From “greenwashing” to “greenghosting”

From “greenwashing” to  “greenghosting” 

It has never been easy to get positive corporate news covered by the media.

The nature of journalism is critical and confrontational. And that is as it should be—journalists play an essential role in society and in safeguarding democracy and freedom.

In journalism school, we are taught to question and challenge the information we receive, to assume there is always a hidden agenda, an interest, something murky to uncover… and, more often than not, there is.

There is also the interest of audiences, who often look to information for entertainment—drama, stories that are easy to understand and share, the classic good-versus-evil narrative. We all like stories.

The headlines that sell are those about scandals, victims, crimes, fraud, layoffs, closures, shutdowns—things that disrupt the status quo: “if nothing changes, it isn’t news,” my professors used to say.

The editor of a successful evening tabloid in my city used to say that the three basic ingredients of a front page that sells were “blood, skin, and football.”

In that environment, why would journalists and their audiences be interested in positive corporate news—especially from companies that close ranks when bad news hits, only speak when they can control the outcome, and even refer to this type of coverage as “free press”?

Is your organization ready to communicate sustainability with strategy and credibility? Explore our services.

In that environment, promoting information about sustainability actions means swimming against the current.

There is also the factor of journalists’ natural skepticism, driven by their critical mindset, limited training and knowledge on sustainability issues, and the disappointment—shared by audiences as well—caused by cases of greenwashing, in which companies and organizations claim to be green and sustainable when they are not.

If we add to this the difficult economic environment media outlets face as they struggle to survive amid competition from social media and the shift of advertising spend toward digital channels, it is only natural to hear: “That is advertising—buy ad space.”

And with the growing normalization of native content in respected outlets such as The New York Times and others—to soften the moral discomfort of journalists who accept disguising advertising as news—we are facing the perfect storm for what I would call greenhushing.

This refers to a situation in which journalists and media outlets no longer want—or are no longer able—to cover sustainability issues, social responsibility initiatives, community investments, or positive corporate projects, so they ghost them or ignore them altogether. But this is also a reflection of audiences’ attitude toward this type of content: if no one consumes it, why produce it?

And when these stories are covered, they must compete with other, more “appealing” stories in this black-and-white logic of good versus evil, drama, and scandal, all within increasingly limited media space.

Learn more about Sustainability

What can we do from the brighter side of corporate communication to break out of this spiral of selective misinformation around sustainability issues?

1. Strengthen dialogue:

We must continue speaking up and explaining why these initiatives matter, how they fit into the company’s business and sustainability strategy (which should be one and the same), and why it is important for the public to know about them.

2. Rebuild trust:

Be and do before you appear to be. The seriousness of our commitment to sustainable development must be demonstrated through actions and data—not through occasional ribbon-cuttings, donations, or scattered volunteer initiatives across the company’s history. It must be a coherent and consistent effort, grounded in a broader vision and a public commitment, backed by shareholders, management, and day-to-day business decisions.

You may also be interested in:

3. Develop a constructive critical perspective

Journalists need training to understand sustainability in greater technical depth so they can fulfill their role as watchdogs for society—independent observers who investigate beyond what they are being shown.

Is this action or result an isolated case, or is it part of a consistent strategy? What is the objective of this project? What commitment does it respond to? Which SDG target does it address? How much does this social investment represent relative to sales or profit margin? If the company planted XXX trees, how many did it cut down, and what is the net balance?

4. Create space

Sustainability is not a passing trend among companies. It will increasingly become an integral part of business strategy, which means it is no longer possible to talk about financial performance without also considering social, environmental, and corporate governance performance.

It matters how much money companies make—but it also matters how they make it, and at what cost to communities and the environment.

5. Transparency and humility

Companies must accept that the path to sustainable development is neither easy, linear, nor immediate. They must therefore have the humility to acknowledge that they are not yet perfect, that setbacks do occur, but that they are moving toward a goal. This means admitting that their operations have an impact, being transparent about it, and being willing to improve.

When EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) becomes just as important as the environmental and social balance of operations on business pages, and the public also has the opportunity to learn about the positive actions companies are taking, we will be able to join forces on a broader scale to combat climate change and drive sustainable development.

At Komunika Latam, we help you turn your ESG efforts into messages that connect, mobilize, and strengthen your reputation. Explore our services.

Fidel Salazar
Consulting Director
fsalazar@komunikalatam.com
LinkedIn: Fidel Salazar

Latest blog posts