Published on
Updated
Reading 3 mins.
While many brands and companies boast of implementing “eco-friendly” strategies, others, on the contrary, will go much further in their approach, without flaunting it too much, or even ignoring it completely. A trend known as “greenhushing”, which swims against the tide of greenwashing.
Greenhushing: definition
Stop the promises of sustainable, fair trade or good for the planet materials stamped on certain products! Consumers are also less and less fooled. Faced with the massive phenomenon of greenwashing, more and more NGOs no longer hesitate to point out and denounce the dubious “pro-environmental” practices employed by large companies. The world of advertising, meanwhile, has better watch out.
Last September, an advertisement broadcast in the United Kingdom for a Persil washing product (from the Unilever group) was banned from television screens by the British advertising authority, which deemed its environmental promises “too vague”.
However, some brands really play “the game” by committing to eco-responsible approaches that hold water. For example, by using natural, local and biodegradable raw materials, whether it is cosmetics or clothing. The problem is that they would generally have less tendency to put them forward than those who give in to greenwashing. A phenomenon observed for a few years and referred to by English speakers as “greenhushing”, which can be translated as “ecosilence” in French.
The factors that favor this discretion can be multiple. The company can for example consider that its commitment is sincere and therefore voluntarily avoid flaunting it too much, for fear of being accused of opportunism. Still others may fear losing potential customers by overemphasizing the naturalness of certain products, fearing that consumers will perceive them as less effective.
However, the explanation that stands out the most in studies and articles devoted to the analysis of greenhushing is the fear of being accused of “not doing enough” on the environmental level and being tackled by consumers. A reluctance that is expressed especially among small brands seeking to make a name for themselves.
Consumers looking for transparency
If this apparent testimony of modesty may seem a priori positive, it can however become counterproductive insofar as it deprives other companies of inspiring examples. But also consumers. Indeed, how do you know if a brand is really committed if there are no determining models on the market? Moreover, this silence raises questions: what is the point, and a fortiori if it is virtuous, of depriving oneself of communication centered around a brand’s ecological commitments, knowing that a growing number of consumers are precisely looking for products that meet these criteria?
A study carried out in Austria – the results of which were published in 2020 in the Journal of Travel Research – was interested in the reactions of customers to hotel establishments and their way of communicating about their “green” approach.“Overall, our research provides little valid rationale for greenhushing from a customer perspective”, conclude the researchers. On the contrary, the study clearly indicates an expectation of transparency on the part of consumers vis-à-vis the pro-environmental approaches of companies and brands.
Especially since communicating about one’s eco-responsible commitment does not necessarily prevent one from retaining a sense of reality – as Patagonia CEO Yvon Chouinard recently proved, when announcing his decision to bequeath his company (estimated at an of 3 billion euros) to a trust and an environmental NGO. Known for its longstanding ecological commitment, the American brand had explained a year earlier through an open letter that the brand deliberately did not use the term sustainable in its communication. “Why? Because we recognize that we are part of the problem”explained Beth Thoren, director of action and environmental initiatives of Patagonia.