Greenwashing, Greenwishing, and Greenhushing: The Truth Behind Corporate Climate Claims

Greenwashing, Greenwishing, and Greenhushing: The Truth Behind Corporate Climate Claims

As public awareness of climate change rises, so too does the pressure on companies to act - and to be seen acting - on sustainability. But beneath the marketing gloss lies a troubling spectrum of behaviours: from Greenwashing (deception) to Greenwishing (overpromising), to Greenhushing (strategic silence). Together, they risk derailing genuine climate progress at a time when every action counts.

The Danger of Greenwashing

Greenwashing refers to the act of deliberately misleading consumers or investors about the environmental practices of a company. This is often done through exaggerated or false claims, with no real substance behind the sustainability message.

A 2021 investigation by the European Commission and national consumer protection authorities found that 42% of environmental claims on company websites were “exaggerated, false, or deceptive”, with 53% offering no evidence to support their statements [1]. Phrases like “eco-friendly,” “natural,” and “green” were frequently used without measurable backing.

In the fashion industry, the Changing Markets Foundation revealed that 59% of sustainability claims made by 46 major fashion brands - including H&M, Zara, and ASOS - were misleading or unverified[2]. Many of these brands labelled synthetic-heavy garments as “green” despite lacking life-cycle assessments or evidence of improved sourcing.

Perhaps the most infamous example of greenwashing remains Volkswagen’s 2015 emissions scandal, where the automaker installed software in diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests while marketing them as “clean diesel.” The fallout cost the company over $30 billion in penalties and shattered consumer trust [3].

The Rise of Greenwishing

Greenwishing is more nuanced but equally problematic. It refers to companies making bold climate pledges without credible implementation strategies. These promises may be well-intentioned but are often disconnected from operational reality.

According to the Net Zero Tracker (2022), 69% of the world’s 2,000 largest publicly traded companies had announced net-zero targets, but only 36% had formal strategies, and just 13% had measurable interim milestones or transparency around offsets[4].

For example, Nestlé pledged net-zero emissions by 2050. However, an assessment by the New Climate Institute found that only 18% of its planned reductions could be considered credible, with the rest relying on questionable offsetting schemes or unspecified future technologies [5].

Amazon is another case in point. While it launched its high-profile “Climate Pledge” in 2019, the company removed its overall carbon footprint data from sustainability reporting in 2023, even as emissions rose by 40% compared to 2019[6].

“Most companies’ net-zero targets are just lip service,” said Thomas Day, lead author of the New Climate Institute’s Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022[5].

“The level of transparency and integrity is disturbingly low.”

At COP27, Catherine McKenna, Chair of the UN’s High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, emphasized:

“Net-zero is not a catchphrase. If you’re going to say you’re going to do it, you need a plan - and you need to back it up with action, not fantasy” [11].

In contrast, companies like Ørsted, once one of Europe’s most coal-dependent utilities, have transitioned successfully into renewables with verifiable results and transparent reporting, setting an example for what authentic climate leadership looks like.

The Silence of Greenhushing

While Greenwashing is loud and Greenwishing is aspirational, Greenhushing is marked by strategic silence. It occurs when companies intentionally choose not to publicize their environmental goals or progress, even when those targets are legitimate.

A 2022 study by climate consultancy South Pole found that 23% of companies with science-aligned climate targets chose not to disclose them publicly [7]. This includes companies from tech, finance, and manufacturing sectors that feared drawing attention, criticism, or competitive scrutiny.

Why stay quiet?

• Fear of backlash if targets fall short or strategies change.
• Avoidance of political controversy, especially in polarized markets.
• Desire to “do the work quietly” before drawing attention to early-stage initiatives.

Amazon, for example, came under fire in 2023 not only for rising emissions but also for removing key climate metrics from its public reporting [6]. Critics accused the company of greenhushing—reducing visibility just as it faced increased scrutiny.

Similarly, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, shifted away from the term “ESG” in 2023 due to political backlash, even as it continued to maintain internal climate frameworks [8]. This pivot exemplifies greenhushing: sustainability action without public transparency.

“Greenhushing is the result of companies being caught between a rock and a hard place,” said Renat Heuberger, CEO of South Pole[7].

“They want to act on climate but worry they’ll be called out for not being perfect.”

“In the absence of public accountability, climate goals risk becoming internal wish lists,” noted Dr. Laura Draucker, Director of Corporate Climate Engagement at Ceres, in Harvard Business Review[12].

“Transparency isn’t just about optics—it’s a tool for progress.”

The long-term cost of greenhushing is significant. It hinders benchmarking, stifles learning, and fosters suspicion - even when the work being done is genuine. Industry leaders like Patagonia and Interface Inc. have proven that sharing challenges alongside successes builds trust and drives authentic momentum.

Why This Matters

Together, Greenwashing, Greenwishing, and Greenhushing form a dangerous trifecta - misleading, overpromising, or simply hiding progress in ways that delay global climate action.

At a time when ESG investments are projected to reach $53 trillion by 2025 [9], public trust and transparency are more crucial than ever. Yet, a 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer survey showed that only 44% of consumers believe companies are living up to their environmental promises [10].

Without credible, visible, and science-backed action, even well-meaning efforts risk becoming distractions rather than solutions. This is why regulators and investors are raising the bar on ESG reporting.

In the U.S., the SEC has proposed rules to curb misleading ESG fund names and may soon require ESG disclosures in financial statements, making them subject to audit.  Globally, the EU’s SFDR aims to improve ESG transparency in financial products by classifying funds to help investors assess impact. Though aimed at financial firms, it may affect multinationals and private markets.

The UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements push companies to align with the Green Taxonomy, climate disclosure standards, and transition planning. These moves reflect a broader shift: stricter ESG regulations aim to enhance transparency and reduce risks of Greenwashing, Greenhushing, and Greenwishing.

Moving Forward

For companies, this means grounding climate targets in science, publishing measurable goals, and being transparent - even about shortcomings. For regulators, it means strengthening disclosure mandates and enforcing truth-in-advertising laws. And for consumers, awareness is the best defence: asking the right questions, supporting brands with verifiable impact, and demanding more than green slogans.

To mitigate ESG risks while seizing opportunities, companies should:

• Build strong ESG governance with leadership buy-in and integrate ESG into risk management.
• Educate boards and staff on ESG risks, goals, and reporting challenges.
• Stay updated on evolving regulations to ensure compliance and reduce reporting risks.
• Plan for greenwashing scenarios, especially as perceptions of carbon offsets and other tools shift.
• Remember: “Do what you say, say what you do” — transparency and accountability are key to credible ESG reporting.

Conclusion

The climate crisis demands more than marketing. It requires honesty, humility, and measurable change. As Greenwashing, Greenwishing, and Greenhushing cloud the path to sustainability, only those willing to act - and be held accountable - will lead the way forward.

How SYNE supports the industry? 

SYNE helps the industry by offering a full framework to measure and manage sustainability (Scopes 1–4). SYNE ESG ratings boost brand reputation, attract eco-conscious investors, support compliance, reduce costs, and enhance employee engagement. This drives innovation, transparency, and long-term success in a sustainability-focused market.

Please connect with us at https://www.syne.com/sales-enquiry o schedule a conversation.

References

[1]: European Commission (2021). Commission and national consumer authorities call on companies to improve their green claims. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_269

[2]: Changing Markets Foundation (2021). Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels. https://changingmarkets.org/portfolio/synthetics-anonymous

[3]: The Guardian (2020). Volkswagen’s diesel scandal costs hit $33.3bn. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/19/volkswagen-diesel-scandal-costs-33bn

[4]: Net Zero Tracker (2022). Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. https://zerotracker.net

[5]: NewClimate Institute (2022). Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022. https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2022

[6]: The New York Times (2023). Amazon’s climate promises fall short as emissions rise. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/climate/amazon-climate-emissions.html

[7]: South Pole (2022). Net Zero and Beyond: A Deep Dive on Climate Action and Transparency. https://www.southpole.com/publications/net-zero-and-beyond

[8]: Financial Times (2023). BlackRock retreats from ESG language amid political backlash. https://www.ft.com/content/d7642823-14b1-4cc2-889e-6f81c27b2e60

[9]: Bloomberg Intelligence (2021). ESG assets may hit $53 trillion by 2025. https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/esg-assets-may-hit-53-trillion-by-2025

[10]: Edelman (2023). Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change. https://www.edelman.com/research/trust-barometer-special-report-climate-change

[11]: United Nations (2022). Integrity Matters: UN Expert Group Report on Net-Zero Commitments. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/high-level-expert-group-net-zero-report.pdf

[12]: Draucker, L. (2023). What Companies Miss When They Stay Quiet About Sustainability. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/06/what-companies-miss-when-they-stay-quiet-about-sustainability