can be a liability. In May 2022, Walmart and Kohl’s agreed to pay a combined $5.5 million to settle FTC charges related to allegedly misleading eco claims over the use of bamboo.

Other possible contributors to the “green hushing” trend include avoiding irritating investors who believe ESG investments are wasteful or backlash from conservatives.

South Pole’s “2022 Net Zero” report that came out in October found nearly one in four companies that have set net-zero targets have decided not to publicize their progress.

The hesitancy comes despite surveys showing consumers, particularly younger ones, favoring eco-friendly brands. South Pole’s survey of 1,200 companies also found a strong commitment to net-zero emissions with science-based targets.

Beyond heightened scrutiny, the Swiss-based climate consultancy suspected companies may be unsure about meeting their eco goals or knowing how to address them. One in three companies surveyed said achieving their targets is proving “more difficult” than expected.

Many firms, according to South Pole, also may be choosing to “under promise and over deliver” as setting science-based targets becomes standardized.

South Pole nonetheless finds that the reduced transparency undermines sustainability progress. The firm said, “Doing so makes corporate climate targets harder to scrutinize and limits knowledge-sharing on decarbonization, potentially leading to less ambitious targets being set, and missed opportunities for industries to collaborate.”

• ‘Green Hushing’ Explained — Why Brands Are Cutting Back On Sustainability Marketing – Advertising Age
• Predictions 2023: Fortune Favors The Bold And Focused – Forrester
• FTC Uses Penalty Offense Authority to Seek Largest-Ever Civil Penalty for Bogus Bamboo Marketing from Kohl’s and Walmart – Federal Trade Commission
• Net Zero and Beyond: A Deep-dive on Climate Leaders and What’s Driving Them – South Pole
• Going green, then going dark – One in four companies are keeping quiet on science-based targets – South Pole
• Is green-hushing the new greenwashing? – Eco-Business
• Two-Thirds of North Americans Prefer Eco-Friendly Brands, Study Finds – Barron’s
• 55% Would Spend More on Eco-Friendly Products While Willing to Boycott Less-Green Companies – LendingTree/PRNewswire