If consumers feel that brands are not talking about sustainability as frequently as they did two or three years ago, it is not an illusion—this is indeed the case.

Although climate change is increasingly important to consumers—especially younger generations who are more inclined tosupport brands that take a stand and align with their values—concerns about being accused of "greenwashing" are prompting marketers to rethink how they publicly disclose data and information related to sustainability initiatives.

Carbon project developer and climate advisory firmSouth Pole's annual Net Zero report, released in January,shows that based on a survey of 1,400 companies, 58% recently stated they are cutting back on sustainability-related communications. The data indicates for the first time that the phenomenon of "greenhushing" has emerged across all major industry sectors.

This silence comes against a backdrop of increasing instances where brands are called out for greenwashing when their marketing does not match actual environmental actions. A 2023 report from RepRisk, an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data science research firm, noted that greenwashing casesincreased by 35% year over year。

"The crackdown on greenwashing has indeed made many companies think twice before speaking," said Wren Montgomery, Associate Professor of Sustainability at Ivey Business School and co-founder of the anti-greenwashing research organization Greenwash Action Lab. "They may actually be taking action internally and trying to make changes, but they are just being more cautious about their claims, avoiding overstatement."

When companies that emphasize ESG positions face backlash, the damage to the brand is often difficult to repair easily. Take Volkswagen as a classic example of a brand called out for greenwashing—in 2015, the company was found to have tampered with emissions data to align with greener marketing messages,and the brandand the companydid not recover quickly from it. The automaker is on a list alongside McDonald's, Nespresso, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola that have faced similar criticism.

From greenwashing to greenhushing

After sustainability became a focus for many marketers for several years, a significant portion are now clearly holding back when sharing related initiatives. However, this is not an entirely new trend.

Some reportstrace the earliest mentions of the term "greenhushing" back to 2017. In fact, South Pole already noted the acceleration of this trend in its 2022 annual report—despite having emission reduction targets, a quarter of surveyed companies did not plan to publicly disclose information about those plans.

But the trend has intensified following more legal cases involving false advertising lawsuits (i.e., greenwashing allegations). For example,fast-fashion retailer H&Mand footwear and apparel brand Allbirds, among others, have faced lawsuits for positioning their products and production processes as environmentally friendly. Although the cases were ultimately dismissed, these brands still had to deal with subsequent criticism from consumers and themedia.

"In my view, greenwashing often stems from insufficient education rather than deliberate deception," said Raja Rajamannar, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer at Mastercard. "Marketers must fully understand sustainability terminology, understand the impact of their actions, and communicate transparently with consumers."

Meanwhile, the United States and Europe are increasing pressure on brands to disclose emissions data—which is still currently voluntary. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which established the Green Guides in 1992, has continued to update them as public awareness of climate change and cultural attitudes evolve, with the latest version expected to be released later this year.

Taking terms like "green," "sustainable," and "eco-friendly" as examples,the FTC is pushing for the use of more specific languageso that consumers can make informed decisions based on their own priorities and needs. The Guides also require brands to clearly state goals and timelines when claiming to achieve net zero emissions.

"Companies realize that regulation is changing, and in a regulatory uncertain environment, the easiest or safest approach is to hold steady and wait to see how things unfold," said Austin Whitman, CEO and co-founder of the nonprofit The Change Climate Project.

Less information means less accountability

Given the high stakes, it is logical that brands would prefer to pull back from public communications to avoid potential lawsuits or PR backlash.

"This retreat puts brands back in a position of merely collecting data without genuinely attempting to report on plans for performance improvement," Whitman said.

One of the biggest drawbacks of greenhushing is the loss of momentum. Although sustainability initiatives will not disappear entirely, public promotion keeps them prominent in the minds of consumers and other marketers. Without openly sharing research, progress, and even mistakes, marketers cannot learn from one another or maintain competitive vitality in developing different approaches.

"Collaboration and the exchange of best practices are essential for advancing our shared environmental stewardship goals," Rajamannar said.

Whitman noted that this is not the first time the industry has experienced a contraction in green conversations. The previous carbon reduction "cycle" about 15 years ago was interrupted by a loss of momentum, resulting in a lost decade of experimentation and development. But given the severity of climate change now, "we cannot afford to lose momentum," he said.

In fact, marketing around sustainability has an "inherent cyclicality," he added. Brands that began exploring green initiatives about five years ago enjoyed a grace period for experimentation in the first few years. Then they faced internal scrutiny—whether the initiative makes business sense and can deliver return on investment for the brand—which is exactly the stage the industry is at now.

"So, brands actually benefit from talking less about their sustainability initiatives," Whitman said, "because by saying less, they are exposed to less scrutiny and, frankly, lower risk."

Transparency promotes accountability

Montgomery of Greenwash Action Lab believes that greenhushing may not be entirely a bad thing. Although brands are holding back on publicly sharing sustainability goals and plans, there may be more transparency within the industry itself.

With stricter regulations like the Green Guides and other pushback against greenwashing, brands are more reluctant to call products "green" or "eco-friendly" without supporting evidence. But this does not mean they have paused efforts to reduce emissions and develop more environmentally friendly products.

South Pole's research and reporting by the nonprofit climate advocacy news organizationGristboth confirm this. Among the surveyed public companies, 89% have net zero targets, and more than three-quarters of climate-conscious brands are increasing budgets to achieve these goals.

"Everyone is trying to act responsibly and in the right way," said John Osborn, U.S. Director of the industry organization Ad Net Zero. "But sometimes it is hard to know the best way forward, which is why being transparent about what works and what does not becomes crucial."

Without transparency, each brand may be working toward similar goals in its own information vacuum, with no way to judge whether it is heading in the right direction.

Overall, the brands and executives that Montgomery of Greenwash Action Lab has engaged with want to take the right actions but are afraid of making a misstep.

"This is exactly where I think some of the new regulations will play a role," she said. "They will create a more level playing field where people are no longer just guessing."