Is it so bad if brands shut up?!
I can think of worse things than greenhushing, if it even exists.
Caught Green Handed is a monthly newsletter interrogating fashion, capitalism and greenwashing. If you like what you read, subscribe to get the next one sent straight to your inbox 🫶
No matter how many reports, news articles and infographics try to convince me of the dangers of greenhushing, I don’t buy that this “trend” is paralysing the fashion industry. I’m not even sure it exists.
Greenhushing describes when a company deliberately withholds information about its environmental efforts and achievements. The motivations for this vary. The story usually goes that brands are scared to speak up in the face of increased public scrutiny and global regulations. Others, like Planet Tracker, argue that underreporting is actually a sophisticated form of greenwashing used to evade investor scrutiny.
According to Google Trends, the term "greenhushing" has been around since at least 2017 but first shot to fame five years later. This is the same year Swiss carbon finance consultancy South Pole published its 2022 Net Zero report which revealed that 23% of the brands assessed hadn’t publicised their science-based target milestones beyond what is mandated.
For South Pole, this data documented the rise of greenhushing but The NewClimate Institute isn’t convinced, arguing that the methodologically limited findings should be taken with caution. Its own in-depth analyses across more than 70 corporate climate strategies since 2022 shows the opposite, that “there is little empirical evidence proving its existence as an actual trend”.
The evidence of greenhushing in the fashion industry is even more lacking. South Pole’s report surveyed over 1,200 large companies with net zero targets across 12 different countries and multiple sectors. The fashion sector accounted for 7% of survey respondents which equates to a small sample size of 84 brands. Without knowing which brands were surveyed, how representative they are of the global fashion industry and what they individually and collectively said, the data hardly seems conclusive.
A year and a half ago, Brett Matthews reasoned that “we are seeing more sustainability claims than ever in the fashion space - even by ultra-fast fashion brands. This certainly was not the case a decade ago”. I’d say this verdict still rings true today.
The CMA’s investigation into Boohoo, ASOS and Asda and subsequent warning to the wider fashion industry didn’t lead to a sustainability comms blackout. Asda is currently displaying misplaced sustainability signs amidst its range of sequin-studded clothes, while Boohoo and ASOS’ sustainability pages are still live. We live in a world where the antithesis of sustainability, Shein, can pretend to be part of the solution. Even the Fashion Transparency Index has generally shown an upward trend in industry-wide transparency since 2017. Greenhushing where?
What many are calling greenhushing, others frame as a temporary response to a global greenwashing crackdown. Abbie Morris argues that we are in a period of green claims correction, a time where businesses are retracting their sustainability promises (or lies!) to align with regulation. Brett Matthews agrees that what we’re actually seeing is brands “no longer making claims which cannot be substantiated”. The NewClimate Institute’s research found that major companies are merely retracting unsupported carbon neutrality claims. This is surely a cause for celebration - not concern.
Others are not so convinced, arguing that greenhushing is an unintended albeit serious consequence of said regulations. RepRisk’s third annual greenwashing report warns that while “increased public and regulatory scrutiny of corporate environmental claims is essential” for curbing greenwashing, “it may also encourage greenhushing”.
In this highly questionable Forbes article, the author similarly cautions that public criticism and the risk of penalties will see companies “retreat from taking bold action or any action”. Greenhushing, he continues, restricts transparency and collaboration but I’d argue that this is a historic symptom of neoliberal capitalism. The fashion industry is no stranger to secrecy and competition, and greenhushing certainly isn’t to blame for this. I also struggle with his suggestion that “well intentioned” corporations are victims of unfair greenwashing accusations but that’s another point entirely.
Where we agree is that greenwashing now carries a hefty financial risk. In the UK, the CMA will soon have the power to fine up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. If that’s not a big enough deterrent for billionaire-owned brands, the reputational risk - research suggests that customers are less likely to buy from brands guilty of misleading consumers about their environmental credentials - may carry more bite.
But what’s really interesting is that there’s public appetite for harsher sanctions. A recent survey asked a “nationally representative sample of 1,000 people in the UK” their opinions on environmental litigation. 77% of respondents agreed that greenwashing should lead to legal consequences. When asked what these consequences should be, 69% said issue a public apology; 63% said pay a fine equivalent to 10% of global turnover; 61% said pay compensation to customers; and 54% said criminally prosecute the directors, including possible jail time. Clearly, brands could have it much worse.
And that’s why this fear-mongering narrative just doesn’t stack up. If your sustainability (for lack of a better word) efforts are genuine and you have the data to support this, what do you have to be scared of? There really is no excuse for fashion brands to greenwash in 2024, especially after the CMA issued this detailed, sector-specific guidance.
Will some marketers still feel overwhelmed or confused about what they can and can’t say? Undoubtedly. Will they now be more cautious about the green claims they make? Yes, as they should. But anecdotal evidence of regulation anxiety isn’t proof of an industry-wide greenhushing problem threatening to push sustainability off the agenda when big fashion never meaningfully engaged with it in the first place.
What’s worse is that warnings of greenhushing sometimes read as outright defences of greenwashing. Take this Tatler Asia article for example which declares that greenwashing - in the author’s eye, a purely accidental act?! - is “positive” when it “offers brands a slow transition to the sustainability model”. Needless to say that greenwashing is an obstacle, not an enabler of change. It makes progress seem far greater than it is and delays-and-distracts from the real problems at hand. As Brett Matthews writes, “the suggestion that we ‘cannot afford to wait for perfection’ on green claims is disingenuous”.
You really have to question the legitimacy of greenhushing once the fossil fuel industry starts crying about it. Oil advocates argue that anti-greenwashing rules in Canada will silence the industry but I have not seen any proof of this in countries with similar guidelines. For weeks, I was tormented by this Wes Anderson style advert for Shell’s “powering progress” (lol) campaign which is now being investigated by the UK Advertising Standards Agency for greenwashing. Just last month, seemingly emboldened by Keir Starmer’s commitment to spend £22 billion on BS carbon capture schemes, BP is promoting its own BS efforts on the tube.
Trust me when I say I’d much prefer it if the fossil fuel giants behind a multi-billion, multi-decade disinformation campaign did finally shut up. I’m also fed up of seeing the same big fashion brands be praised for the same tokenistic moves at the same conferences and awards. If greenhushing simply means brands stop paying lip-service to sustainability and greenwashing *poof* disappears, I’m in but this is not an accurate reflection of the fashion industry today.
At a time when we need more transparency and accountability, greenhushing is an unnecessary distraction. There are so many systemic issues in fashion that truly need our attention but greenhushing is not one of them, not while exploitation, waste and pollution and overt claims of the opposite persist.
The Bottom Line
Important things to read and do
Wages not warrants - call on NEXT, Matalan, Primark and M&S to end the criminalisation of workers in Bangladesh
This is your reminder that collective action works! After years of pressure, Levi’s has committed to protecting workers in Pakistan
I explained why fashion brands are deliberately putting their energy into the wrong things for Katie Robinson’s podcast
Decolonize Palestine’s brilliant rainbow washing resource exposes the tactics underpinning Israel’s “green” and “socially progressive” self-projection
Tansy Hoskins talks candidly about the ways we could really improve the footwear industry
With Cop29 around the corner, host Azerbaijan is using the event to ‘peacewash’ its global image
Did you enjoy this post? Here are a few ways you can show some love:
1️⃣ Subscribe to get the next addition directly in your inbox 💌
2️⃣ Share this post with someone who’ll also enjoy it📣
3️⃣ Join the conversation by hearting, commenting and/or restacking this post 💬
4️⃣ Gift a virtual coffee: I’ll never put my content behind a paywall so Ko-fi is a small and completely optional way to support my work 🫶