Five years ago, it was hard to get through an ad break without a polar bear, a sweeping drone shot of a field, a wind turbine or a promise about 2030 (which felt a long way away, rather than just around the corner). Today, however, the lofty hero campaigns seem to have gone quiet.
GlobeScan’s global consumer tracking found that the share of people who had seen at least some sustainability messaging from brands fell from 49% in 2023 to 36% in 2025. On earnings calls, Bloomberg found mentions of climate and the environment among S&P 500 companies down by around three quarters from their peak.
It would be easy to read that as brands giving up, however the evidence says something more interesting. Sustainability hasn’t disappeared from brand communications. It has moved out of the advertising and into places with less glamour and more proof: packaging, product pages, procurement tenders, certification audits and regulatory filings.
Key takeaways
-
Sustainability has moved from brand campaigns into packaging, product pages, B2B tenders, certifications and regulatory reporting, where claims are expected to be proven.
-
Greenhushing is widespread, but most companies are cutting the talk, not the work: 85% of large firms studied by HBR held steady or accelerated their climate efforts.
-
The greenwashing crackdown has raised the cost of vague claims, with CMA fines of up to 10% of global turnover in the UK and a ban on generic claims in the EU from September 2026.
-
Many brands are lowering their signal intensity, building sustainability into the product and leading with performance, price and quality.
-
Eco-specificity, meaning precise, evidenced claims, is replacing broad green messaging, and radical transparency about data is becoming the route to rebuilding trust.
The rise of greenhushing
The term greenhushing has been around since a 2017 study of tourism businesses in the Peak District, which found owners publishing only around 30% of what they were actually doing on sustainability. It went mainstream when the climate consultancy South Pole began tracking it. Its 2024 survey of more than 1,400 companies found a majority in nine of 14 sectors reducing their climate communications, with consumer goods firms the most likely to be keeping quiet.
The important detail is what they’re keeping quiet about. When Harvard Business Review looked at 75 large companies in 2025, 85% had held steady or accelerated their climate efforts, while only 13% had genuinely retreated. A UN Global Compact study of 1,900 chief executives found 88% think the business case for sustainability is stronger than it was five years ago, while only around half were willing to talk about their progress in public. Some of that is political backlash, particularly in the US. In the UK and Europe, it’s mostly about risk.
The greenwashing crackdown changed the maths
For a decade a vague green claim cost almost nothing but that’s no longer true. The CMA published its Green Claims Code in 2021, and since April 2025 the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act has let it fine companies directly, up to 10% of global turnover, without going to court first. The ASA has been ruling against green ads since HSBC’s COP26 posters in 2022, and in December 2025 it ruled against Nike, Superdry and Lacoste for describing products as “sustainable” in search ads it found using its own AI monitoring rather than complaints. In the EU, the rules applying from 27 September 2026 ban generic claims such as “eco-friendly” unless they can be proved, and ban “climate neutral” product claims based on carbon offsetting.
The cost of saying something loosely has gone up, and the benefit of saying it loudly has gone down. Greenhushing is the predictable result.
Language reframing
Where sustainability does still appear, it often comes in different clothes. The Conference Board found the word “ESG” in 40% of S&P 100 sustainability report titles in 2023 and just 6% in 2025. Larry Fink announced in 2023 that he would stop using the term altogether. In its place, companies talk about efficiency, resilience, waste reduction, durability and cost. The underlying activity is often identical. What has changed, increasingly, is the fundamental argument, which has widely transitioned from “this is good for the planet” to “this is good for the business, and also for the planet”.
The product-first trojan horse strategy
At the risk of appearing cynical, the more interesting shift is the brands that now put sustainability inside the product and say very little about it. Compass’s Levy switched a beef burger to a hybrid recipe at the same price without promoting the change. Sainsbury’s sells Fairtrade bananas at the same price as standard ones, so shoppers never have to choose. Fairphone grew shipments 42% in 2025 by selling longevity and value rather than virtue.
There’s a decent body of research behind the instinct. A study in the Journal of Advertising found that implicit green signals produced higher ratings of product performance and purchase intent than explicit ones, because shoppers can read “eco” as “less effective”. Turning the signal intensity down, in other words, can sell more of the sustainable product than shouting about it.
Eroding trust
All of this is happening against a backdrop of genuine scepticism. Mintel found 39% of Britons don’t trust brands to be honest about their environmental impact, and Kantar found 57% of people had seen false or misleading information about brands’ sustainability actions. GlobeScan found trust in the sustainability messaging people do see falling from 79% in 2022 to 65% in 2025.
That is the real risk in staying silent for too long. Greenhushing protects a brand from accusations of greenwashing, but it also leaves a vacuum that sceptics are happy to fill.
What good looks like now
The brands handling this well are swapping volume for precision. Mintel calls it eco-specificity: fewer, narrower claims that are specific, measurable and backed by evidence. “30% recycled plastic in this bottle, independently verified” rather than “better for the planet”. Behind it sits a version of radical transparency that’s less about manifestos and more about publishing the data, including the parts that aren’t flattering yet.
Sustainability hasn’t taken a backseat but it has undoubtedly moved to where the evidence lives, and brands need to communicate from there.
FAQs
About the author
Simarin Tandon | Junior Digital Account Director
Having worked with brands across the Beauty & Wellness, FMCG, FinTech, and Home & Lifestyle sectors, Simarin focuses on driving acquisition and growth, whilst managing the Digital team at brandnation.
A curious marketer, Simarin’s finger is always on the pulse when it comes to performance and digital updates across both paid and organic platforms.
Greenhushing is when a company deliberately says less about its sustainability goals and progress than it is actually doing, usually to avoid scrutiny or accusations of greenwashing. The term was first used academically in a 2017 study of UK tourism businesses.
The main reasons are regulatory risk, consumer scepticism and political backlash. In the UK, the CMA can now fine companies up to 10% of global turnover for misleading claims, and the ASA regularly rules against vague green advertising.
It carries less legal risk, but it isn’t risk-free. Silence can leave customers, investors and employees unaware of genuine progress, and it can leave room for others to define a brand’s environmental record.
It carries less legal risk, but it isn’t risk-free. Silence can leave customers, investors and employees unaware of genuine progress, and it can leave room for others to define a brand’s environmental record.
Signal intensity describes how loudly or explicitly a brand signals its green credentials. Research suggests quieter, implicit signals can perform better than explicit ones, because shoppers sometimes associate “green” with lower performance.
