Green-Hushing: Why Leading Firms Are Staying Silent.

We’ve all heard of greenwashing — the feel-good marketing spin that makes a product or investment appear more sustainable than it really is. But there’s another term on the rise, and it’s one we’re thinking a lot about lately: green-hushing.

Green-hushing is what happens when companies making real efforts on environmental and social issues choose to stay silent — often out of fear of legal risk, public scrutiny, or being accused of overstating their progress.

And we get it. Because, truthfully, we’ve been keeping our lips zipped for nearly 5 years about a suite of portfolio products that we won’t name here because in doing so, we just open up Pandora’s (legislative / compliance) box.

So instead, today we’re chatting about green-hushing: what it is, how it works, the cost of staying silent until we have the perfect solution. Ready to flip the script and accelerate meaningful sustainability initiatives in Australian finance? Read on for how we think this could happen.

What is Green-Hushing?

Green-hushing is when companies intentionally under-communicate or hide their sustainability efforts — often to avoid accusations of greenwashing, regulatory or legal risk.

It’s the opposite of greenwashing. Instead of talking things up, businesses go quiet — even when they’re doing great work or making meaningful progress.

Doing the Work. Without the Headline.

At Kearney Group, we’re working hard to rethink what financial services can and should be. And that’s meant shaking up the way our suite of managed portfolios function in the background — embedding ESG and sustainability at the heart of our decision-making frameworks. 

Ensuring that our portfolios are actually reflective of our philosophy and that we’re walking our talk has required an enormous amount of effort.

Our team has pushed hard for better data, transparent definitions and comparative reporting from fund managers.

Our endless questions about underlying investments, percentage exposure and alternative funds have tested the patience of even the most seasoned fund managers but we don’t regret that for a moment. 

We know that most investors (and if we’re being honest, most other advisers) aren’t doing this thinking. Even if they have the appetite for sustainable investments, most aren’t dexterous enough with the data, aren’t close enough to those with the answers or don’t have the ability to pull on the levers of power to enact their wishes. 

So in actual fact, asking these questions and pushing hard for clear answers is our job as a forward-thinking practice.

Why We’re Keeping Quiet (For Now).

Whilst we’re putting serious effort into redesigning how investments work behind the scenes — pushing for long-term and ever-improving ESG scores — most of that is happening quietly. 

You won’t see us releasing bold “impact reports” or launching campaigns about how “green” our portfolios are.

Why?

Because our legal and compliance teams have rightly reminded us that, because we’re still unquestionably imperfect and without long-term proof points, speaking out carries very real risk. We get that. In a world where greenwashing is a legitimate concern, there’s a need for rigour and accountability. 

But there’s also a cost to this silence — and a missed opportunity to inspire, educate and celebrate small (but hard fought) wins.

When the Benchmark Is the Problem.

Green-hushing isn’t just about cautious compliance — it’s also a symptom of a system that rewards the wrong things. Take benchmarks, for example.

Most portfolios in Australia are measured against standard benchmarks like the ASX200 or ASX300 indices — as though these are the gold standard for performance and success.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: if you assess those same benchmarks through a climate lens, many of the top ASX performers are aligned to a +6-degree global warming scenario. Six degrees.

That’s not just “less than ideal.” That’s catastrophic.

The scientific consensus is that 1.5 degrees of warming already poses serious, irreversible risks to ecosystems, economies and human life. But the very indices we’re expected to track against — and that most investors consider the baseline for “good performance” — point to a future of undeniable climate collapse.

Morningstar Sustainalytics research reveals some of the most severely misaligned ASX companies: “Computershare (CPU), Webjet (WEB), Whitehaven Coal (WHC), REA Group (REA), and Seven Group (SVW) are the most misaligned with implied temperature rises ranging from 6.3 to 6.5 degrees.”

The research also points out that Qantas (QAN), a widely held company in investment portfolios, “is one of the most severely misaligned, with an implied temperature rise of 6.0 degrees. Said differently, if all companies managed their greenhouse gas emissions in the same way as Qantas, the world would warm by 6 degrees.”

So let’s be clear: comparing ourselves to the ASX isn’t just a mismatch in values — it’s a travesty.

It’s like using a slow-moving train headed for a cliff as your reference point, then patting yourself on the back for keeping pace.

You can learn more about the state of climate disclosures in the ASX200 in the ACSI’s latest Promises, Pathways & Performance report.

The Cost of Staying Silent.

So here’s an unequivocal statement we can get behind: Green-hushing disproportionately impacts those who are actually trying to do better.

It’s the businesses building future-forward solutions — imperfect as they are, evolving, and not yet fully measurable — who are pressured to stay quiet.

Meanwhile, the big end of town keeps running status quo products with minimal transparency. No one’s forcing them to disclose that their returns come from companies fuelling climate collapse, exploiting workers, rigging elections or profiteering from war and global atrocities.

Their silence? Accepted as standard.

Our dissatisfaction with the current state of play and desire to explore and speak about potential alternatives? Risky.

Flipping the Script on Disclosure.

So here’s a provocation: 

Maybe instead of putting the burden of proof on small businesses who are innovating and building a more responsible future, we should expect more from the incumbents, the giants. Instead of telling those at the vanguard that they shouldn’t promote their products until they’re perfect — maybe we should be telling the old guard it’s time to level up theirs.

Maybe we should force disclosure to cut both ways.

Imagine these kinds of warnings on traditional investment products:

🦕 “Returns generated by this fund are tied to the ongoing success of big oil and gas.”

💣 “Investing in this product means benefitting from the manufacture or sale of arms and munitions used in global conflict.”

💰“This investment product includes companies with poor governance scores and are known to avoid or evade their tax obligations.”

🔥 “This portfolio includes companies who refuse to report against the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework.”

Wouldn’t that be something?

Despite Green-Hushing, We’re Still Pushing.

Despite the hush, we’re still pushing. We’re redesigning portfolios. Reimagining what ‘return on investment’ could mean. Demanding more and better of our fund managers and their underlying offerings. Building financial systems that consider not just profit, but people and planet too.

We’ll keep doing the work — even if we can’t always talk about it yet.

And we look forward to a future where innovation and courageous leadership are championed — not punished — and where those challenging the status quo are supported and celebrated — not silenced.