Sustainability has undeniably became a key driver and focus of corporate strategy, shaping everything from investment decisions to consumer loyalty. However, as more companies pursue environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, they are increasingly scrutinized for their efforts, often facing accusations of “greenwashing.” This is leading to an emerging phenomenon known as “green-hushing,” where companies intentionally downplay or even retreat from their sustainability efforts to avoid accusations of insincerity or legal repercussions. As this trend continues, at EnableGreen, we observe that while the sustainability job market is growing, it is also shifting towards a compliance-focused and minimalist approach as companies navigate the risks and responsibilities of sustainability within an increasingly complex regulatory environment.

Greenwashing refers to companies exaggerating or misrepresenting their environmental efforts to appeal to consumers, investors, or regulators without backing their claims with substantive action. KPMG defines greenwashing as an unstatic concept – ‘it occurs on a spectrum, ranging from outright deceit to wishful thinking‘. This has led to a wave of lawsuits and regulatory actions, particularly in industries like fashion, finance, and consumer goods, where misleading sustainability claims have been rampant. Another similar concept is Greenwishing, or unintentional greenwashing, describes a practice where a company hopes to meet certain sustainability commitments but simply does not have the wherewithal to do so. Driven by the pressure to set ambitious sustainability goals, companies can find themselves committing to targets that they cannot realistically achieve, perhaps because of financial, technological or organizational constraints. Failing to achieve these targets can undermine trust in these companies and in the broader system.

On the oher hand, Greenhushing or Green Hushing describes companies that hesitate to set ambitious public sustainability goals—or even scale back on existing ones—due to fears of being labeled as greenwashers. This trend is often accompanied by reduced transparency and communication, also called green silence about sustainability efforts, as companies seek to avoid the regulatory and reputational risks associated with publicizing their environmental initiatives.

​The rise of green-hushing in the last 2 years is having a marked effect on the sustainability job market, with companies becoming more cautious about hiring for ESG roles. For example, major banks and corporations have reduced their hiring targets for sustainability roles due to concerns about overreporting and compliance burdens. Rather than proactively advancing their sustainability agendas, these companies are scaling back, focusing instead on mitigating risks.

​Industries are scaling back on sustainability hiring

1. Financial Services: Banks have faced significant scrutiny over their sustainability claims, especially regarding green financing and ESG investments. Firms like HSBC and Deutsche Bank have faced criticism and legal action for allegedly overstating their green credentials. As a result, some banks have scaled back their hiring for sustainability roles, wary of the risks of greenwashing allegations. Instead, they are focusing on regulatory compliance rather than ambitious sustainability growth, shifting some sustainability-related hiring to legal and compliance teams rather than core sustainability functions.
2. Energy Sector: Energy giants have long been criticized for greenwashing, particularly when promoting “clean energy” initiatives that are often dwarfed by their fossil fuel investments. Shell and BP have faced lawsuits and backlash over their environmental claims. Shell, for instance, has been challenged by multiple environmental groups, prompting the company to adopt a more cautious public stance on its sustainability initiatives. While these companies still invest in ESG roles, the focus has shifted more towards risk mitigation, environmental compliance, and careful regulatory adherence rather than aspirational sustainability transformations.
3. Consumer Goods and Retail: Retail and consumer goods companies are often in the spotlight for sustainability claims, especially around eco-friendly packaging, ethical sourcing, and carbon neutrality. Brands like H&M and Nestlé have faced greenwashing accusations, leading to lawsuits and regulatory inquiries. In response, these companies have adjusted their hiring priorities, with fewer open roles for sustainability strategists and more focus on ESG regulatory compliance Specialists and ESG reporting experts to avoid further allegations.

​Examples of Companies Scaling Back Due to Greenwashing Concerns

1. HSBC: HSBC announced in 2022 that it would shift some of its sustainability hiring focus from growth roles to compliance and risk management. The bank faced criticism from both investors and regulators over its green credentials, especially regarding its financing of fossil fuel projects. This shift is an example of how greenwashing fears can push companies to pull back on ambitious sustainability hiring, opting instead for roles that mitigate legal and regulatory risks.
2. H&M: The fast-fashion giant has been sued for greenwashing related to its “Conscious” line, where it was accused of making exaggerated claims about the sustainability of its products. Following the lawsuit, H&M has been more reserved in publicizing its sustainability goals and has adjusted its hiring focus to strengthen internal compliance. This shift reflects the company’s concern over greenwashing accusations and its cautious approach to future sustainability initiatives.
3. Nestlé: Nestlé has been targeted for allegedly overstating its environmental initiatives, particularly around plastic reduction and water management. In response to greenwashing claims, the company has reportedly scaled back its sustainability hiring, opting to prioritize regulatory and legal expertise over sustainability innovation roles. Nestlé’s experience underscores how greenwashing fears can reshape corporate hiring strategies, often reducing opportunities for professionals focused on proactive sustainability transformations.

The Broader Impact on Business and Society
Green-hushing, in particular, represents a missed opportunity. By avoiding public commitments to ambitious sustainability goals, companies are not only reducing their potential positive impact on the planet but also eroding trust among stakeholders, from consumers to investors. This hesitation can create a vicious cycle where companies are reluctant to innovate for fear of accusations, and as a result, sustainability progress stagnates.
​
Moreover, the reduction in sustainability hiring has ripple effects across industries. With fewer senior sustainability roles, the pool of qualified ESG leaders shrinks, creating a talent gap that may hinder long-term sustainability progress. For industries under intense pressure to improve their ESG performance, green-hushing can lead to a reactive rather than proactive approach, focusing on damage control rather than creating substantial value for the business and the world.

 

• Adopt transparent and realistic goals: Companies should set transparent, measurable, and realistic sustainability goals. Rather than exaggerating their achievements, companies can build credibility and trust, an dutltimately value by being honest about their challenges and progress.
• Stay abreast of regulation changes: Keeping up with the evolving regulatory landscape, recognizing that compliance with both new and existing regulations can mitigate the risks of inaccurate reporting. However, this  demands significant time, effort, and qualified resources understanding the intricacies and rapid evolution of ESG Frameworks.
• Invest in compliance and innovation: Balancing compliance and innovation is key. Companies should hire sustainability professionals who understand both regulatory frameworks and the strategic potential of ESG to create long-term value. This can enable organizations to move beyond mere compliance and leverage sustainability as a driver of growth.
• Plan for potential greenwashing risks, acknowledging that perceptions surrounding carbon offsets, renewable energy certificates, and other emissions reduction tools are evolving. Strategies that support targets today may expose companies to greenwashing allegations in the future as standards and expectations evolve. Implementing or integrating ESG into the Enterprise Risk Management tool can help in anticipating and measuring potential negative impact of regulatory changes.
• Engage stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue: Rather than pulling back on public commitments, companies should focus on engaging with stakeholders in a transparent and constructive way. Communicating on their goals and the rationale behind their sustainability strategies, businesses will help foster market trust and avoid accusations of greenwashing.

To conclude on this topic, the trends of greenwashing and green-hushing underscore the challenges and complexities in today’s sustainability landscape. While green-hushing may help companies avoid accusations in the short term, it also prevents them from fully capitalizing on the value-creation potential of sustainability. As a result, the sustainability job market, especially for roles like Chief Sustainability Officer and Director of Sustainability, is undergoing a transformation (see our last article onChief Sustainability Officer market trends, with companies increasingly cautious about public commitments and ambitious targets.
​
For companies to thrive in a world that demands both accountability and action, a balanced approach is essential. By hiring the right talent, setting transparent goals, and engaging stakeholders honestly, companies can avoid the pitfalls of both greenwashing and green-hushing, driving meaningful sustainability impact and substantial value that benefits the business, its stakeholders, and the planet. In our next article EnableGreen explores Why does ESG and sustainability practices need more than complying with regulation?​Author: Hayatte Loukili