Greenhushing is the New Greenwashing
A few years ago, the biggest risk in sustainability communication was saying too much.
Companies were making ambitious claims about impact, net zero, and environmental performance that often stretched beyond what could realistically be supported. The term greenwashing became shorthand for this behaviour, and scrutiny followed quickly.
Now the pendulum has started to swing in the opposite direction.
More companies are choosing to say less. Some are removing sustainability claims from their websites altogether. Others are avoiding detail, keeping messaging high-level and non-committal. The intention is understandable. The regulatory environment is tighter, the reputational risks are clearer, and the consequences of getting it wrong are more visible.
But this shift introduces a different problem.
Greenhushing has emerged as a response to risk, but it is not a particularly effective one. Silence does not build trust. It leaves space for assumptions, and in a market that is already sceptical, those assumptions are rarely generous.
There are already signs of this playing out. Media coverage has started to highlight companies that under-communicate just as much as those that overstate. Investors are asking more detailed questions during due diligence, particularly where ESG performance is positioned as part of the value proposition. Enterprise buyers are looking for clearer signals that sustainability claims are credible and backed by evidence.
In other words, the expectation to communicate has not gone away. It has simply become more demanding.
The challenge is that many organisations still see ESG communication as a risk to manage, rather than a capability to develop. The default response is to reduce exposure by saying less, rather than improving the quality of what is being said.
That approach tends to limit more than just marketing. It affects positioning, differentiation, and ultimately growth. If a company cannot clearly explain its sustainability impact, it becomes harder to justify its relevance in a market where that impact is increasingly important.
There is also a strategic cost. Companies that communicate well are able to shape how their category evolves. They define the language, set expectations, and influence how buyers understand the problem. Those that stay quiet tend to follow rather than lead.
The more useful way to think about this is not in terms of how much to say, but how to say it properly.
That means being deliberate about claims. It means ensuring that anything communicated can be supported with evidence and explained in detail if required. It also means accepting that not every part of the story needs to be polished. A level of openness about challenges, trade-offs, or areas still in progress often strengthens credibility rather than weakening it.
There is a difference between overclaiming and communicating with confidence. One relies on broad statements and optimistic framing. The other is grounded in specifics, supported by data, and clear about its limitations.
Most audiences can recognise that difference quickly.
Corporate examples over the past year show both ends of the spectrum. Some organisations have faced backlash for overstated claims that did not hold up under scrutiny. Others have quietly scaled back communication to the point where their sustainability efforts are almost invisible. Neither position creates a strong foundation for trust.
The companies that are navigating this more effectively are taking a more balanced approach. They continue to communicate, but with greater precision. They focus on what can be demonstrated, not just what is intended. They align their messaging with recognised standards, and they make it easier for stakeholders to understand how claims are constructed.
This is not about playing it safe. It is about being clear.
And clarity, in this context, tends to be more valuable than either volume or restraint.
Final Thought
Greenwashing drew attention because it exposed how easily sustainability narratives could drift away from reality.
Greenhushing risks creating a different kind of disconnect, where companies have something meaningful to say but choose not to say it at all.
Neither approach builds trust.
The companies that stand out now are not the loudest or the quietest. They are the ones that communicate with enough clarity and confidence that their claims can be understood, tested, and ultimately believed.
Explore how Third Hemisphere helps build credible, high-impact companies