In 2008, amid the global financial crisis, the Financial Times launched a provocative ad campaign. Billboards and magazine adverts appeared, stripped almost bare, with just a small panel of FT-branded copy in the top corner. The message was stark: “Global downturn. What’s the first mistake businesses make?” The implied answer was: saying nothing. By falling silent, a brand severs its vital connection with its audience, risking both operational and reputational damage.

Today, we’re grappling with a different crisis – an environmental one of unprecedented scale. Yet that lesson from the Financial Times campaign remains remarkably pertinent. In the realm of sustainability, many brands find themselves caught in “greenhush,” a term coined by an environmental consulting firm to describe businesses’ hesitation to celebrate their sustainable initiatives for fear of criticism or accusations of greenwashing.

Ironically, this silence can say more about a company’s stance on sustainability than any amount of communication. In an era where environmental concerns are paramount, a lack of dialogue can be interpreted as a lack of action or, worse, an attempt to conceal poor practices. Greenhush, intended to protect brands from scrutiny, may actually draw unwanted attention and speculation.

In the complex landscape of corporate sustainability communication, companies can fall into problematic behaviours. At one end lies greenwashing, where businesses exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental efforts, risking reputational damage. At the opposite end is greenhush. Between these extremes is “greenstalling,” where businesses hesitate to take meaningful climate action due to fear of scrutiny or being overwhelmed by complexity and compliance. Greenstalling can lead to greenhush, creating a frustrating cycle of inaction and silence.

This reticence is particularly problematic given the growing consumer and employee demand for corporate sustainability initiatives. Recent research by Deloitte underscores this shift: one in four consumers are now prepared to pay more for brands that commit to environmentally sustainable and ethical practices. This includes paying a premium for products that protect biodiversity, use sustainable packaging, or come from suppliers that respect human rights.

The stakes are just as high when it comes to attracting and retaining the best talent. Another Deloitte study reveals that a quarter of Gen Zers in the UK have turned down job offers when a company’s ESG commitments didn’t align with their values, a move known as “climate quitting.” This highlights the growing importance of sustainability not just in consumer choices, but in shaping the workforce of the future.

Both these findings demonstrate the significant risks associated with greenhush. By remaining silent about sustainability efforts, companies miss opportunities to engage with environmentally conscious consumers and risk alienating a new generation of talented employees who prioritise corporate responsibility.

Companies engaging in greenhush may inadvertently dampen their own sustainability ambitions, stifling the optimism that fuels innovation. This self-imposed silence hinders external scrutiny of targets and achievements, potentially limiting valuable knowledge-sharing and collaborative decarbonisation efforts across sectors. Moreover, greenhush can create a misalignment between a company’s actual sustainability goals and its public image, risking disappointment among stakeholders who increasingly expect transparency and active engagement on these issues.

The consequences of greenhush extend beyond reputation management. As ESG factors gain prominence in investment decisions, companies that omit or downplay their sustainability efforts may find themselves overlooked by potential investors. This trend is evidenced by the more than 3,000 organisations, representing over £100 trillion in assets, that have signed up to the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investments.

Perhaps most critically, greenhushing means missing out on the opportunity to inspire positive change and move entire industries and citizens in a more sustainable direction. According to the latest annual Trust Barometer, business is seen as both more competent and more ethical than government and media. Yet by not sharing their successes and challenges, companies fail to contribute to the collective knowledge that could accelerate the development of sustainable innovation and transition.

A 2022 survey by consultancy South Pole revealed a concerning trend: one in four companies surveyed had set science-based emission reduction targets but did not plan to publicise them. If this represents the status quo, it suggests a significant gap between companies’ internal sustainability commitments and their external communications. For some, this reluctance to communicate sustainability efforts is becoming increasingly untenable in the face of growing regulatory pressure for transparency.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in the European Union requires many large companies with operations within the bloc to share their sustainability actions and successes and to have their ESG non-financial data verified by a third party. It is a prime example of how regulation is addressing both greenwashing and greenhushing. This push for verified transparency means what’s true is true, making it harder for companies to either overstate or understate their sustainability efforts.

To truly emerge from greenhush, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. Companies that understand the advantages of communicating sustainability need to be anchored by a robust sustainability strategy. For forward-thinking businesses, sustainability strategy is evolving into the new corporate strategy. This approach should be comprehensive, addressing all significant environmental impacts of the business while playing a central role in shaping overall business objectives. By integrating sustainability at this core level, companies ensure that their environmental efforts are not siloed but rather support and drive all aspects of the business.

Brands must define clear, measurable targets for reducing their environmental impact. These might include commitments to decrease carbon footprint, pledges to eliminate single-use plastics from manufacturing processes, or intentions to source 100% renewable energy. Going deeper still, it might mean a complete overhaul of supply chains or a rethink of the entire business model. Transparency should be the cornerstone of all sustainability communications, being upfront about progress, both successes and challenges.