Greenhushing vs. Greenwashing: How Corporations Fool You

Corporations have numerous ways to engage their consumers with environmental discourse. Unfortunately, they aren’t all calls to action for advocacy or posting transparent corporate social responsibility reports. Some businesses want to create an image of sustainability without communicating it accurately to customers or committing to the effort. There are several ways organizations do this, so let’s identify the differences between greenhushing vs. greenwashing.

What Is Greenhushing vs. Greenwashing?

Greenhushing is when a company is silent about its environmental objectives. Corporations may even go so far as to actively avoid answering inquiries about sustainability. They do this because they might be using exploitative measures that hurt the planet and could tarnish their reputation. 

A corporation would also be guilty of greenhushing if it actually incorporates sustainable practices, but this is a more complicated situation.

Each of these circumstances is different than greenwashing, which is when businesses deliberately try to convince customers they are more eco-friendly than they are. This manifests in numerous ways. It could be falsely advertising they use renewable energy when only 10% of their power is from solar panels. An entity could also advertise that it uses biodegradable materials, but they could be harvested from unethical sources.

A company that is greenhushing wouldn’t try to advertise these corporate qualities at all. It is a blatant disregard for environmental, social and governance reliability. However, some cases highlight even more complexities in the world of corporate social responsibility. 

Why Would a Company Greenhush?

Businesses may greenhush because they are using greener practices but don’t want to make them publicly known. 

They could do this to make sure they don’t lose interest in current stakeholders, which may relinquish continued support if a company makes itself known to use corporate resources to combat the climate crisis. Some investors don’t want their funds used in this way, and acquiring new funds if these assets are withdrawn could be arduous. 

Some may also avoid commenting on the climate crisis because of ignorance of the subject or a lack of internal support to engage in goal-setting. This can be upsetting to customers differently, but it is still harmful. 

It could suggest societal systems are oppressing the business in a way that punishes or discourages seeking environmental consults. It may also imply the organization would rather put money in other budgetary categories than environmental action.

Additionally, firms may avoid speaking out about the climate because green products are not as enticing as cheaper alternatives. People associate sustainable consumer goods with higher prices — think organic produce. Even if the product is greener, if a company fails to mention this on the packaging, then it might sell more units.

It also makes them more appealing to a wider array of customers. They are morally neutral if they don’t comment on issues like the climate crisis. While this presents a moral debacle of its own, it is inarguable that companies without political affiliations turn away fewer customers based on ethical concerns. 

What Are the Drawbacks to Greenhushing?

While a company may feel it is necessary to not speak about the climate crisis, there are more concerns than benefits. 

They can include but are not limited to:

• Losing customer loyalty
• Being accused of greenwashing 
• Jeopardizing corporate values
• Dismissing environmental compliance
• Presenting confusing brand messaging

Another disadvantage to greenhushing runs deeper within a company. It could signify a once-sustainable company is walking back on its environmental, social and governance objectives. 

This likely conflicts with previous values the company set, taking advantage or confusing customers who were previously faithful to the business because of its eco-friendly commitments. 

What Is the Relationship Between Greenhushing and Governments?

Holding companies accountable for greenhushing and greenwashing varies worldwide. There is a notable connection between federal legislative activity and how corporations brand themselves in regard to the climate crisis. Typically, organizations act to appease the direction of government action as a way to protect themselves.

For example, the U.S.’s change in administration in 2025 has encouraged more enterprises to keep quiet about environmental activities. Conservative-leaning politics are dominating, which want to make climate action a lower or nonexistent priority. In fact, they might start to downplay how much of a role they play in environmental activism despite continuing to be an integral part of that industry.

One instance is a Californian company known for its contribution to solar technologies. The CEO, Scott Graybeal, commented on how the Trump administration has caused stakeholders to reconsider how they talk about the company to the public. Graybeal went so far as to say altering the company’s language is essential to gaining receptivity across larger audiences. 

This trend is beginning because global leaders are disincentivizing vocal corporations. To keep operations alive and staff employed, they have to be unfortunately tactful. 

How Are Entites Reacting to Greenhushing?

Meanwhile, some geographies are punishing companies for greenhushing as much as they can for greenwashing. While regulatory action remains slim about this issue in particular compared to greenwashing, there are still some places laying the groundwork for more holistic guidance.

Even U.S. agencies could indirectly penalize businesses for greenhushing. For example, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has rules for naming investment funds. These names cannot be misleading, which would lead to potential greenwashing. However, they could also reveal if a corporation is being silent about the types of entities funding their mission. 

In Canada, provisions were made to the Competition Act to provide more comprehensive guidance on greenwashing and related activities. Companies must provide substantiation to environmental activities. 

Knowing How to Distinguish Greenhushing vs. Greenwashing When It Matters Most

Global warming is sending temperatures above the benchmarks set forth by the Paris Agreement, meaning humanity must do everything it can to combat harmful messaging. Simultaneously, citizens, companies, and governments must also realize the toxicity produced by withholding information from people in the form of greenhushing. If you suspect an organization you care about is straying away from promoting green projects, begin a conversation to see what you can do to normalize them instead.