As the calendar flips to 2026, a subtle shift is reshaping corporate sustainability in the Asia-Pacific region: greenhushing.

This practice – that sees companies deliberately downplay or withhold details about their environmental efforts to avoid scrutiny, accusations of greenwashing or political backlash – is gaining traction.

Greenhushing becomes very relevant as Asia-Pacific itself positions for cross-border clean power and AI-driven compliance, requiring companies in the region to balance silence with evidence-based storytelling and thus avoid this “silent barrier” to progress.

And with capital rushing into the region – as evidenced by 2025’s record initial public offerings and market gains – firms ignoring greenhushing could face investor flight.

Say less, do more

While firms continue to invest in net-zero goals and clean energy, they are increasingly opting for a “say less, do more” approach, mirroring global trends, but tailored to Asia-Pacific’s regulatory and market pressures.

This comes as businesses navigate heightened anti-greenwashing enforcement and geopolitical fragmentation, yet maintain strong underlying commitments to sustainability.

Greenhushing contrasts sharply with greenwashing – the exaggeration of eco-credentials – and stems from fears of reputational damage, fines or litigation.

In Asia-Pacific, it’s less politically charged than in the US, but is amplified by rapid regulatory rollouts on mandatory sustainability reporting and green finance in the region.

Regulators in Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Australia have intensified crackdowns on misleading claims, with guidelines updated in 2025 to impose heavier penalties.

For instance, South Korea saw a 172% surge in greenwashing cases from 2020-2024, prompting firms to hush progress to evade fines up to US$2,300 ( roughly 3 million South Korean won ). While this was the historic administrative fine for minor infractions, under the updated 2024-2025 guidelines from the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Ministry of Environment, penalties for “malicious” greenwashing can now scale significantly higher based on a percentage of relevant sales revenue.

But, more importantly, the greenhushing is increasingly driven by the threat of investor lawsuits rather than just these smaller administrative fines.

Broader reports such as PwC’s Asia-Pacific CEO surveys highlight the fact that while 80% of CEOs view environmental, social and governance criteria ( ESG ) as essential for growth, vulnerability to climate risks and complex rules are fuelling cautious communication.

Greenhushing’s foothold

Korea Electric Power Corporation ( Kepco ), South Korea’s largest utility, issued a US$400 million conventional bond in February 2025, ditching its green or sustainability labels used since 2019.

Despite assuring proceeds wouldn’t fund new coal plants and upholding internal targets, the unlabelled issuance sparked “greenhushing” debates, signalling a quieter ESG stance amid global anti-ESG sentiments and certification costs. This surprised investors, reflecting broader transition strategy inconsistencies, while Kepco pursues compliant activities internally.

The Kepco example is a perfect illustration of the current climate. It’s important to note that their pivot to conventional bonds isn't just about greenhushing, but also a strategic move to avoid the green premium ( greenium ) squeeze.

In 2025, the greenium squeeze became more obvious as the cost of meeting increasingly rigid green bond certification standards in Asia-Pacific sometimes outweighed the interest rate benefits, making unlabelled bonds a pragmatic financial choice as much as a PR one.

In Singapore, South Pole’s Net Zero Report 2023/2024, released in January 2024, revealed nearly 40% of companies were greenhushing by under-reporting ESG and net-zero initiatives to dodge scrutiny.

Among respondents, 55% found climate goal communication harder, with 70% of listed firms admitting the practice, driven by updated advertising guidelines and mandatory reporting. Sectors like finance, manufacturing and technology prioritized compliance over promotion, affecting up to 58% of global firms including Asia-Pacific ones.

Asset managers with Asia-Pacific operations, such as BlackRock and Vanguard, extended US-driven reductions in climate-target disclosures into 2024-2025 due to legal risks and pressure. BlackRock resumed stewardship talks but emphasized its “passive” role, while Vanguard supported zero environmental proposals in 2025, toning down ESG rhetoric to navigate regional pitfalls like South Korea’s fines.

In the Asia-Pacific context, the US asset managers have shifted their language towards “financial materiality” rather than “social responsibility”.

This means they aren’t necessarily doing less in terms of ESG, but they are just framing every climate action as a way to protect long-term portfolio value to avoid the “woke capitalism” backlash seen in the US.

Also, manufacturing firms faced quicker stock penalties for greenwashing, based on a study by the International Journal of Production Economics ( published on June 2025 ), which cited 121 such incidents since 2015. The study concludes that such potential penalties are encouraging defensive greenhushing, particularly in China and Japan, where enhanced scrutiny is prompting many companies to shift to under-communicating progress in order to mitigate potential losses.

Looking to 2026, greenhushing, according to outlooks from Eco-Business and Anthesis Group, may persist amid trends like stricter greenwashing scrutiny in marketing and finance.

Yet, Asia-Pacific leads in “strategic sustainability”, with International Sustainability Standards Board ( ISSB )-aligned disclosures expanding in Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines from 2026-2027.

In fact, 2026 is considered the “Year of Impact” for ISSB-aligned ( IFRS S1 and S2 ) reporting in Asia-Pacific. Singapore and Australia, in particular, have moved from voluntary to mandatory regimes for large entities starting in the 2025/2026 fiscal cycles. Over 60% of CEOs are aiming for net zero by 2030, embedding sustainability despite reframing away from ESG to terms like “resilience” or “transition plans”.

Impacts are mixed with reduced transparency hindering benchmarking and ambition, but fostering credible actions over hype.