Greenhushing or greenshouting: How to market the message of climate catastrophe

This year at Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity, Creatives for Climate hosted a session titled “Silence to GreenSHOUTING: A Creative Lab for What Comes Next”. 

In the session Lee, along with Laura Ranzato, Executive Director of Clean Creatives, Harriet Kingaby, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of Conscious Advertising Network, and Chris Verrijdt Head of Communications & Community Impact at B LAB EUROPE, explored why communications have taken a turn.

A few years ago, brands were over-claiming. Now many have gone quiet, and that silence is creating a vacuum for confusion and misinformation. It posed the question: How do we align creative ambition with business reality and public accountability in today’s campaigns?

Above: Creatives for Climate's session, Silence to GreenSHOUTING: A Creative Lab for What Comes Next, at Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity 2026.

Why is it that brands have gone quiet on stating their sustainability credentials?

Two critical things that have happened to create the perfect storm for greenhushing. One is the political climate: Sustainability has become increasingly politically weaponised around the world. We’re seeing multinational companies lowering the volume and even removing language from their websites.

The danger in talking less about sustainability is that we send a signal to the public and shareholders that it is no longer on the agenda.

The second is fear of legal and reputational risk: Regulators, journalists and NGOs are scrutinising environmental claims and we’re seeing companies choosing eco-silence and safety. 

What have been the knock-on effects of governments and corporations pulling back on green initiatives?

Outside of the US, it is more often the case that they are being reframed around economics, health and energy security rather than abandoned (think: Electrify Britain by EDF and Octopus Energy). This could be a very different scenario under climate change-denying political parties however.

The danger in talking less about sustainability is that we send a signal to the public and shareholders that it is no longer on the agenda. Less visibility suggests less perceived value, less investment and less impact. It’s a doom loop that leaves a void which quickly gets filled with misinformation. Creatives for Climate sees pro-climate narratives mattering as much as policy leading up to 2030.   

Share more on the need to bring business realities and creative marketing together.

What we’re talking about is aligning what is possible within the practical constraints we’re too often facing. On one hand, we have a generation of creatives with massive talent, desire and ambition to create breakthrough work that positively impacts our future. On the other hand, there is great power and profit behind fossil fuel. 

Greenhushing is a kneejerk safety reaction that is holding us back and we have to move beyond.

There isn’t the same level of marketing expertise or spend behind the game changing and vital climate initiatives that are gaining momentum and will indeed overtake the dirty last guard. This needs to drastically change to accelerate the transition. I’d love to see an Earthshot prize [a global prize awarded to those whose contribute towards environmentalism] to rocket climate positive communications. 

Tell me your thoughts on greenwashing, greenhushing and greenshouting?

Greenwashing, I’m sorry to say, is not dead. At this stage of the game we need to see it for what it is: intentionally misleading lobbying and green signalling. Learn how to identify and reject it (The Anti-Greenwash Guide). Greenhushing, as we already talked about, is a kneejerk safety reaction that is holding us back and we have to move beyond.

Greenshouting is what we want to see take over the conversation. We need to create visible, credible and transparent stories about what is being done, the progress we’re making and still need to supercharge the transition. (Learn how: GreenShouting Guide with BCorp and Nice&Serious) 

Above and main image: The Make My Money Matter PSAs balanced the terrifying truth about oil with a hopeful actions than can drive change.

What is the rationale behind avoiding overly negative messaging about the climate crisis? 

I was doing a strategic project for news media and looking at the continued decline in engagement: 40% of people worldwide ‘sometimes or often’ now avoid the news, which goes up to 42% in the UK and 46% in the US (Reuters Institute). There is public exhaustion with negativity and a sense of powerlessness driving news media avoidance. People need to feel encouraged and know solutions and progress are possible.  

Effective advertising/mass messaging is driven by emotions – surely the strong emotion of fear is a proven catalyst for behaviour change? 

Only if we tell people what to do with that fear. I am interested in driving shock and reappraisal that drives action. Two examples from within our Ethical Agency Alliance I’d call out: Lucky General’s satirical Oblivia Coalmine for Make My Money Matter, with a call to action for citizens to check where their pension is going; and Worth Your While’s work for Plastic Change, increasing pressure on banning microplastics by raising awareness of an impact male policymakers had not considered: These Nuts Might Contain Traces of Plastic.

Above: Worth Your While’s work for Plastic Change, These Nuts Might Contain Traces of Plastic, increased pressure on banning microplastics. 

If overwhelm at the current clusterfuck of crises is turning people away from the news then isn’t ANY news – even hopeful ideas – going to be ignored?

Well, that’s precisely why the creative industry is perfectly poised to make it both unignorable and compelling. That is what we do best. Let’s use our tools and talent to make climate transition a cultural transition.

As the dramatic effects of climate breakdown worsen would it not be a good time to strike while the iron – and the planet – is hot and raise the alarm about environmental catastrophe?

My personal opinion is that the climate catastrophe message has hit home. We’re confronted with it every day. But people are also facing a cost of living crisis, wars and AI… they’re in a state of overwhelm. 

What we need is to see the way forward. To exponentially raise the awareness that we can change the course of the future, and that the endgame is not colonising space! This is where I’d call on film makers and writers to help show us a different vision. Enough of Silo, The Fallout and The Last of Us. 

In defensive driving they teach you that if you focus on what you don’t want to ‘hit’, that is where you will unconsciously drive toward. You need to look for the gap! We cannot be what we cannot see. Show us where we’re driving to, not where we don’t want to go.

Could the messaging not combine the truths that there is a real existential threat to humanity, while also offering hopeful solutions that disaster can be averted if measures are taken NOW?

I think taking some of the emotion out of this (the language of ‘hope’) and offering pragmatic solutions would be helpful right about now. Let's make climate intervention an inevitability instead of climate crisis.

We’ll look back in disbelief that we were still promoting [fossil fuels] at this point in time. 

The IEA estimates there was US$2.2T in investment in clean energy last year (almost twice fossil-fuel investment); 80% of solar and wind generation is being produced for less than fossil fuel, and new electric cars are now cheaper than petrol on average for the first time (Autotrader). The business case is going to create a tipping point that we need to run towards as fast as we can.