Photo: Getty Images/Bim
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
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you see more benefits than drawbacks in companies toning down or not openly discussing their green targets? Does “green hushing” work against overall decarbonization progress?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
This is more a planning problem than it is a PR problem. If companies can set thoughtful, realistic goals and then put plans in place to communicate, monitor and measure (and achieve) those goals, then the PR will take care of itself.
I have to agree with you here. It’s a planning problem first, communication problem second. I have worked for two different companies that changed their logo to appear more eco-friendly but had no real plans to reduce their emissions or footprint. A marketing and PR decarbonization decoy at its best. Ugh.
That’s awful, Karen. Such an obvious PR problem just waiting to happen….
Hitting net zero targets will be hard. There is no doubt about it. But “green hushing” will not only work against overall decarbonization progress, it will cause long term brand damage. While it might feel easier in the short term to suppress information, brave brands – ones that value their long term longevity, credibility and legacy over the impact of short term news cycles – will set goals and publish them, but also be open about the challenges they face in achieving them, and how they plan to mitigate those challenges. Taking full ownership and responsibility is always the best path forward when it comes to building brand trust. Smart PR teams have many strategies for turning a “crisis” into a positive brand event. I have no doubt they can do the same with their green goal communications as long as their CEOs and CMOs are brave enough to let them.
This is not something that is going to go away and companies have to get their house in order and plan, execute and report properly. Younger generations do take this very seriously and will vote with their feet and dollars — the companies that are genuine and those that are not. Green hushing can only be a very short term strategy but companies have to sort this out and be open about their progress.
Greenwashing versus green hushing? Can we simplify this discussion by just telling the truth? No more, no less. A headline of actual accomplishments will be better for progressive environmental initiatives. If you want to come first in the race, you must first run the race.
This is an interesting trend, damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Investors, regardless of politics, want the companies they invest in to have a strategy for resiliency. They want to invest in companies with plans for growth and that will be vibrant and profitable for the long term. These companies, in turn, want resilient supply chains; they want to know where operations will be affected by storms or rising sea levels. These aren’t political discussions; these are relevant and increasingly acute environmental conditions that must be accounted for in long-range strategic plans. And, like any plan, more transparency is better for the brand and its investors.
It’s a sad day when companies concerned about the impact of climate change, the over-harvesting of raw materials, or human rights issues are getting backlash for being proactive in addressing these problems. Ultimately, what’s good for business will sway the doubters and tamp down on any backlash from all but the most ideological zealots.
There is a lot to be said for companies that are doing the right thing and communicating about it honestly. Denying reality or hushing things up won’t be a good look for companies as the climate change problem heats up, literally.
Well if corporations are “people,” don’t they have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
In my mind, this question is confusing two different things: “hushing” implies silence about something one would — or should — normally talk about. But really, the only reason one would talk about most of these things is because they were publicized in the first place. So yes, if you “can’t walk the walk then you shouldn’t talk the talk.” But that’s different than just not talking about it, period. Really this whole issue just points out the perils — or folly — of trying to put marketing spin on ESG goals: better to do — even small — than promise big, and do nothing.