‘Greenhushing’ is a trend that leaves businesses downplaying their environmental wins
- Written by Marta Nieto-Garcia, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Portsmouth, Universidad de Salamanca
These days, institutions and companies love to announce what they’re doing to tackle the climate crisis. Terms like “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly” and “low-carbon” are often used to trumpet messages about production and consumption. But in reality, the claims are not always accompanied by real, effective action – a shady practice known as greenwashing.
But at the same time, other companies are not communicating their sustainability[1] actions.
This phenomenon is known as “greenhushing”[2] and it could be just as dangerous as greenwashing. When organisations downplay their efforts, the broader sustainability conversation can be weakened – and the opportunity for businesses to be agents of social change could be lost.
But why would companies deliberately hide things that they are doing well?
Our research[3] has investigated how and why organisations take part in greenhushing. We focused particularly on how this occurs in service organisations, such as those in the travel sector.
First, we examined the communication strategies of 300 UK hotels across three channels: hotel websites, profiles on travel site Booking.com, and social media platforms. We found that 62% of UK hotel websites do not include sustainability information, with only 2% of social media posts referring to it.
Although booking platforms signal the sustainability of hotels that have third-party certifications, hotel websites often don’t provide much explanation in this regard. This highlights the gap between implementing practices and effectively communicating them to potential customers.
Next, we dug deeper into the reasons for this by interviewing marketers across service sectors, including accommodation, food and wellness.
We uncovered three main reasons for the tendency towards not communicating – or even hiding – sustainability actions. First, managers spoke of reputational risks, highlighting their fear of being accused of greenwashing.
This is risky when companies are not genuinely committed to the sustainability cause, but instead adopt a superficial approach[4] to it. But when a business has genuinely made efforts towards more sustainable practices, transparent communication – supported by evidence of what action they have taken – could prevent damage to reputations.
They could, for example, enrich their communications with photos of their environmental initiatives (things like before-and-after photos of an upgrade to energy-efficient lighting, for example).
They could also demonstrate the effectiveness of their actions (how much they’ve cut food waste, perhaps) or show their commitment to improving ecosystems (such as restoring green spaces at a location where they operate).
Second, managers said they lacked confidence about the effectiveness of their sustainability practices. But this uncertainty stands in contrast to the increasing public demand for companies to take action on sustainability. Businesses need to make sure employees feel confident in talking about how powerful and meaningful their sustainability actions can be.
To support this, organisations should ensure employees have the resources and systems to understand and engage in sustainability efforts.
Providing tools that demonstrate the impact of their work on the planet can boost employees’ confidence – and their motivation to make a difference. This involves not only offering performance measures but also creating a culture of care and implementing policies that strengthen employees’ connections to nature in their communities.
For example, companies might use immersive experiences[5] or visualisations[6] to help employees grasp the business’s impact on the natural environment.
Finally, many service managers highlighted that instead of communicating good practice, they relied on sustainability certifications provided by third-party institutions (such as the Booking.com Travel Sustainable programme) to do the talking for them.
Trusted certification schemes can help consumers make decisions on who to buy from – or who to work for. But consumers don’t always understand all these certifications. The sheer number can make it difficult for the public to know which ones are credible or relevant.
Over-reliance on certifications can even be risky: scepticism towards some schemes means that consumers may lose trust in the business if the certification badge it displays loses credibility in some way. And taken alone, they may offer little insight into the specific actions a company may be taking.
To build trust, it would be better for organisations to go beyond the label and provide clear, accessible, comprehensive information about their specific sustainability actions. Inviting employees to publicly share the company’s commitments and initiatives can make its stance on sustainability more tangible and credible.
Greenhushing is not just a missed marketing opportunity – it is a missed opportunity for progress. When companies choose to stay silent about their sustainability efforts for fear of negative consequences, it stifles discourse and limits the exchange of ideas that could inspire broader environmental change.
Open communication lets businesses share best practice, acknowledge challenges and learn from one another. More importantly, it enables consumers to hold companies to account while encouraging and rewarding responsible behaviour. The sustainability dialogue needs to be nurtured so that businesses have the opportunity to act as genuine agents of social change.
References
- ^ sustainability (theconversation.com)
- ^ “greenhushing” (theconversation.com)
- ^ research (www.tandfonline.com)
- ^ superficial approach (theconversation.com)
- ^ immersive experiences (wildsteps.com)
- ^ visualisations (journals.sagepub.com)
- ^ Ksenija Toyechkina/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
