Demystifying green hushing with data-driven transparency
'Greenwashing’ has become a buzzword in corporate sustainability discussions, referring to the deceptive practice of exaggerating environmental commitments for a positive public image. However, lurking in the less-explored corners of sustainability is a subtler but potentially more damaging phenomenon: ‘green hushing’. It's the act of concealing or downplaying genuine sustainability efforts within a business, often because they worry they'll be labelled as a greenwasher.
As the spotlight intensifies on businesses to drive meaningful change in the face of environmental challenges, green hushing is emerging as a persistent and concerning issue. After all, what good is progress if it remains shrouded in secrecy, unseen and unacknowledged? In this article, we'll take a closer look at the meaning behind this term, uncover the reasons prompting businesses to 'hush up' their climate actions, and discuss how it can be avoided to ensure you’re making the most out of your sustainability efforts.
What is green hushing?
‘Green hushing’ occurs when a business downplays or silences communication around its own sustainability efforts, even when their efforts are highly successful.
Now more than ever, public scrutiny is a powerful force shaping corporate behaviour. The days of making unfounded claims about sustainability targets without consequences are dwindling - and that's how green hushing started.
Businesses are becoming increasingly cautious about making bold claims without the substantive evidence to support their sustainability initiatives. Green hushing becomes a shield against potential criticism, a calculated move to avoid the consequences of publishing insufficient targets with little evidence of active strategies for achievement.
A survey conducted by South Pole covered 1,200 large corporations in 12 countries, all of which had committed to net-zero targets. Among the surveyed companies, more than two-thirds classify themselves as 'heavy emitters.' While the majority assert having established science-based climate targets, 23% have no intentions of making these targets public.
Green hushing vs. green washing - shades of deception
It’s important not to confuse green hushing with greenwashing, though they are related.
Greenwashing occurs when a company – not always intentionally - portrays itself or its products as more environmentally friendly and sustainable than they really are. It's often driven by the desire to enhance public perception and capitalise on the growing demand for eco-conscious products and services.
While greenwashing is sometimes deliberate, green hushing is characterised by a strategic choice of silence. Both, however, share the common thread of obscuring the true extent of a company's commitment to sustainability. Whether through exaggerated claims or deliberate silence, the goal remains the same: shaping public perception.
As consumers increasingly demand authenticity and transparency, understanding the nuances of greenwashing vs green-hushing becomes imperative for fostering genuine sustainability practices.
Why are some organisations engaged in green hushing?
Why would a company choose to stay under the radar with a positive sustainability message? One significant reason is the complexity surrounding sustainable communication. Not all brands possess the know-how to articulate their sustainability endeavours effectively. As the expectations for accountability and transparency rise, driven by both consumers and regulators, this becomes a significant challenge.
Despite the mounting pressure, a majority of businesses grapple with the task of articulating their sustainability endeavours to stakeholders. According to a Euromonitor International survey, less than 25% of global companies in 2023 express confidence in the effectiveness of their sustainability communication.
Another factor contributing to under-communication is the fear of having to provide accurate data to back up claims. It is particularly pronounced among smaller companies with already limited resources, which may lack a dedicated sustainability professional that can confidently say what ‘accurate data’ even looks like.
If you use spend-based emissions rather than activity-based emissions in your reports, could you be accused of greenwashing? What if you only track Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions? What if your Carbon Roadmap isn’t as fully fleshed out as it could be? Many businesses – small and large – struggle to figure out where the line is.
Going under the radar becomes a protective shield, guarding the business from potential scrutiny and the potential accusation of greenwashing. The strain of complying with requests for data, especially when resources are scarce, can prompt companies to choose silence over transparency.
Don't risk the silence - how robust data helps you avoid green hushing
The antidote to green hushing lies in the power of robust data. Companies can harness the data and analytics accumulated over time to monitor their progress toward achieving net-zero targets. This approach discourages the practice of doing the bare minimum and deferring emissions reductions until the eleventh hour. Instead, organisations are encouraged to proactively utilise data to stay on course with their sustainability commitments.
Proving the offset investment
For companies that have invested in carbon credits or participated in carbon offset projects to counterbalance their emissions, the collected data becomes a crucial asset. This data serves as evidence, demonstrating the active and valid nature of the carbon credits or investments in carbon projects. By having a tangible record of their efforts, companies not only authenticate their commitment but also create a shield against the detrimental consequences of green hushing.
The importance of transparent carbon accounting
When companies can substantiate their carbon accounting with factual data, they protect themselves against the repercussions of green hushing. The potential fallout, such as reputational damage or facing legal actions for misrepresentation, is minimised. Transparent carbon accounting, backed by comprehensive data, becomes a powerful tool for companies to maintain their integrity, navigate the complexities of sustainability, and maintain trust with stakeholders.
Meaningful, provable certification and assurance
Government-backed certifications like NABERSNZ or popular, proven options like Green Star give companies clear and verifiable energy efficiency results that are awarded by certified third parties. That’s difficult to argue with, but these certifications only offer defence against greenwashing accusations because they’re backed up by meaningful data. The same can be said for businesses that go through climate audits – it’s far easier to be confident in communicating your successes when you’ve had a professional comb through everything and provide a definitive thumbs up.
Conclusion - breaking the silence for a sustainable tomorrow
In the face of rising expectations for sustainability accountability, organisations can shatter the silence of green hushing by adopting transparency, fuelled by robust data. By substantiating successes through carbon accounting, proving offset investments, and securing meaningful industry certifications, businesses not only communicate authentically but also contribute actively to a sustainable future.
Start as you mean to continue. Green hushing isn't something you need to worry about if you get your carbon management journey started with our Carbon Roadmap.
