In a striking observation that challenges traditional notions of corporate transparency, a new working paper co-authored by Wharton professor Serguei Netessine reveals that companies engaging in "greenhushing"—communicating less than what is externally observed about their sustainability efforts—tend to achieve higher subsequent abnormal stock returns. This phenomenon stands in stark contrast to "greenwashing," where firms overstate their environmental commitment, which is associated with lower subsequent abnormal stock returns. The findings suggest a significant shift in investor perception, where credibility derived from demonstrable action, rather than prolific communication, is increasingly valued.
The study’s central premise posits that in today’s increasingly politicized environment, the act of vocalizing sustainability initiatives can paradoxically become a liability rather than an asset. Netessine defines greenhushing as "when you do more than you talk," directly opposing greenwashing, which is characterized by "when you talk more than you do." This distinction has profound implications for corporate communication strategies and investor relations, particularly as the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) landscape continues to evolve under intense scrutiny.
The BlackRock Paradigm: A Case Study in Greenhushing
A prominent example illustrating this trend is BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. In 2023, its co-founder and CEO, Larry Fink, famously announced he had ceased using the term ESG, citing its "weaponization" by both the far left and the far right. This decision was not, however, an abandonment of BlackRock’s commitment to considering the risks and opportunities presented by the low-carbon transition. Instead, the firm maintained that its approach remained "consistent with its fiduciary duty" to clients, focusing on material financial factors related to climate and sustainability.
Netessine points to BlackRock’s pivot as a prime illustration of greenhushing in action. "He famously changed the language while saying his underlying investment approach would not change," Netessine remarked, highlighting how the vocabulary shifted while the substance of their investment philosophy remained constant. This strategic linguistic adjustment allowed BlackRock to navigate the contentious political discourse surrounding ESG without compromising its core investment principles or its engagement with climate-related financial risks. The move was widely interpreted as a pragmatic response to the escalating political backlash against ESG investing, particularly from conservative lawmakers and state treasurers in the United States, who accused asset managers of prioritizing social agendas over financial returns.
Deconstructing the "Weaponization" of ESG
The "weaponization" of ESG, as Fink described it, refers to the growing politicization of the term, which has been attacked from multiple ideological angles. From the political right, ESG has been criticized as a form of "woke capitalism" that diverts companies from their primary goal of maximizing shareholder profit, instead pushing progressive social and environmental agendas. This has led to anti-ESG legislative efforts in several U.S. states, seeking to restrict state pension funds from investing with firms perceived to be hostile to fossil fuel industries or promoting specific social causes.
Conversely, some on the political left have criticized ESG as insufficient, accusing it of enabling "greenwashing" by allowing companies to make superficial environmental claims without truly transforming their business models. They argue that the broad and often vague nature of ESG criteria can obscure genuine environmental and social impacts, leading to a lack of accountability. This dual pressure created an increasingly challenging environment for companies to communicate their sustainability efforts without attracting controversy. BlackRock, as a leading proponent of ESG integration, found itself at the epicenter of this debate, making Fink’s decision a significant indicator of the changing landscape.
The "Value of Silence" Study: Methodology and Key Findings
The groundbreaking working paper, titled "Value of Silence: Determinants and Consequences of Greenhushing," offers a robust empirical analysis of this phenomenon. Co-authored by Serguei Netessine, a professor of operations, information and decisions and senior vice dean for innovation and global initiatives at Wharton, alongside Sonam Singh (University of South Florida), Ashwin Malshe (University of Texas at San Antonio), Yakov Bart (Northeastern University), and Anatoli Colicev (University of Liverpool), the study breaks new ground in measuring the conduct-communication gap.
Previous research on greenhushing and greenwashing often relied on indirect proxies. This study, however, employs a novel large-scale approach, combining textual analysis of environmental discussions in earnings calls with external assessments of firms’ environmental conduct. The research team analyzed over 30 million sentences from the earnings calls of 3,727 U.S. firms between 2005 and 2021. To measure external conduct, they utilized TruValue Labs’ environmental Pulse Scores. These scores summarize the valence of recent public information from diverse sources—including news outlets, regulators, and civil-society organizations—regarding firms’ environmental policies, actions, and outcomes. Crucially, the Pulse Score serves as an independent, external signal of environmental performance, distinct from direct audits of emissions or operations.
The findings are compelling. The most fully adjusted model in the study demonstrates that a one-standard-deviation increase in greenhushing is associated with a 2.29 percentage point increase in three-month cumulative abnormal returns. For an average sample firm, this translates to an impressive gain of approximately $238 million. Conversely, an equivalent shift towards greenwashing—where communication outpaces observed conduct—is associated with a 2.29 percentage point decrease in three-month cumulative abnormal returns. This symmetric impact underscores the financial penalties associated with insincere or exaggerated environmental claims and the rewards for understated yet substantive action.
The study clarifies that silence alone does not generate value. Greenhushing is defined as a relative gap: limited communication only creates value when it is substantiated by demonstrably strong externally observed environmental conduct. This nuance is critical, emphasizing that the market rewards genuine effort, not merely a lack of talk.
The Shifting Sands of Disclosure: The Politics of Greenhushing
The study’s findings initially appear counterintuitive when viewed through the lens of traditional disclosure theory, which typically posits that investors value transparency. More information from a company is generally expected to reduce information asymmetry, thereby leading to higher stock valuations. However, the researchers found that this long-held relationship has undergone a significant transformation, particularly in recent years.
The measured conduct-communication gap, indicating a greater propensity for greenhushing, became modestly but significantly larger after 2017. The authors attribute this to the emergence of a "more politicized disclosure regime." Netessine explains, "Management chooses to say relatively little because talking has become costly." He elaborates on the multifaceted costs associated with environmental claims: "You make an environmental claim, and it can attract political criticism, it can attract regulators and lawyers, it can attract unrealistic expectations. And some companies simply don’t want to tell competitors what they are doing."
This political climate has undeniably influenced corporate communication strategies. The rise of social media and rapid news cycles amplifies scrutiny, making companies wary of inadvertently triggering a backlash or setting unrealistic expectations that could lead to reputational damage or legal challenges. The strategic advantage of keeping innovative sustainable practices under wraps from competitors also plays a role, especially in highly competitive sectors where efficiency gains or product differentiation through sustainability can provide a critical edge.
Drivers of Greenhushing: Financial Leverage and Competitive Pressure
The study further identified specific corporate characteristics that make greenhushing more likely. Firms with greater financial leverage and those operating in more competitive industries tend to engage in greenhushing to a higher degree.
For highly leveraged firms, the sensitivity to risk is naturally elevated. With less financial leeway, these companies may be more cautious about making public statements that could invite scrutiny, regulatory action, or legal challenges, all of which could incur significant costs and potentially jeopardize their financial stability. The risk of over-promising and under-delivering on environmental commitments is amplified for such firms, making a more understated approach to communication a prudent strategy.
In highly competitive industries, the motivation shifts towards protecting proprietary information and maintaining a competitive advantage. Companies that invest in sustainable practices often do so to achieve cost efficiencies, develop superior products or services, or gain market share. Publicly disclosing these efforts could inadvertently provide competitors with valuable insights into their strategies, technologies, or operational improvements. By greenhushing, these firms can reap the benefits of their sustainability investments without prematurely revealing their strategic hand.
Investor Credibility: The Walk Outweighs the Talk
Netessine summarizes the core takeaway for investors: "What we take from all of this is not that investors love silence. Investors appear to reward credibility." He emphasizes that if external evidence clearly demonstrates a company’s environmental commitment, there is no additional reward for merely talking about it. "Investors seem to care more about the walk than the talk," he concludes, underscoring a sophisticated market that prioritizes substantive action over rhetoric.
This finding aligns with a broader trend of investor skepticism toward corporate communications, particularly in the realm of ESG. With the proliferation of ESG reports and sustainability claims, investors are increasingly looking for verifiable data, independent assessments, and concrete impacts rather than marketing-driven narratives. The market appears to be maturing, moving beyond a superficial embrace of ESG terminology to a deeper demand for demonstrable, material performance.
Implications for Corporate Strategy and Communication
While the study reveals a positive association between greenhushing and abnormal returns, Netessine cautions against interpreting this as a recommendation for companies to cease all communication about their environmental efforts. Instead, the critical lesson is the imperative to align communication with actual conduct. "Our conclusion is don’t let communication run ahead of conduct," he advises. "You should manage your environmental communication the same way you manage your financial communication. Don’t make claims you can’t support."
Companies are already adapting their environmental language to build credibility while mitigating risks. This involves a more precise, fact-based approach to communication, focusing on quantifiable results and business relevance. As Netessine puts it, "You have to make sure it translates into business results. To say that you are saving the penguins is great, but what does it have to do with your business model?" This highlights the need for companies to articulate how their sustainability initiatives contribute to their bottom line, operational efficiency, risk management, or product innovation, rather than solely relying on broad altruistic claims.
For investors, the implication is clear: look beneath the surface. A company that is not loudly touting its environmental credentials, or one that may have even withdrawn from certain climate organizations, is not necessarily inactive. Conversely, a company that consistently highlights its green policies might be doing far less than its rhetoric suggests. "Don’t confuse communication intensity with quality. And don’t invest in rhetoric," Netessine urges. "Investigate the gap between rhetoric and reality."
A Broader Context: The ESG Journey and Future Outlook
The trajectory of ESG investing has been dynamic. Originating from socially responsible investing (SRI) movements, ESG gained significant traction in the early 2000s, notably with the launch of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) in 2006. Over the following decade, ESG became a mainstream investment consideration, driven by growing awareness of climate change, social inequality, and corporate governance failures. Asset managers like BlackRock played a pivotal role in popularizing ESG integration, emphasizing its role in identifying material risks and opportunities.
However, by the mid-2020s, the concept faced significant headwinds. The "weaponization" described by Fink coincided with a period of heightened political polarization and economic uncertainty. The term ESG became a lightning rod, prompting some financial institutions and corporations to reconsider their public stance or adopt alternative terminology, such as "sustainability investing," "impact investing," or simply focusing on "climate risk management." This timeline underscores the agility required from companies to navigate an ever-changing landscape of public perception and political pressure.
Looking ahead, the regulatory environment is also a critical factor. Global regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and European Union bodies, are increasingly mandating comprehensive climate and sustainability disclosures. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), for instance, significantly expands the scope and detail of non-financial reporting. These mandatory disclosure regimes could create a tension: while companies face pressure to reduce "talk" to avoid political backlash, they also confront increasing legal obligations to provide detailed information. This dichotomy will likely compel companies to refine their communication strategies further, focusing on factual, verifiable disclosures that meet regulatory requirements without inviting unnecessary political or reputational risk.
Ultimately, the "Value of Silence" study provides a powerful reminder that in the complex world of sustainability, authenticity and demonstrable action are paramount. As the market matures and scrutiny intensifies, companies that genuinely integrate sustainability into their operations, even if they choose to do so quietly, are likely to be rewarded by investors who prioritize substance over mere communication. The era of unchecked green rhetoric may be giving way to a new age of credible, understated performance.
About the Author
