When it comes to communicating about their environmental initiatives, societal trends appear to be following a pendulum, and the constant motion makes it difficult to establish any clear standards.

The metaphorical pendulum first started moving many decades ago, when consumers and regulators began insisting that companies take responsibility for their effects on the environment and adopt more sustainable practices. In parallel with engaging in such activities, companies were expected to report on them. More firms added dedicated “responsibility” sections to their annual reports, and many consumer packaged goods sellers highlighted their efforts (e.g., citing the amount of recycled content on the packaging), for consumers to find easily and clearly. 

The benefits of such efforts, for consumers, society, and the environment, but also for the firms, which could use their environmentally friendly efforts as a distinctive selling proposition, moved the pendulum along. Unethical firms could make claims that were not supported by their actions, or simply exaggerate the care they were taking. Such practices became labeled greenwashing—that is, covering unsustainable activities with a misleading cloak of green claims.

In response, various regulatory bodies have cracked down on what companies can and should say about their green efforts. For example, regulators in France clarified the criteria that were required before a company could assert that its operations were carbon-neutral. In Australia, more strict rules define what “net-zero” emissions really means. Other mandates specify exactly what companies can include in their annual reports and set standards for claims of environmental stewardship.

Faced with such strict rules, some companies have begun to follow the pendulum in the other direction. Rather than touting their environmental efforts, they are avoiding any such claims, to avoid backlash against them if they fail to meet ambitious goals. Fewer companies include specific environmental goals in their annual reports. In this shift, the new trend is green hushing—that is, avoiding discussion of environmental goals whatsoever, regardless of whether the company is pursuing them or not.

Such trends have different implications for ethical versus unethical companies. For the former, assuming their sincere pursuit of ambitious sustainability goals, green hushing represents an unfortunate and potentially detrimental trend. Imagine for example if a firm announces that it wants to be 99 percent carbon neutral by the end of the year, but despite its best efforts, it only achieves 92 percent. That firm could be subject to sanctions if rules limit the claims that companies can make about their environmental efforts. But if it never announces its ambitious goals, customers have no way of knowing which companies are at least trying.For unethical firms, which seek only to exploit the benefits of environmentally friendly claims without engaging in efforts to achieve those outcomes, green hushing may imply more positive outcomes. It offers a form of consumer protection, because these companies lose the opportunity to make unsubstantiated claims when regulators insist that they prove the benefits they promise. If they are silent, it might not be benefiting the environment, but at least they are not misleading consumers anymore.

Discussion Questions

1. Where should the pendulum rest, ideally, to ensure ethical green claims that appropriately inform consumers? 
2. What ethical considerations does a company need to take into account when deciding how much of its own sustainability efforts to disclose?

Sources: Alice Uribe, “More Companies Decide Silence Is Golden When Going Green,” The Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2024; Ephrat Livni, “Go Green, Then Go ‘Dark’?” The New York Times, nd; Maxine Joselow, “ ‘Greenhushing’: Why Some Companies Quietly Hide Their Climate Pledges,” Washington Post, July 13, 2023