Sustain­ability in the age of dis­in­form­a­tion: Why si­lence is risky

Across boardrooms and communication departments, sustainability has become a familiar talking point and now also a minefield. For years, companies have struggled to balance increasing public demands for social and environmental responsibility with the fear of being accused of hypocrisy or greenwashing.

That tension is what I once called the paradox of CSR communication: companies are expected to take on social and environmental responsibility, but when communicating about this, they were often criticised for not being responsible enough. That made many companies cautious, carefully weighing every sustainability message against the risk of criticism for greenwashing as consumers, activists and NGOs helped keep corporate claims in check.

Today, this paradox has taken a darker turn. What used to be a fear of greenwashing has become a fear of being labelled woke. The question for many companies is no longer how to communicate about sustainability, but whether they dare to at all.

The new battleground

The current wave of anti-ESG and anti-woke politics are especially prominent in the US, where banks such as Danske Bank and Nordea were boycottet in Texas for being part of the UN initiative Net-Zero Banking Alliance. But reflect a wider trend. Across Western democracies, political backlash against corporate responsibility has grown sharper. In the U.K., the Brexit campaign combined market-driven promises with anti-EU sentiment, and in the U.S., the MAGA movement has turned “woke” into a political insult, extending culture-war narratives to investments. These developments have contributed to an environment where corporate responsibility is portrayed as partisan rather than necessary, narrowing the space for constructive debate.

The viral dynamics of digital media ensure that such narratives circulate widely and persistently, creating new reputational risks for companies. Social media logics reward outrage and simplification, not nuance – and that makes sustainability communication a high-stakes activity.

This climate of suspicion creates a new dilemma for companies. If they communicate about sustainability, they risk political backlash. If they stay silent, they risk losing the trust of employees, consumers, and investors who expect them to contribute to solving societal problems.

Either way, the paradox intensifies.

Systemic disinformation and the new communication risk

In our recent article "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Disinformation Age", co-authored with Lance Bennett, we argue that the current backlash is not just a political trend. It is rooted in a broader systemic disinformation environment.

Disinformation is not new. For decades, corporations have engaged in strategic disinformation to hide or downplay harmful business practices – from tobacco and pesticides to oil and gas. But what has changed is the systemic dimension: the rapid spread of false and polarising information through digital platforms, amplified by actors who benefit politically or economically from undermining progressive change.

This systemic disinformation doesn’t simply question particular claims; it questions the very legitimacy of corporate responsibility itself. When major media outlets and political actors frame ESG as “satanic”, they shift the terrain of communication from facts to ideology. In such an environment, even the most transparent sustainability report can be weaponised against a company. The result is a deepening caution in corporate communication about sustainability.

Why silence is not a solution

When faced with politicised backlash, it appears to be tempting for companies to retreat into silence, a phenomenon sometimes called greenhushing. The logic is: say less, attract less attention.

But in the long run, silence may be the greater risk. If responsible companies withdraw from the speaking about sustainability, the space will be filled by those spreading disinformation or performing superficial responsibility. Citizens may become further disillusioned – not only with CSR, but with the idea that business can be part of democratic problem-solving at all.

This risk is amplified in a digital communication environment, where attention rather than accuracy determines visibility. Algorithms reward engagement, not silence. If responsible voices disengage, misleading narratives dominate the space. From a digital media perspective, silence is not absence – it is amplification of others’ agendas.

Lacking the courage to risk criticism creates a perhaps greater danger: losing public trust in both business and the possibility of progressive change. That warning feels even more urgent now. When companies self-censor, they don’t just protect themselves from controversy; they also weaken the collective conversation about what sustainability means and why it matters.

Ultimately, CSR communication today is not just about reputation management; it is about defending the very idea that corporations have a role to play in creating sustainable futures.

The risk – and responsibility – of hope

The disinformation age may tempt companies to retreat into safe, neutral statements. But sustainability was never meant to be a neutral topic. It is about confronting uncomfortable truths, from inequality to climate change, and exploring what responsibility means in a world of competing narratives.

The paradox of CSR communication remains: companies are expected to lead, yet criticised when they do. But rather than an excuse for silence, that paradox can be a reminder of why communicating matters more than ever.

Especially in times of crisis, meaningful CSR requires the courage to speak.