While the legal and corporate vice continues to worsen on greenwashing expert companies, another equally harmful (but more subtle) posture is emerging in some communication strategies: greenhushing. Translated into French as “eco-silence” or “green silence”, the practice consists of not communicating anything about one’s environmental actions both to hide the absence of concrete measures and for fear of being crushed by radical activist movements. In any case, this trend is toxic and not recommended.
If the appearance of the term “greenhushing” dates back to just fifteen years on the initiative of the American information site specializing in the environment and sustainability, TreeHugger, it is only recently that the concept has begun to gain a certain foothold. Greenhushing is in a certain sense a side effect of the infamous greenwashing which for several decades has been cheerfully practiced by many companies to make their communication green, pass themselves off as good students of the ecological transition and convince consumers and citizens of their virtuous products. By dint of having dragged the devil by the tail, the adepts of eco-laundering are now increasingly severely sanctioned on a legal level and hit by virulent campaigns by activists who denounce them (which does not prevent some from persisting, however).
Avoid communicating to protect reputation ?
Faced with the increasingly proven reputational risk generated by a greenwashing strategy, companies are now opting for silence. Word and mouth sewn, they no longer publicly mention their actions concerning sustainable development and social responsibility. Primary objective: to disappear from the radar screens of NGOs and environmental associations that constantly track down environmentalist discourses involving cheating and abuse of language. Thus, the brand image of the company is safe from accusations and protected from controversies often amplified by the media.
This fear of being scrutinized and potentially becoming a target to be shot actually pushes companies into closed-door politics to such an extent that 25% of large private companies refuse to comment on their pro-environmental actions. This data emerges from a study conducted in 2022 by the environmental consultancy company South Pole through a panel of 1,200 companies from 15 different sectors of activity and 12 countries around the world. A silence explained by Karine Basso, one of the authors of the study (1): ” The media, NGOs and consumers are increasingly interested in what companies are doing in this area, which explains why companies are more reluctant than before to communicate these goals. ».
Say nothing for fear of being accused of… greenwashing
The reluctance really exists among those who actually do nothing or are content with minimal operations like funding the reforestation of trees somewhere on the planet to offset the carbon emissions of their businesses. For them, the risk of being discovered is obviously a more than probable hypothesis. The problem is, greenhushing isn’t just the preserve of sustainability dumbasses who think that keeping quiet helps them slip through the cracks.
Other companies, which nonetheless make convincing efforts in this area, nevertheless prefer to adopt the lowest possible profile for fear of being accused of … greenwashing. It’s true that environmental critics generally don’t mind the frills when it comes to disparaging a company. In their militant imagination, a company is necessarily an incompatible enemy of nature, climate and biodiversity. Therefore, even sincere, solidly committed and concrete actions are quickly suspected of intentional recovery and sometimes the victim of unfair or disproportionate media trials.
Head of sustainable development at Nespresso France, Clémence Nutini confirms that her company is sometimes fearful when it comes to publicizing its actions (2): “ At Nespresso we want to have a long-term trial before communicating. Not all brands are in this line. Therefore we have not communicated on the actions taken, even if extensive. We are perhaps a little too discreet. The balance is super tricky, because as soon as Nespresso communicates a good deed, there are still criticisms ».
A persistent phenomenon
It is true that in these times, when binary radicalism has never been so successful in social debates, there is a great temptation to ignore environmental initiatives to avoid receiving a tornado of loud and reputation-damaging criticism . A phenomenon proves it. In France since 2012, any company with more than 500 employees is required to submit a carbon report quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions related to its activities. In 2021, the Agency for the ecological transition (ADEME) found that 57% of companies had not complied with the legal obligation (3).
Lack of time and resources for some, an exercise too complex for others or considered non-priority, there is no shortage of justifications to explain this silent avoidance, especially since the penalty foreseen in the event of non-publication is only 10,000 euros, therefore not really a deterrent . Problem: even if the organizations engaged in real operations of ecological transition begin to rave about the subject, it will become very difficult to demonstrate that progress has been made in any case, even if it does not necessarily go at the speed desired by the most intransigent. An environmental transformation cannot be decreed or implemented in a short period of time.
Assume rather than evade
Founder of the Be Social Communication agency in French-speaking Switzerland, Magali Di Marco deplores this phenomenon which paralyzes the communication of many companies that still have authentic things to promote (4): “ Greenhushing is very worrying because it impedes general awareness of climate issues. Just because we’re a major polluter doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the efforts we’re making. Many SMEs are making climate-friendly choices, but are keeping quiet for fear of being seen as activists or being stigmatized about what remains to be done. He is ignoring the responsibility of their role model ».
This shift towards a desired or suffered silence is clearly not a recommendable option. While it may indeed expose you to criticism, transparency is always preferable to silence. In this world of hyperinformation and hyperconnection, the latter now has all the attributes of a suspect. Saying nothing implies in the eyes of many that they have something to be ashamed of and, in fact, that they have a suspicious status from which it will then be very difficult to free themselves. Greenhushing doesn’t solve anything in the short or long term.
If objections to the environmental actions carried out by companies have to be formulated, it is good to welcome them with interest (provided, of course, that they are well-founded and do not fall within the militant doxa) and consider them as a further lever for improvement. No company is immediately perfect. And this point can very well be heard by the public if the communication is sincere, precise, factual and free of manipulative ulterior motives such as greenwashing is so good at inculcating. Especially since the communication on one’s own sites must also be accompanied by the opinion of independent experts and trusted third parties who will come to validate the reality of the actions undertaken. Silence is not a viable option despite its enticing side.
