If every mistake results in a boycott, firms will stop publishing green promises
As the famous saying goes, no publicity is bad publicity. However, the emergence of cancel culture – a modern day phenomenon often talked about as a form of boycott – has had a huge influence over the way we think, behave and crucially, communicate. While cancel culture has undoubtedly brought about positive change and social justice, it has also left businesses and individuals worried at the thought of unforeseen repercussions of things they say and do. The fear of being subject to mass disapproval has slowly but surely closed the door on nuance.
With this context, perhaps the latest buzzword in sustainability isn’t all that surprising. Coined by consulting firm Treehugger, the term “green hushing” refers to companies that are under-reporting their sustainability initiatives to avoid public scrutiny. According to recent research from the consultancy South Pole, while 72 per cent of the 1200 businesses they spoke to have set sustainability targets, nearly 25 per cent will not be publishing them. Green hushing is something that has come into sharp focus over the past few months and has been described as everything from a “survival strategy” for businesses, to the “distant twin” of greenwashing.
In many respects, it makes sense that a business would rather keep its head below the parapet, especially with the myriad financial and regulatory penalties laid upon organisations both big and small for miscommunicating their sustainability efforts. One of the most high-profile recent examples of this is the landmark ruling by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority to ban HSBC’s adverts for greenwashing. The ruling was made on the basis that its commitment to invest $1tn to help its customers transition to net zero was at odds with the bank’s continued investments into the most polluting industries in the world.
However, on the other side of the coin are a huge number of positive sustainability stories that attract similar media exposure, perhaps the most notable relating to Patagonia and its founder Yvon Chouinard’s decision to give away the company’s profits to fight climate change. There is also the growing conversation about the role of startups in climate innovation.
Public statements do not simply serve to catch companies out. Naturally it helps to hold businesses accountable, set industry benchmarks and ensure transparency, but it also has the power to encourage others to do the same and drive the wider sustainability agenda forward. It is still a sector relatively nascent in terms of innovation, regulation and information, so keeping the lines of communication transparent and open is even more important to help determine what works and what doesn’t.
The only way to keep sustainability at the top of the agenda is with encouragement and accountability. It stands to reason that the companies with the resources, deep pockets and influence to make positive change should not only be pushed to make public commitments, but deliver on them too. For this to happen, we need to make room for scrutiny, regulation and transparency – as well as mistakes. Mistakes stimulate discussion and encourage learning – and, with honesty and humility, it is possible to come back from them.
Of course, mistakes have to come with a resolution as well, rather than continued bad behaviour. Simply pursuing a tactic of trying to scare companies into submission will only drive our priorities underground, and make accountability harder.
Progress comes with collaboration – the worst possible step we could take now is forcing businesses and individuals with good and green intentions to recoil in fear.