The cost of quiet — Why greenhushing persists in a world that demands transparency

Sustainability has become a corporate battleground. Every organisation, from small enterprises to multinational giants, is under pressure to showcase their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) efforts. 

Yet, many businesses are staying quiet, choosing to focus on action rather than conversation. This phenomenon, known as greenhushing, is a calculated decision to avoid the noise and get on with the work.

In Singapore, greenhushing is more common than many assume. A report by sustainability consultancy South Pole found that nearly 40 percent of companies here are withholding their climate targets from public discussion. It’s not because they aren’t doing anything. They are. But in a world that demands perfection, businesses have learned that saying too much, too soon, can do more harm than good.

The fear that fuels silence

Today, businesses are caught in a paradox. The demand for greater transparency has never been higher, yet the cost of making bold sustainability claims can be unforgiving. Organisations that step forward risk being accused of greenwashing — whether fairly or not. The mere suggestion of exaggerating sustainability efforts can trigger reputational damage, legal consequences, and lost consumer trust.

This scrutiny isn’t unfounded. Major corporations such as Volkswagen, H&M, and Nestlé have been publicly scrutinised for misleading sustainability claims, often facing lawsuits and financial penalties. 

The result is a business climate where companies are hesitant to speak about their ESG initiatives, fearing that their efforts will never be seen as “enough” or that their intentions will be misinterpreted.

For smaller companies with fewer resources to withstand public scrutiny, the risks are even greater. Unlike industry giants that can weather PR crises, smaller firms often choose discretion over exposure. In such cases, greenhushing isn’t about inaction; it’s about survival.

Another factor driving silence is the overwhelming complexity of ESG reporting. Sustainability commitments are no longer about broad goals — they demand detailed, verifiable data that can withstand audits and regulatory inspections. 

Singapore’s upcoming mandatory climate-related disclosures, effective for listed companies in 2025 and for large private firms in 2027, reflect this growing complexity. Businesses are expected to monitor supply chain emissions, set science-based targets, and adhere to international frameworks like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

For companies still figuring out the intricacies of emissions tracking and carbon offsetting, publicising their ESG plans prematurely can expose gaps in their knowledge, inviting unwanted attention from regulators and consumers alike.

When Greenhushing makes sense

Still, greenhushing has its defenders. Some businesses argue that real impact happens behind closed doors, away from the pressure to meet arbitrary public expectations. 

They believe that the push for corporate sustainability has, at times, become more about optics than actual progress. By focusing on internal processes rather than external messaging, these companies can achieve their goals without distraction.

Luxury brands have embraced this philosophy for years. Companies such as Hermès and Loro Piana have built sustainability into their business operations but have opted for a discreet approach. Rather than announcing ambitious net-zero goals, they quietly implement responsible sourcing practices, circular design methods, and long-term investments in sustainable materials. Their sustainability story is told through the quality and longevity of their products rather than through press releases.

In highly competitive industries, greenhushing also provides a strategic advantage. Revealing too much, too soon about sustainability strategies can allow competitors to replicate or undercut unique innovations. In sectors where differentiation is key, confidentiality can protect intellectual property and prevent premature scrutiny that could derail ambitious long-term plans.

Strategic transparency in action

Patagonia, often seen as the gold standard of corporate sustainability, provides an interesting counterpoint to greenhushing. While the outdoor apparel brand is transparent about its environmental efforts, it does so with a deep commitment to authenticity. 

Patagonia doesn’t flood the market with empty promises; it releases progress reports grounded in measurable impact, admitting challenges alongside successes.

In 2022, Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard announced that the company would transfer ownership to a trust dedicated to fighting the climate crisis, ensuring that all future profits — roughly $100 million annually — would go directly to environmental causes. Naysayers may cry ‘publicity stunt’, but it was, in fact, the culmination of decades of internal work on responsible production and supply chain improvements.

Patagonia’s approach is a lesson in thoughtful disclosure. The company doesn’t share every minor effort, but when it does, it has the substance to back it up. Companies embracing greenhushing could take a page from this approach — focusing on meaningful, long-term action rather than surface-level PR.

City Developments Limited (CDL), a Singapore-based real estate developer, offers a more regional example of quiet sustainability leadership. CDL has been embedding green building practices and sustainable financing into its operations for decades, but it does so with a measured approach. Instead of marketing every incremental improvement, CDL focuses on achieving tangible environmental milestones.

Since formalising its sustainability efforts in 1995, CDL has rolled out initiatives such as energy-efficient buildings, a zero-burning policy across its operations, and green bond issuances to fund eco-friendly projects. 

CDL was also the first Singaporean real estate company to have its carbon reduction targets validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Despite these achievements, the company avoids excessive marketing around its efforts, opting instead to focus on impact-driven sustainability efforts that align with regulatory requirements and long-term business resilience.

The cost of quiet

But let’s not pretend greenhushing is without risk. Staying silent for too long creates a vacuum, and in that silence, assumptions take root. Investors are increasingly looking for ESG transparency as a benchmark for long-term resilience, and regulators are tightening disclosure expectations. 

Companies that don’t speak up may find themselves labelled as laggards — even if they are making significant strides behind closed doors.

More importantly, collaboration suffers. Sustainability is not a solo pursuit. Businesses that keep their strategies to themselves miss out on opportunities to work with peers, share best practices, and drive collective change. The climate crisis doesn’t have time for secrecy. Progress accelerates when knowledge is shared, and greenhushing stalls that momentum.

So where does this leave companies? The answer isn’t black-and-white, but it’s also not about splitting the difference. Singapore’s incoming ESG reporting deadlines are forcing a reckoning. Waiting for compliance to dictate the narrative is risky, but so is oversharing in a landscape primed to pounce on missteps.

Maybe the real opportunity lies in treating transparency like a muscle, not a megaphone. Start small: share verifiable milestones, acknowledge gaps, and frame setbacks as part of the process. For instance, a company could disclose progress on reducing warehouse emissions while openly grappling with Scope 3 supply chain challenges. 

It’s not flashy, but it’s credible—and it preempts accusations of evasion when disclosures become mandatory.

This incremental approach does something else, too: it shifts the conversation from “Are we compliant?” to “Are we building something that lasts?” Sustainability isn’t yet another report you file; it’s the quiet decisions — like opting for lower-carbon suppliers despite higher costs, or training staff to audit waste streams — that add up over decades.

Silence may feel safe for now, but the world is moving toward a future where transparency is non-negotiable. The challenge is to tell the sustainability story in a way that’s honest, strategic, and focused on what truly matters — progress that stands the test of time.