Most UK organisations have intentionally reduced external sustainability communication over the past year, despite evidence that weak sustainability disclosure is costing companies business opportunities.
New research from The Marketing Pod found that 85% of UK organisations have suppressed sustainability communications to avoid scrutiny, even where environmental progress is being celebrated internally.
The Big Green Fears report also found that 89% of leaders fear their sustainability claims will be challenged by regulators or the public in 2026. Almost all businesses surveyed, at 98%, said they had been excluded from new contract opportunities or lost tenders because they could not back up sustainability credentials.
The findings point to a growing problem in ESG communication. Companies are under pressure to demonstrate environmental progress to customers, suppliers, investors, and procurement teams, but they also face rising legal and reputational risk if claims are vague, exaggerated, or poorly evidenced.
Greenhushing has emerged as the defensive response: staying silent or reducing public communication about sustainability activity for fear of being accused of greenwashing. That may reduce immediate exposure to criticism, but it can weaken trust, damage competitive positioning, and make it harder for buyers to assess suppliers.
The Marketing Pod’s research suggests the issue is especially acute in regulated and procurement-heavy sectors. In utilities, all decision-makers surveyed said they had lost business over sustainability gaps. In finance, the figure was 80%, while in manufacturing it rose to 91% when including those who said they had lost out at least some of the time.
The report also found that 29% of respondents cited keeping up with the latest regulations as their top green fear of 2026. A further 19% said risk to professional reputation was the main reason they had stopped talking about green initiatives.
Jodie Williams, co-founder of The Marketing Pod, said: “The role of the marketer has evolved from business storyteller to data translator. There is currently a significant gap between the departments reporting data for auditing or ESG reporting purposes and the teams responsible for communicating company progress.
“Achieving the authenticity that’s needed for sustainability communications is only possible when claims are rooted in data. Without this, even the most dazzling campaign becomes a reputational risk.”
Jen Hughes, co-founder of The Marketing Pod, added: “Our research shows that many businesses are trading long-term growth for short-term safety. By ‘greenhushing,’ companies are failing to use their valuable data where it’s needed. To break the pattern of celebrating progress only internally and suppressing external stakeholder communications, sustainability must be part of the business strategy, reflected at every level of the organisation.”
The findings arrive as UK enforcement risk around green claims has sharpened. The Competition and Markets Authority can act against misleading environmental claims, and companies are expected to ensure sustainability claims are accurate, clear, and substantiated. The risk now extends beyond consumer advertising into supply chains, procurement, and corporate reporting.
A commercial contradiction is becoming harder to manage. Companies that communicate too aggressively may expose themselves to greenwashing claims. Companies that stay silent may lose tenders, weaken supplier credentials, and fail to capture value from genuine progress. In procurement-led markets, evidence of sustainability performance is increasingly part of the buying process rather than a reputational extra.
Marketing and communications teams are being pulled into a more technical role as a result. ESG claims can no longer be treated as campaign language detached from operational evidence. Marketing, sustainability, legal, finance, procurement, and operations teams need a shared view of what can be said, what data supports it, and where limitations should be disclosed.
The problem is partly technical. Many companies hold sustainability information in fragmented systems, across carbon accounting tools, supplier audits, facilities teams, compliance reports, and finance data. If that information is not accessible and verified, communications teams may avoid external claims even when the company has made genuine progress.
Culture also plays a role. Some organisations fear that acknowledging incomplete progress will invite criticism. In practice, regulators and sophisticated buyers are often more concerned with unsupported absolutes than with honest disclosure of progress, limits, and next steps. A measured claim backed by evidence is usually safer than either silence or overstatement.
Greenhushing creates its own governance risk. If sustainability work is only celebrated internally, customers, investors, and suppliers cannot assess it. Competitors with stronger evidence may win procurement processes, even where actual environmental performance is similar. Employees may also receive mixed signals if public positioning does not reflect internal priorities.
The next phase of ESG communication is likely to be less about grand claims and more about proof. Companies will need clearer data trails, stronger internal sign-off, and more precise language. Commercial teams will also need to answer customer questions without improvising unsupported claims.
Sustainability is no longer only a reputational asset. It has become part of contract eligibility, supplier assessment, risk management, and customer trust. Staying quiet may feel safer, but silence now carries a commercial cost of its own.
You must be logged in to post a comment.