Have You Heard of ‘Greenhushing’?

By Nicklas Larsen and Casper Skovgaard Petersen

In 2019, the sports giant Adidas launched a massive marketing campaign: That year, the clothing manufacturer promised to sell as many as 11 million pairs of shoes produced partly from so-called ‘ocean plastic’.

It was a significant and, at first glance, impressive increase from just five years before, when only 1 million pairs of Adidas shoes had been produced from plastic scooped up from the world’s oceans — because surely that is what ‘ocean plastic’ means, right?

Not quite. As is often the case, reality is different from what the marketing would have us believe. In fact, there is no clear definition of what ‘ocean plastic’ means. Nevertheless, it is a term widely used in green marketing to sell glasses, backpacks, shoes, and other plastic products to environmentally conscious consumers.

The message is clear: if you buy shoes from Adidas, you help reduce the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans. In actuality, the plastic used by Adidas is collected from beaches and shores, preventing it from entering the ocean — but it isn’t swiped from the ocean itself.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not getting smaller as a result of Adidas’ initiative, but the company will probably not make it grow bigger either. Or will they? What is left out of the equation is that that during the period of 2014–2019, Adidas produced and sold 500 million shoes that were not made from recycled materials. In that light, 11 million suddenly seem like a drop in the ocean.

Is Adidas’ green marketing campaign misleading consumers? Does that question even matter if the company is in the process of a legitimate transition towards more environmentally responsible practices? The answer depends on how high or low we set the bar for honesty in marketing and how much we expect from companies in the green transition.

It is striking how often Adidas is highlighted as the fashion industry’s frontrunner on the climate agenda. The question is, what does that says about the industry as a whole?

Of course, Adidas is not the first or only company to ramp up their green initiatives to gain the favour of consumers. And they are far from the only company who have gotten in over their head in their attempt to appear as progressive as possible on the climate agenda. This phenomenon is known as greenwashing, and it was first used by the environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986.

Back then, Westerveld’s suspicion was aroused by the hotel industry encouraging their guests to reuse their towels for the sake of the environment. Westerveld was convinced that the appeal of lower laundry rates was the true motivating factor, rather than high-minded ideals of saving the environment (as was otherwise claimed). Westerveld accused them of ‘greenwashing’ their underlying motive: profit.

Since then, and as sustainability and environmental responsibility have become integral parts of more and more companies’ public profiles, the number of examples of greenwashing has exploded. Already in 2010, the practice was so widespread that the Canadian organization TerraChoice introduced a checklist of seven ‘sins of greenwashing’, which include the sin of vagueness, (the use of vaguely defined terms such as ‘ocean plastic’ in marketing).

It is especially in the food, cosmetics, and fashion industries that the practice of greenwashing is prevalent. In Denmark, fast fashion giants H&M and Bestseller were accused of greenwashing in 2019 when they marketed new collections of clothing as ‘sustainable’, even though chains like these profit from cheap, disposable clothing.

The financial world is also affected. The Danish branch of the activist network Extinction Rebellion recently targeted Danske Bank during their demonstrations in inner Copenhagen, accusing the bank of not living up to its own standards of sustainability and environmental responsibility while investing in coal and oil.

It can be bad enough to be a company caught in the crossfire and accused of greenwashing — although the long-term impact on consumer behaviour can probably be debated. But the dangers of greenwashing go beyond the damage done to an individual brand’s image — it can hamper public trust in all brands’ ability and commitment to doing good in general.

A 2020 study published in Environmental Sciences Europe argues that ‘green skepticism’ has grown along with greenwashing, and that genuine green claims suffer from greater suspicion since it’s tricky for consumers to assess the trustworthiness in green marketing.

According to the team of scientists behind the study, greenwashing has become as CSR’s ‘evil twin’, and it not only threatens the public perceptions of the integrity of organisations. Organisations trying to take advantage of green positioning without performing accordingly are expanding distrust amongst consumers towards corporate progressivism in general.

Honest communication and consistency in words and actions are perhaps the most straight-forward way to avoid accusations of greenwashing. But there are other ways to dodge the spotlight. ‘Greenhushing’ has become a survival strategy for companies and organisations that want to avoid public scrutiny by deliberately underreporting green initiatives in order not to be called out for greenwashing.

The term was coined by the consulting firm Treehugger who claimed to frequently meet with customers (other companies) that were timid about their sustainable initiatives. Often, the reasons given were that they were afraid that they were not doing enough — that their actions would be perceived to not match their words.

According to Dennis Schoeneborn, Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, this is one of the main reasons companies turn to greenhushing. They simply choose to fly under the radar out of the fear of drawing attention from critical activists, journalists, or academics.

This calls for a deeper discussion of the relationship between the public, the role of the media, and companies taking part in the global green transition. Is greenhushing a result of us all expecting too much from brands like Adidas, H&M, and all the others who are fighting for our attention? No, to claim so would be defeatist. It is imperative that companies take a greater share of responsibility — especially the global megabrands who have the power to affect change. This position is not radical. On the contrary, it is supported by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which acknowledge the need for private companies playing a central part in achieving them. That they do sois a necessity when we consider the amount of wealth, influence and power concentrated in the world’s biggest corporations. It is no longer enough to only stick your head out on Earth Day or present a polished and environmentally friendly CSR profile — we need to see action that protects the interests of the planet and its future generations.