Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The escalating practice of greenwashing, where companies use deceptive marketing to promote an environmentally friendly image, significantly erodes consumer trust and undermines the credibility of the sustainable market. While much of the existing research has focused on defining and classifying greenwashing from an organizational standpoint, a significant lacuna in current scholarship is the absence of a practical, evidence-based framework that equips consumers to discern and respond to misleading claims. This study fills that void by developing a novel, consumer-centric framework designed to detect greenwashing. The research employs a theory synthesis methodology, integrating insights from the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Signaling Theory, and Legitimacy Theory to develop a robust guiding framework. This framework is structured to empower consumers by teaching them how to move from a surface-level, low-involvement assessment of green claims to a more rigorous, critical evaluation of a company’s environmental commitments. The significant contribution of this work is the creation of a powerful, step-by-step tool that not only enhances consumer protection but also contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals by fostering responsible consumption and production. By empowering consumers to actively avoid greenwashing, this study places a bottom-up burden on companies, thereby encouraging accountability, rewarding genuine sustainability practices, and discouraging deceptive marketing.

Plain Language Summary

A Framework for Detecting Greenwashing

This study presents a step-by-step guiding framework that helps consumers detect and avoid greenwashing.

Keywords

sustainability marketing sustainable consumption and production consumer behavior greenwashing

Introduction

At the end of the 1980s, environmentally conscious consumers started a new trend in the United States to reduce their environmental impacts through responsible consumption, leading to the rise of green marketing (Carlson et al., 1993). Green marketing promotes eco-friendly products and fosters sustainable production, packaging, and distribution methods (Gan et al., 2017). Despite initially being a niche market, advertisements and products that claimed recyclability, degradability, or environmental friendliness gained traction. Nowadays, consumers encounter numerous terms or claims regarding products and services, such as eco-friendly, green, ecological, biodegradable plastic, and the most sustainable airline in the world. However, many of these claims have proven vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated, a practice now known as greenwashing. As an illustration, the European Commission’s research in 2020 found that while most green product claims promoted in the European Union were vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated, nearly half lacked supporting evidence (EC, 2024).

The term “greenwashing” is derived from an essay written by an environmental activist, Jay Westerveld, who points to the practice of a hotel chain imbuing its visitors with the idea of reusing towels instead of authentically responsible service practices, such as reducing and recycling waste (Pearson, 2010). Well-known authorities on greenwashing have noted that there is no consensus on an aggregated definition of greenwashing due to its multidimensional characteristics, while the greenwashing literature has been burgeoning (Lyon & Montgomery, 2015; Seele & Gatti, 2017; Nemes et al., 2022). TerraChoice (2010) defined greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” In parallel, Britannica describes greenwashing as a deceptive marketing strategy that falsely or excessively promotes a company, product, or business practice as environmentally friendly (Garnett, 2025). From a promotional perspective, Delmas and Burbano (2011, p. 4) described greenwashing as “poor environmental performance and positive communication about environmental performance.”Seele and Gatti (2017, p. 241), on the other hand, adopted a distinct perspective: “greenwashing only exists when a message or company is blamed by the media, NGOs, or other stakeholders.” Considering these various definitions, the present study is based on the following definition. Greenwashing is a deceptive marketing and communication strategy that misleads consumers and other stakeholders by falsely or excessively promoting a company’s, product’s, or practice’s environmental or social performance.

Efforts against greenwashing include a variety of solutions, such as directives for green claims (e.g., Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides), ecolabels (e.g., Green Seal and Nordic Swan), and environmental certificates (e.g., USDA Organic and Forest Stewardship Council), designed to protect consumers from deceptive marketing tactics. On the claims side, consumers are often overwhelmed by excessive jargon and ambiguous information, such as green, organic, non-toxic, and sulfate- and paraben-free (Chen & Chang, 2013; Langer et al., 2008). On the other hand, Ecolabel Index has tracked 456 ecolabels across 199 countries and 25 industries worldwide (Ecolabel Index, 2024). However, the growing number of ecolabels and environmental certificates entails confusion among consumers, allowing companies to exploit the situation by making vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims. Therefore, greenwashing, a deceptive marketing tactic, substantially harms the market for genuine sustainable products (GSPs) by eroding consumer trust and discouraging purchases of genuine green alternatives through false or exaggerated environmental claims (Naderer & Opree, 2021).

Examining the literature on greenwashing reveals that some studies attempt to accurately define the concept (De Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Seele & Gatti, 2017; Spaniol et al., 2024) and the reasons behind companies’ use of greenwashing strategies (Banerjee, Gulas and Iyer 1995; Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Gatti et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2023; Lyon & Montgomery, 2015; Seele & Gatti, 2017), while others aim to categorize various types and forms of greenwashing (Carlson et al., 1993; Kangun et al., 1991; Lyon & Montgomery, 2015; Pendse et al., 2023; Siano et al., 2017; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Although much of the existing research has focused on defining and classifying greenwashing from an organizational standpoint, a significant lacuna in current scholarship is the absence of a practical, evidence-based framework that equips consumers to discern and respond to misleading claims. Apart from the previous studies, the present study turns the spotlight on consumers and seeks to answer the research question: How can a guiding framework empower customers to make informed decisions and avoid greenwashing? A purely theoretical paper would stop at explaining the phenomena, but a conceptual contribution must go further by providing an actionable solution (Barnett et al., 2025). This study fills that void by developing a novel, consumer-centric framework designed to provide a clear prescription for a pressing, real-world problem.

In order to address the challenge consumers face in discerning GSPs from greenwashed products (GWPs), this study employs the theory synthesis research design (Jaakkola, 2020) to formulate a more comprehensive and guiding framework (Figure 1) for detecting and avoiding greenwashing by drawing upon the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), Signaling Theory, and Legitimacy Theory. Initially, the first three steps of the guiding framework are based on the ELM, which assumes that highly involved consumers process information through a central route, leading to greater cognitive engagement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). Utilizing the first three steps of the guiding framework, consumers who are able to engage and assess vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims from visual to generic and comparable will be able to detect and avoid GWPs.

Figure 1.

The step-by-step guiding framework for detecting greenwashing.

By following Signaling Theory, the fourth and fifth steps of the framework focus on whether companies use environmental certifications and ecolabels as symbolic indicators of their environmental commitments (Connelly et al., 2011). Consumers questioning the commitments or signals of companies employing environmental certifications and ecolabels will be able to detect and avoid GWPs. Finally, the last three steps of the framework transcend a consumer’s self-serving emphasis on the advantages of an individual product, instead encouraging them to render a comprehensive moral assessment of a company’s overall sustainability efforts. The moral type of the Legitimacy Theory, grounded in mindful moral judgments about an organization’s products, processes, and initiatives, serves as an ideal theoretical framework for evaluating those efforts (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006).

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section “Theoretical Foundations and Methodology” delineates the theoretical foundations in detail and provides the methodology employed to develop the framework. Section “Analyzing Product Claims” explains the systematic reasoning behind the claim-based determination. Section “Verifying Certifications and Labels” dives into ecolabels and environmental certificates to detect and avoid GWPs. Section “Assessing Holistic Sustainability” presents an ideal holistic view that consumers should adopt when evaluating sustainability efforts. Section “Discussion” explains how the guiding framework is implemented and highlights the study’s contributions. The final section provides concluding reflections on the guiding framework, outlines the study’s limitations, and suggests future avenues for scholarly inquiry.

Theoretical Foundations and Methodology

The first three steps of the framework are designed to encourage consumers to shift from low-involvement, peripheral processing of information to a more critical, high-involvement central processing. Therefore, the present study adopts the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which posits that consumers with low involvement often form impressions with minimal cognitive effort, relying on peripheral cues such as positive emotional associations and nature-evoking imagery (Chen & Chang, 2013; Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). This is addressed in the framework’s first step, which questions the use of images of nature on products and packaging that are not directly related to the product’s function or ingredients. The subsequent step of the framework encourages consumers to adopt a more central-route analysis by prompting them to scrutinize product claims more deeply. Therefore, the second step prompts consumers to identify irrelevant or generic claims, such as green, organic, natural, or eco-friendly, that lack proof. The third step builds upon this by guiding consumers to look for specific, measurable, and verifiable claims, such as the percentage of recycled materials used, energy efficiency compared to predecessors. If a peripheral cue is noted, the consumer is prompted to shift to central route processing by scrutinizing claims (deficient authenticity claims) and demanding specific, measurable evidence (comparative claims). This move to high-involvement processing requires detailed cognitive effort.

A successful transition to central processing (the outcome of ELM Steps 1–3) inherently creates a demand for verifiable information. The need for this verifiable proof, which the consumer is now cognitively equipped to assess, is precisely the point where the mechanism of Signaling Theory must be deployed. Signaling Theory is grounded in reducing information asymmetry (Connelly et al., 2011), in which companies possess private, truthful information about their environmental impact. Therefore, the fourth and fifth steps of the framework draw on the concept of information asymmetry, an essential component of Signaling Theory (Connelly et al., 2011). Consumers are the receivers who lack full information about a company’s true environmental performance, while companies are the signalers who have private information about their products’ true environmental impact. To bridge this information gap, companies use environmental certifications and ecolabels as signals of their environmental commitment. The framework’s fourth step, which prompts consumers to question whether companies use environmental certifications and ecolabels as symbolic indicators, addresses the inherent challenge of distinguishing between credible and deceptive signals. By encouraging consumers to actively verify these labels and certificates in the fifth step, the framework empowers them to assess the signal’s verifiability and cost. Thus, by guiding consumers to scrutinize the source and authenticity of these signals, the framework provides a practical method to reduce information asymmetry and identify GWPs.

If the signal is verified (e.g., a recognized third-party certification is accessible via digital tools), the consumer has established a form of pragmatic legitimacy—the product’s specific claims appear factual (Seele & Gatti, 2017). However, the final three steps of the framework (Steps 6, 7, and 8) utilize the moral lens of Legitimacy Theory to compel the consumer to move beyond this product-specific assessment to a comprehensive evaluation of the organization’s moral conduct. Moral legitimacy is based on conscious judgments about an organization’s overall procedures and actions that align with socially constructed norms and values (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). When the consumer uses the framework to demand holistic data—specifically, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data (Step 6) and social metrics (Step 7), followed by the assessment of company-wide commitment (Step 8)—they are performing a moral assessment. This assessment evaluates whether the company is truly operating within societal expectations of sustainability or merely engaging in symbolic compliance. This is highly relevant to greenwashing, as the very concept of “green” and “sustainable” is defined by societal expectations and evolving norms. A company’s legitimacy in this area is not static but must be continuously maintained through actions that align with these changing moral values. The framework, by prompting a holistic assessment, guides the consumer to evaluate if the company is genuinely operating within these societal norms or simply using deceptive tactics.

Therefore, the theory synthesis method is employed in this study to create a comprehensive and actionable framework for detecting and avoiding greenwashing. This method is particularly suitable because it allows for the integration of multiple, complementary theories to create a novel conceptualization that is more robust than a single theoretical perspective could provide (Jaakkola, 2020). Conceptual papers, especially those synthesized from multiple disciplines, are often evaluated on their explanatory meaningfulness, novelty, and extendibility, rather than their immediate falsifiability or empirical validation. As a conceptual study, this research contributes to the literature by providing an actionable solution—a guiding framework—rather than by relying on empirical data collection. The rigor of this non-empirical contribution is grounded in a specific methodological defense: the principle that “systematic reasoning substitutes for statistics” (Barnett et al., 2025, p. 3). Through synthesizing the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), Signaling Theory, and Legitimacy Theory, this research addresses the multifaceted nature of the greenwashing concept from a consumer’s standpoint. This integration moves beyond a fragmented view of the problem, building a cohesive, step-by-step framework that guides consumers from initial claim analysis to a final, holistic judgment of corporate legitimacy. To enhance structural clarity, Table 1 visually maps the causal theoretical progression of the framework.

Table 1.

The Causal Theoretical Progression of the Framework.

Stage	Theoretical mechanism	Conceptual goal	Framework steps
1. Processing	Elaboration likelihood model (ELM)	Shift consumer from peripheral (low-involvement) to central (high-involvement) processing	Steps 1, 2, 3
2. Verification	Signaling theory	Reduce information asymmetry by assessing the cost, authenticity, and verifiability of claims/signals	Steps 4, 5
3. Assessment	Moral lens of the legitimacy theory	Move from product-specific claims to holistic, moral judgment of the company’s comprehensive conduct	Steps 6, 7, 8

Analyzing Product Claims

As an initial step of greenwashing categorization, Kangun et al. (1991) divided greenwashed advertising into three categories: (i) ads using false claims; (ii) ads omitting essential data to assess the claim’s authenticity; and (iii) ads employing vague or unclear phrases such as natural and organic. Building upon Kangun et al.’s (1991) initial categorization, Carlson et al. (1993) further refined the green claims into two branches: (i) claim type and (ii) misleading and deceptive claims. While misleading/deceptive claims cover vague/ambiguous, false claims, and omission, the claim type consists of five categories: (i) product-oriented, (ii) process-based, (iii) image-oriented, (iv) environmental facts, and (v) combination. Parallel with the image-oriented classification, Parguel et al. (2015, p. 108) termed image-oriented claims as “executional greenwashing” and noted that evoking natural imagery has been used to reinforce consumer perceptions about the sustainability image of the company. This type of greenwashing is also highlighted by Lyon and Montgomery (2015) as misleading visual imagery. The underlying idea of using natural imagery (associative claims) is to stress a subtle hint on illustrations related to nature and influence consumer attitudes positively toward product offerings of the brand (Banerjee et al., 1995; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Hartmann, Apaolaza-Ibáñez, & Eisend, 2016). Executional nature-evoking illustrations cover scenes of nature, such as hills and forests, endangered animals like pandas and elephants, and clean energy sources like the sun and windmills.

The use of misleading visual imagery is a prevalent tactic, as highlighted by the executive co-director of Green America, a nonprofit organization focused on combating greenwashing, who noted that consumers are increasingly encountering products that feature illustrations or images that make them appear greener or more sustainable than they truly are (Gibbens, 2022). The director also emphasized that consumers should question whether a product is genuinely organic or simply described with vague terms like organic and natural. Since consumers often encounter GWPs with associative claims, such as shampoo bottles featuring a water droplet against a golden/sandy background, or milk/yogurt containers with a mountain landscape in physical marketplaces, the step-by-step guiding framework begins by examining visual indicators of greenwashing.

Does the Product or Its Packaging Prominently Feature Images of Nature (e.g., Mountains, Forests, Flowers) that are Not Directly Related to the Product’s Function or Ingredients?

This study combines TerraChoice’s (2010) Seven Sins categorization with Lyon and Montgomery’s (2015) greenwash varieties to explain the logic of the guiding framework’s second question. The intersection between these categorizations was partly stated by Jones (2019). A (green) sustainability claim implies information concerning a product, service, or business that includes three pillars of sustainability, which are economic, environmental, and social (UNEP, 2017). The sin of no-proof claims without verification; the sin of vagueness, poorly defined and broad terms; the sin of fibbing, making false claims; and the sin of irrelevance, claims that are true but not related to greenness or sustainability can be considered in the same vein. While the first two sins of TerraChoice can be classified under the empty green claims and policies of Lyon and Montgomery’s categorization, the last two fit the misleading narrative and discourse. Each of these sins implies deficient authenticity, which is the quality of being genuine or real. Therefore, deficient authenticity refers to the absence of genuine substance in environmental claims, as evidenced by vagueness, irrelevance, falsehoods, and a lack of verifiable proof in this study. It can be inferred that, since there is no genuine proof or source, companies often use deficient authenticity claims. Furthermore, according to content analyses of the previous studies, most of the cases (52%) show that brands and companies prefer to manipulate customers with vague and generic claims (Naderer & Opree, 2021). It is followed by claims that omit important information about the product and make unsubstantiated claims. Since no strict binding regulations exist, companies use these claims to manipulate consumers in the green market.

Regarding legal regulation, the European Commission (EC) and European Parliament (EP) adopted a directive proposal that permits traders to make generic environmental claims for products that demonstrate excellent environmental performance, in line with Regulation (EC) 66/2010, which pertains to the EU Ecolabel (EU, 2024). EC stated a set of generic claims which are environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, eco, green, nature’s friend, ecological, environmentally correct, climate-friendly, gentle on the environment, carbon friendly, carbon neutral, carbon positive, climate neutral, energy efficient, biodegradable, biobased in the directive proposal which is empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices. In a similar fashion to the EC, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) updated its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides), which provide obvious steps for using general environmental claims (Lyon & Montgomery, 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). For instance, FTC has filed lawsuits against Walmart and Kohl’s for misleading consumers about rayon textiles, misrepresenting them as environmentally friendly bamboo or GSPs (Gibbens, 2022). The regulations mentioned above directly address the consumer’s need to identify misleading claims. Therefore, the step-by-step guiding framework calls claim-based greenwashing into question in the second step.

Are There Any Deficient Authenticity Claims, Such as Green, Organic, Eco-Friendly, Carbon Neutral, Natural, or Energy-Efficient, Without Proof?

Misleading information is pervasive and a serious problem for GSPs. A wide range of ambiguous and exaggerated statements has proliferated across advertising, marketing, media, and packaging, as sustainability has become a competitive advantage (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023). Moreover, considerable research has shown that various forms of greenwashing are more complicated to spot than others (Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018), underscoring the importance of educating customers about specific greenwashing tactics (Naderer & Opree, 2021). For example, in examining the Ecover advertisement, Jones (2019) highlighted that the ad emphasized the use of plant-based plastics for Ecover bottles instead of petroleum-based plastics. To evaluate this claim, consumers should adopt a questioning mindset and consider the percentage of plant-based material used in plastic bottle production. In a similar fashion, some shampoo brands and cleaning supply manufacturers also declare the ratio of recycled plastic to inform consumers.

To ensure consumers have the necessary information to make informed decisions about such comparative claims, the EC and EP adopted an amendment within the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) that consumers should have sufficient information about how comparisons are made, and which products are being compared (EC, 2022). This directive directly reinforces the need for consumers to assess the validity of comparative claims. This will help consumers make more informed decisions when using comparison services. Thus, the guiding framework focuses on making informed evaluations of comparative environmental claims in the third question.

Are There Specific, Measurable Claims, Such as the Percentage of Recycled Materials Used, or Energy Efficiency Compared to Predecessors?

By engaging with the last two questions, the framework helps consumers overcome misleading peripheral cues and invest the cognitive effort required to assess the actual merits of a product’s environmental claims, which aligns with the central route processing and the high level of involvement in ELM.

Verifying Certifications and Labels

Building upon the evaluation of claims in the first three questions, the next two steps of the framework focus on examining ecolabels and environmental certificates, as well as their accessibility. Conscious consumers who have doubts about the sustainability level of a particular product are generally eager to find additional information about it (Jones, 2019; Leonidou & Skarmeas, 2017). While consumers may find it challenging to evaluate all product features and ingredients (Bozza et al., 2022), checking labels and certificates can simplify this process. The sustainable fashion communication playbook (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023) also noted that collaboration with well-established third-party certifications and labels enables substantiated claims and the provision of confirmation tools, such as websites and digital product passports (DPP). Companies have also preferred ecolabels and environmental certificates to promote sustainable products in the marketplace. The EC (EC, 2022, p. 25) identified the sustainability label as “any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent, either public or private, that aims to set apart and promote a product, a process or a business with reference to its environmental or social aspects or both.” Environmental certificates, on the other hand, enable businesses to assess and reduce their harmful effects by voluntarily implementing various externally binding targets (Thompson et al., 2009). It implies that a product, service, or organization complies with certain environmental standards and regulations. Third-party ecolabels and environmental certificates can be endorsed by national authorities (e.g., USDA Organic, Nordic Swan, and Blue Angel); by supranational or international organizations (e.g., EU Ecolabel, ISO); and by NGOs (e.g., B-Corp, Rainforest Alliance, GRI). Table 2 shows common ecolabels and environmental certificates.

Table 2.

Environmental Certificates and Ecolabels.

Name	Content	Country
EU Ecolabel	EU Ecolabel supports the promotion of products and services that have proven to have a reduced environmental impact over their entire life cycle. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel_en	Countries of the European Union
Nordic Swan	The Nordic Swan Ecolabel aims to promote sustainable development by reducing the environmental impact associated with the production and consumption of goods through a life cycle assessment approach. https://www.nordic-swan-ecolabel.org/	Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden
Blue Angel	Blue Angel certifies that a product offers a reduced environmental impact and adheres to strict standards for safeguarding human health, all while delivering the same level of usability and quality as comparable products. https://www.blauer-engel.de/en	Germany
Green Seal	Green Seal is a nonprofit organization that sets strict standards for health, sustainability, and product performance, enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. https://greenseal.org/	USA
Energy Star	Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR is a government-backed symbol that represents energy efficiency. https://www.energystar.gov/	There are currently 6 countries plus those of the European Union and the European Free Trade Association, that have agreements with the U.S. EPA on ENERGY STAR. The 6 countries are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Taiwan
Fairtrade	Fairtrade aims to link marginalized producers with consumers, advocate for fairer trading practices, and empower these producers to alleviate poverty, improve their standing, and take greater control over their lives. https://www.fairtrade.net/us-en.html	Australia and New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland (with Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia), France, Germany, Ibérica (Spain and Portugal), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Forest Stewardship Council	The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a non-profit entity that offers reliable solutions aimed at safeguarding global forests and addressing contemporary issues related to deforestation, climate change, and biodiversity loss. https://fsc.org/en	1,167 international members in 89 countries
USDA Organic	The USDA organic certification ensures climate and environmental protection, soil fertility conservation, biodiversity preservation, adherence to natural cycles and animal welfare, prohibition of chemical and synthetic products, absence of GMOs, and transparent consumer labeling. https://www.ams.usda.gov/	Farms or handling facilities can be certified by private, foreign, or State entities, whose agents are accredited by the USDA.

Note. The certificate and label information in the table is sourced from each of the official websites and is intended for informational purposes only.

Consumers have encountered a common type of label or certificate that focuses on renewable resources, issued by an NGO that emphasizes a specific aspect of sustainability rather than a comprehensive approach, such as the life-cycle assessment in Europe and North America (Lyon & Montgomery, 2015). As an illustration, while B Corp expects companies to adhere to social and environmental standards and to perform well in both areas, it does not set minimum performance expectations for governance, workers, community, environment, and customers (Liute & De Giacomo, 2022). Accordingly, Lyon and Montgomery (2015) put forward that environmental certifications and ecolabels can mislead consumers and be assessed as a form of greenwashing, specifically categorized as dubious certifications and labels, a type intertwined with the false labels category of TerraChoice.

Furthermore, genuine labels exist alongside unregulated self-labeling, which often includes ambiguous and unvalidated claims such as green, ecological, and natural (Klintman, 2016). As an illustration, the European Union (EU) has identified more than 230 types of ecolabels in the marketplace, many of which lack verification and may be misleading (EC, 2025). As a result, there is an urgent need for consumer education and improved regulations to help individuals distinguish between legitimate and fake labels (Urbański & Haque, 2020). In alignment with that, the sustainable fashion communication playbook (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023, p. 37) questions label authenticity with the following question: “Is there reliable, independent evidence or high-quality third-party certifications to support and verify the claims?” As an illustration, some skincare products collaborate with PETA, a non-governmental organization, and use the PETA Approved Vegan and Cruelty-Free label on their packaging. Labels like PETA enable consumers to search for and verify GSPs on official websites. Therefore, the present study proposes the following question for the fourth step of the guiding framework to help consumers better understand and recognize GWPs by critically examining ecolabels and certifications.

If the Product has Any Environmental Certifications or Ecolabels Accompanying the Claims, are These Certifications or Labels Recognized by National, International Authorities, or Independent Organizations, Such as the United Nations, the European Union, or B Corp?

As highlighted above, today’s consumers are seeking more efficient ways to verify sustainable products that align with their environmental and social values. This evolution empowers individuals to make informed decisions that support sustainability and social responsibility (Momsen & Ohndorf, 2021). Conversely, the growing proliferation of logos, labels, and certifications can fuel a competitive environment driven by greenwashing tactics (Bozza et al., 2022). This trend undermines genuine efforts toward sustainability and misleads consumers into seeking authentic, eco-friendly products. In order to combat unregulated labels and certifications, the EC held workshops with stakeholders to explore digital tools that can inform consumers about the sustainability levels of products and services. This approach highlighted several innovative ideas, suggesting that digital tools such as QR codes, DPPs, and e-labels can provide consumers with clear and accessible information that meets sustainability standards (EC, 2022). To put it another way, Budapest-based brand Nanushka has collaborated with EON to embed digital passports in its garments. Each product features a QR code on a label that, when scanned, leads to a page with details on composition, provenance, care instructions, and options for repair, rental, and resale (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023). This system aims to provide instant authentication and traceability for GSPs and to avoid GWPs, thus supporting circular economy efforts and extending the product’s lifespan. Since the sustainability information tool provides consumers with information about the environmental or social aspects of products and helps them detect and avoid greenwashing (EC, 2022; UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023), the guiding framework proceeds to the following question, which examines the accessibility of labels and certificates in the fifth step.

Is It Possible to Access the Content or Claims of Environmental Certifications or Labels Through Digital Information Tools Like Digital Product Passports and QR Codes?

The framework’s fourth step, which encourages consumers to consider whether companies utilize environmental certifications and ecolabels as symbolic indicators, addresses the fundamental challenge of differentiating between credible and deceptive signals. By prompting consumers to access these labels and certificates instantly in the fifth step, the framework enables them to evaluate the verifiability and associated costs of these signals, thereby reducing information asymmetry. A legitimate, third-party verified certificate is a costly signal that is difficult for a greenwashing company to replicate, thereby making it a more credible indicator of genuine commitment. Conversely, a vague, self-created label is a low-cost signal that lacks verifiability and is therefore less trustworthy.

Assessing Holistic Sustainability

As mentioned earlier, most ecolabels focus on specific product aspects, such as recyclable packaging, rather than a comprehensive life-cycle assessment (Moroz et al., 2018). Nevertheless, EC’s online open public consultations and consumer survey showed that consumers need accessible information tools that cover “the life-cycle environmental and climate footprint of the product” (EC, 2022, p. 9). In other words, stakeholders suggested that enhancing information about product durability and life-cycle environmental impacts would effectively encourage consumers to choose more sustainable options. As an illustration, Allbirds uses a lifecycle assessment tool to estimate the carbon footprint of its products throughout their lifespan (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023). This method encompasses all stages of production, including raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal. However, most companies tend to use selective disclosure as a greenwashing tactic. The phenomenon was defined by Lyon and Maxwell (2011, p. 9) as “the selective disclosure of positive information about a company’s environmental or social performance, without full disclosure of negative information on these dimensions, with the aim of creating an overly positive corporate image.” For instance, a Nike representative showcased a video of content workers in a Vietnamese factory at a Business for Social Responsibility event in 1997 (Beder, 2002). Shortly after, the New York Times revealed unfair working conditions in these plants, highlighting workers’ exposure to carcinogens at 177 times the standard level and earning $10 for a 65-hr workweek, significantly below the local minimum wage. While selective disclosure is a type of greenwashing in Lyon and Montgomery’s (2015) categorization, it is intertwined with the sin of the hidden trade-off and the sin of the lesser of two evils of the TerraChoice greenwashing classification. These two sins involve diverting consumers’ attention away from detrimental environmental impacts by focusing solely on a green-based feature.

Following the EC’s adopted proposal for the directive (2005/29/EC), which forbids “making an environmental claim about the entire product when it actually concerns only a certain aspect of the product” (EC, 2022, p. 15), the guiding framework examines the whole production process accessed by digital tools with the following question:

Do environmental Certifications or Digital Product Passports (QR) Provide a Life Cycle Assessment from the Extraction of Natural Resources to the Disposal of the Product?

Greenwashing has predominantly been defined in relation to firms’ environmental performance (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013; Marquis et al., 2016). Nevertheless, some researchers have examined societal concerns related to greenwashing without distinguishing it as either a social or environmental phenomenon (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Seele & Gatti, 2017; Wu et al., 2020). While 61.6% of scholars consider greenwashing to be solely an environmental issue, a significant 38.0% of articles suggest that it also pertains to social concerns (Gatti et al., 2019). In accordance with the literature, the sustainable fashion communication playbook noted that the fashion industry should widen the scope of sustainability aspects, such as social and distributional justice, diversity, the inclusion of underrepresented individuals, fair working conditions, gender equality, as well as the well-being of animals (UNEP and UNFCCC, 2023). For example, Sterbenk et al. (2022) studied “femvertisements,” a term coined by SHE Media in 2014 to describe advertising that promotes female empowerment. Their research found that although many companies received awards for their ad campaigns, they had not made significant progress in terms of gender equality. The lack of minimum standards and verification in labels and certificates leads companies to adopt more symbolic sustainable practices, resulting in GWPs and a race to the bottom (Fischer & Lyon, 2014; Flowers et al., 2020). Similar to the skincare example, consumers can verify animal welfare by checking whether the brand is a member of the PETA Approved Vegan & Cruelty-Free label in terms of social sustainability. To address symbolic maneuvers, EC’s directive (2005/29/EC) prohibits traders from misleading consumers about the social impact, durability, or reparability of their products (EC, 2022). The directive emphasizes that product information provided to consumers should also address the social aspects of sustainability, such as working conditions, charitable contributions, or animal welfare, and should not mislead consumers. Since sustainability integrates economic, environmental, and social aspects, and companies also employ societal concerns as a greenwashing tactic, the guiding framework examines societal concerns in the seventh step with the following question:

Does the Digital Product Passport (QR) Address Social Issues Like Fair Working Conditions and Women’s Employment, in Addition to Environmental Concerns?

Considering the Ecover example mentioned earlier, Jones (2019) stated that consumers should ask whether the company uses plant-based plastics only for bottles in a particular product category or across all products in the product line. Companies, genuinely striving to minimize their negative impacts by adopting a holistic sustainability approach, should embrace both environmental and social aspects. Their commitment to creating sustainable products across all categories reflects a deep-rooted desire to make a positive transformation in the world. These companies can be seen as having a sincere motivation to be sustainable, caring not just for their business, but for the well-being of the planet and communities. Similarly, the Green Claims Directive requires member states to ensure that companies conduct assessments to validate their explicit environmental and social claims (EU, 2024). These assessments must meet various criteria, including clarifying whether the claim refers to the entire product, all of the company’s activities, or only certain aspects. For instance, the 2022 governance change by founder Yvon Chouinard, where he transferred the company’s voting control to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, represents the ultimate structural defense against greenwashing (Groff & Gary, 2023). This transition moves beyond mere commitment statements or marketing campaigns, establishing purpose as a legal, perpetual fiduciary duty of the company. By legally mandating all profits to fund climate change efforts, the Purpose Trust structurally minimizes the mission drift and conflicts of interest that underlie most organizational greenwashing. This governance model provides the highest-fidelity proof that a firm’s commitment is fully reflected across all its product categories and activities, thereby validating the framework’s mandate for comprehensive consistency. Given that companies with a genuine commitment to sustainability will integrate these principles across all product categories, the final step of the framework assesses whether a company’s sustainability strategy is consistently applied.

Is the Company’s Commitment to Sustainability Fully Reflected Across All Its Product Categories in Terms of Social and Environmental Considerations?

Greenwashing is an attempt by a company to portray itself as morally legitimate without engaging in genuine sustainable practices. The framework’s last steps directly counter this by prompting consumers to move beyond a single product’s claims and instead scrutinize the company’s broader sustainability approach across all product categories, including its social and environmental efforts. By encouraging this comprehensive and critical evaluation, the framework guides consumers to make a conscious moral judgment about the company’s overall conduct. In this way, the consumer’s behavior becomes a form of deliberative communication, which, according to Legitimacy Theory, is the trustworthy source of moral legitimacy for a corporation in a pluralistic society. The framework thus provides a practical means for consumers to assess a company’s steadfast commitment to sustainability, thereby holding companies accountable and fostering a market where genuine moral legitimacy is rewarded.

Discussion

This section explains how the guiding framework is implemented, connects it to existing research, and highlights the study’s contributions. While sustainable products can be genuinely eco-friendly or misleadingly promoted, recent research underscores the importance of consumer education and engagement (Fernandes et al., 2020; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Urbański & Haque, 2020). This learning and engagement process is essential for helping individuals distinguish GSPs from GWPs. Unlike purely theoretical papers, this guiding framework provides a concrete tool that helps determine when and how consumers can identify greenwashing, enabling them to detect and avoid GWPs (Barnett et al., 2025; Fella & Bausa, 2024; Montgomery et al., 2024).

While previous research has provided valuable contributions in defining and classifying greenwashing from an organizational or regulatory perspective (Alizadeh et al., 2024; Gong & Li, 2022; Seele & Gatti, 2017), these frameworks often yield static diagnostic checklists or industry-specific assessments, such as those focused on agripreneurship or organizational accountability (Mendes et al., 2024; Nemes et al., 2022). For instance, non-consumer frameworks typically function as multi-stakeholder tools built around general categories such as impact and alignment (Nemes et al., 2022) or rely on the complex concept of “deceptive intent” (Gong & Li, 2022), which is impractical for the average shopper. In contrast, this eight-step guiding framework is explicitly consumer-centric, structured as a dynamic, sequential process anchored in the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Signaling Theory, and Legitimacy Theory to facilitate a deliberate, step-by-step moral judgment. This novel focus yields key differences, notably the framework’s explicit integration of modern digital tools, such as DPP, for verification and its broad mandate for a holistic assessment of both life cycle analysis (LCA) and consistency across social and environmental issues in all product categories, a scope often limited in previous organizational models.

By answering the questions in the framework sequentially, consumers can determine whether companies’ claims suggest GWPs or confirm GSPs. This framework serves as a litmus test for evaluating companies’ social and environmental claims. If a specific question in the framework goes unanswered, consumers can move on to the next one. A “yes” or “no” response to each question shows that the company is, to some degree, involved in greenwashing, either partially or wholly.

The guiding framework’s first step focuses on associative claims, also known as “executional greenwashing” (Parguel et al., 2015, p. 108). Schmuck et al. (2018) found in two field studies that the emotional mechanism, which entails powerful feelings through nature-evoking imagery concerning products and services, dominates consumer attitudes and behavior rather than rational greenwashing perceptions. A common visual cue is green-colored packaging, which leads consumers to associate products with environmental friendliness, regardless of their actual sustainability (Pancer et al., 2017). If consumers answer “yes” to the first question, which often involves seeing unrelated nature visuals, it is usually a first clue. It suggests potential involvement in greenwashing. A “no” answer means consumers should conduct further examination throughout the guiding framework.

A fashion-focused report indicates that most of the sustainability claims made by well-known European brands are unfounded and deceptive (Changing Markets Foundation, 2021). Furthermore, a study analyzing 486 US consumers emphasized that individuals, regardless of their degree of environmental knowledge, failed to identify vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated greenwashing advertisements (Schmuck et al., 2018). When coupled with appealing natural imagery, ambiguous and irrelevant claims can enhance brand attitudes and intentions toward products. When consumers answer “yes” to the second question, which asks whether they display deficient authenticity claims, such as green, natural, or eco-friendly, without any proof, this is a strong sign of involvement in greenwashing. A “no” answer requires moving on to the third question in the guiding framework.

Plastic containers commonly used for cleaning products often claim to be composed of recycled plastic. Nevertheless, most of the companies do not disclose the proportion of recycled material they incorporate. Jones (2019) noted that the Nestlé brand underscores the significance of the recycling ratio by providing examples of products that utilize recyclable plastic bottles. Nike similarly promoted football team jerseys, stating that each jersey is made from the recycling of eight plastic bottles. Therefore, the guiding framework seeks to make comparisons about specific claims, such as the percentage of recycled materials or the energy efficiency of the products. While a “no” answer to the third question indicates a lack of comparable information, which indicates potential involvement in greenwashing, a “yes” answer suggests further investigation using the framework.

As mentioned earlier, the coexistence of regulated and unregulated ecolabels and environmental certificates has increased the importance of reducing information asymmetry between companies and consumers. When an information discrepancy occurs between a company and its stakeholders, such as consumers, the company may use dubious certifications and labels to signal its corporate environmental commitments. Therefore, the presence of authorized certifications and labels remains crucial for consumers seeking to make informed decisions about products. Consequently, answering the fourth question “no” means the label is not recognized by a credible independent authority, which indicates a strong sign of involvement in greenwashing. On the other hand, numerous misleading or fake labels and certifications, lacking effective verification mechanisms, may lead to a “race to the bottom,” which can weaken the motivation for improvement that labels can offer (Fischer & Lyon, 2014; Flowers et al., 2020). As stated in the European Commission’s stakeholder interviews (EC, 2022), easy access to ecolabels and certificates through digital tools such as DPP and QR codes is as important as having authorized labels for consumers (Momsen & Ohndorf, 2021). Although the number of environmental certificates and labels has been increasing, obtaining labels approved by third-party authorities and accessing product-related claims through a DPP or QR code will provide a significant advantage in detecting and avoiding GWPS. In step five, if the answer is “no”, consumers cannot easily access the information behind the label or certification. It is another strong sign of involvement in greenwashing. A “yes” answer, on the other hand, implies conducting additional interrogation through the guiding framework.

After the third step, consumers will use digital information tools, such as DPP and QR codes, to verify information declared by companies. If such digital information is unavailable or inaccessible due to technological constraints, consumers are advised to rely on checking the organization’s official websites for dedicated sustainability reports, third-party certification verification pages, and corporate public disclosures to satisfy Step 5. This fallback mechanism addresses the need for centralized verification, even when product-level digital access is constrained.

By guiding consumers to assess a company’s overall sustainability efforts critically and holding corporations accountable for their claims, the last three steps of the framework essentially position the consumer as an active participant in the communicative engagement that determines a company’s moral legitimacy. In this regard, integrating environmental sustainability, from resource extraction to product disposal, with social sustainability aspects, such as women’s employment and fair working conditions, will foster enhanced corporate legitimacy among consumers that results in enhanced purchase intentions and willingness to pay more (Dekhili & Achabou, 2013; Seele & Gatti, 2017).

As mentioned earlier, many labels only focus on one narrow aspect, maybe just recyclable packaging. Companies often engage in selective disclosure in this phase. Nevertheless, informed consumers increasingly want to know the product’s total environmental and climate footprint throughout its entire life cycle. As noted earlier in the Allbirds case, most companies do not fully disclose the total harmful effects of their products at all stages, from raw material sourcing to consumer disposal. Instead, they tend to hide these negative impacts by highlighting practices like jerseys made from recycled plastic or packaging from certified forest sources (e.g., the Forest Stewardship Council). This suggests that companies often use the selective disclosure tactic, or the sin of the hidden trade-off, to conceal their detrimental effects. Therefore, if the answer to step six is “no,” there is no comprehensive life cycle assessment that clearly indicates a strong sign of involvement in greenwashing.

In contrast to the environmentally dominant perspective, sustainability has three pillars, which are environmental, economic, and social. As mentioned before, companies also use social issues such as femvertising as a form of greenwashing. The ads about championing female empowerment may come from companies with terrible track records on gender equality. Thus, if the answer to step seven is “no,” they are only considering environmental concerns while ignoring social issues, such as fair working conditions, animal welfare, and the gender pay gap. That is another indicator that their sustainability commitment might be shallow, suggesting potential involvement in greenwashing.

Today, national and international authorities are expanding the scope (i.e., environmental and social) of sustainability regulations and deepening their restrictions (i.e., fair working conditions and animal welfare). In this respect, business enterprises should demonstrate a holistic perspective that takes into account the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability. Instead of complying with directives imposed by authorities for only a single product category, companies should focus on creating value for society and manufacturing sustainable products across all categories using sustainable processes. Thus, the final step of the guiding framework examines whether the business’s sustainability commitment is reflected across all product categories when social and environmental concerns are taken into account. If the answer is “no,” it indicates that the company’s sustainability efforts have not yet reached a sufficient level of maturity, which refers to potential involvement in greenwashing.

Conclusion

When consumers are unable to distinguish between a sustainable and a greenwashed product on the shelf, it might not be their fault. Bearing that idea in mind, this study has established a practical, step-by-step guiding framework that serves as a navigational tool, helping consumers make informed decisions in a complex marketplace and avoid greenwashing. By increasing consumer involvement in greenwashing, this guiding framework also empowers consumers to become active participants in the fight against greenwashing, driving a shift towards genuine sustainability. Consumers who can detect GWPs will exert bottom-up pressure on companies to avoid greenwashing tactics. Consequently, companies will be more motivated to authentically adopt sustainability practices as long as there are well-informed consumers in the marketplace.

As a novel approach, the present study addresses claim-based greenwashing by categorizing no-proof, ambiguous, irrelevant, and false claims under an umbrella concept: deficient authenticity, highlighting the absence of genuine proofs or sources. The proposed framework introduces innovative digital tools, such as DPP and QR codes, to empower consumers to make informed decisions that help them avoid greenwashing. Lastly, it provides a comprehensive perspective for evaluating companies’ environmental and social efforts in the context of greenwashing.

The framework’s utility is highest and most straightforward in markets with strong regulatory backing for digital verification in the EU, where mandatory DPP schemes are emerging. However, a limitation is that the widespread adoption of digital tools such as DPPs and QR codes is still new in many countries, which limits the study’s generalizability in global contexts. This constraint is particularly acute in underdeveloped regions where technological infrastructure for instant verification and high digital literacy are not yet commonplace. Additionally, consumers who cannot access certificates and labels via digital tools—either due to a digital divide or a company’s failure to provide them—represent another significant limitation on the framework’s scope and immediate utility.

This study provides a conceptual framework that researchers can test for usability and effectiveness through consumer focus groups to gauge comprehension and practicality in real-world settings. Also, this framework can be validated through data analysis and empirical testing in different marketplace settings.

The actionable framework empowers consumers with a step-by-step process for scrutinizing green claims, directly contributing to consumer protection. This consumer empowerment, when amplified, also creates market pressure for regulatory compliance. The framework’s eight steps effectively serve as a blueprint for policy. Each of the six potential “No” answers indicating greenwashing involvement represents a gap in necessary corporate disclosure (e.g., lack of verifiable claims, absence of LCA, failure to address social concerns). Policymakers can utilize this structured assessment tool to define mandatory disclosure standards and compliance auditing methods, particularly for emerging regulations such as the Green Claims Directive in the European Union and the FTC Green Guides in the US. Lastly, the framework provides policymakers with a clear roadmap for creating new regulations, such as mandating DPPs or standardized QR codes. By creating a credible, consumer-driven demand for transparency, this study contributes to a more trustworthy marketplace.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Oğuz Yıldız

Ethical Considerations

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.

Consent to Participate

There are no human participants in this article, and informed consent is not required.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Alizadeh

Liscio

M. C.

Sospiro

(2024). The phenomenon of greenwashing in the fashion industry: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 37, Article 101416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101416

Barnett

M. L.

Cabral

Cheng

B. H.

Heugens

Rajwani

(2025). Crafting credible and compelling conceptual contributions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 39, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2025.0185

Banerjee

Gulas

C. S.

Iyer

(1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21–31.

Beder

(2002). Putting the boot in. Ecologist, 32(3), 24–28.

Bozza

Campi

Garelli

Ugazio

Battaglia

(2022). Current regulatory and market frameworks in green cosmetics: The role of certification. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 30, Article 100851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2022.100851

Carlson

Grove

S. J.

Kangun

(1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1993.10673409

Changing Markets Foundation. (2021). Synthetics anonymous, fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://changingmarkets.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/SyntheticsAnonymous_FinalWeb.pdf

Chen

Y. S.

Chang

C. H.

(2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489–500.

Connelly

B. L.

Certo

S. T.

Ireland

R. D.

Reutzel

C. R.

(2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.

10.

De Freitas Netto

S. V.

Sobral

M. F. F.

Ribeiro

A. R. B.

Da Luz Soares

G. R

. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32, Article 19.

11.

Dekhili

Achabou

M. A.

(2013). Price fairness in the case of green products: Enterprises’ policies and consumers’ perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1763

12.

Delmas

M. A.

Burbano

V. C.

(2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54, 64–87.

13.

EC. (2023). Green Claims Directive - proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims. Retrieved January 29, 2025, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0166

14.

EC. (2025). Green claims. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en

15.

Ecolabel Index. (2024). Ecolabel Index. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.ecolabelindex.com/

16.

EU. (2024). Green claims directive. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/753958/EPRS_BRI(2023)753958_EN.pdf

17.

EU. (2022). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information. Retrieved December 29, 2024, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:ccf4e0b8-b0cc-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

18.

Fella

Bausa

(2024). Green or greenwashed? Examining consumers’ ability to identify greenwashing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 95, Article 102281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102281

19.

Fernandes

Segev

Leopold

J. K.

(2020). When consumers learn to spot deception in advertising: testing a literacy intervention to combat greenwashing. International Journal of Advertising, 39(7), 1115–1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1765656

20.

Fischer

Lyon

T. P.

(2014). Competing environmental labels. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 23, 692–716.

21.

Flowers

M. E.

Matisoff

D. C.

Noonan

D. S.

(2020). In the LEED: Racing to the top in environmental self-regulation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2842–2856.

22.

Gan

Fernandez

I. C.

Guo

Wilson

Zhao

Zhou

(2017). When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 81, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068

23.

Garnett

A. G.

(2025, July 5). Greenwashing. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/money/greenwashing

24.

Gatti

Seele

Rademacher

(2019). Grey zone in – greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4, Article 6.

25.

Gibbens

(2022). Is your favorite ‘green’ product as eco-friendly as it claims to be? Retrieved December 28, 2204, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/what-is-greenwashing-how-to-spot

26.

Gong

(2022). Defining greenwashing: A concept analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04709-1

27.

Groff

Gary

S. N.

(2023). Patagonia, purpose trusts, and stewardship trusts—business with a purpose. Probate & Property, 37(1), 29–35.

28.

Hartmann

Apaolaza-Ibanez

(2009). Green advertising revisited. Conditioning virtual nature experiences. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715–739.

29.

Hartmann

Apaolaza

Eisend

(2016). Nature imagery in non-green advertising: The effects of emotion, autobiographical memory, and consumer’s green traits. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 427–440.

30.

Jaakkola

(2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

31.

Jones

(2019). Rethinking greenwashing: Corporate discourse, unethical practice, and the unmet potential of ethical consumerism. Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 728–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419849095

32.

Kangun

Carlson

Grove

S. J.

(1991). Environmental advertising claims: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 47–58.

33.

Klintman

(2016). A review of public policies relating to the use of environmental labelling and information schemes (ELIS) (OECD Environment Working Papers No. 105). OECD Publishing.

34.

Langer

Eisend

Kub

(2008). The impact of eco-labels on consumers: Less information, more confusion? European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 338–339.

35.

Leonidou

C. N.

Skarmeas

(2017). Gray shades of green: Causes and consequences of green skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4

36.

Liu

Meng

(2023). Influence of distracted mutual fund investors on corporate ESG decoupling: evidence from China. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14, 184–215.

37.

Liute

De Giacomo

M. R.

(2022). The environmental performance of UK-based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 810–827.

38.

Lyon

Maxwell

(2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20, 3–41.

39.

Lyon

T. P.

Montgomery

A. W.

(2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 747–757.

40.

Lyon

T. P.

Montgomery

A. W.

(2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332

41.

Marquis

Toffel

Zhou

(2016) Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039

42.

Mendes

J. A. J.

Oliveira

A. Y.

Santos

L. S.

Gerolamo

M. C.

Zeidler

V. G. Z.

(2024). A theoretical framework to support green agripreneurship avoiding greenwashing. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27, 21779–21835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04965-z

43.

Momsen

Ohndorf

(2021). Information avoidance, selective exposure, and fake (?) news: Theory and experimental evidence on green consumption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 88, Article 102457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2021.102457

44.

Montgomery

A. W.

Lyon

T. P.

Barg

(2024). No end in sight? A greenwash review and research agenda. Organization & Environment, 37(2), 221–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231168905

45.

Moroz

Branzei

Parker

S. C.

Gamble

E. N.

(2018). Imprinting with purpose: Prosocial opportunities and B corp certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 33, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.003

46.

Naderer

Opree

S. J.

(2021). Increasing advertising literacy to unveil disinformation in green advertising. Environmental Communication, 15(7), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1919171

47.

Nemes

Scanlan

S. J.

Smith

Aronczyk

Hill

Lewis

S. L.

Montgomery

A. W.

Tubiello

F. N.

Stabinsky

(2022). An integrated framework to assess greenwashing. Sustainability, 14(8), Article 4431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084431

48.

Palazzo

Scherer

A. G.

(2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88.

49.

Pancer

McShane

Noseworthy

T. J.

(2017). Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2764-4

50.

Parguel

Benoit-Moreau

Russell

C. A.

(2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116

51.

Pearson

(2010). Turning point. Are we doing the right thing? Leadership and prioritisation for public benefit. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 37, 37–40.

52.

Pendse

M. K.

Nerlekar

V. S.

Darda

(2023). A comprehensive look at greenwashing from 1996 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Indian Business Research, 15(1), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-04-2022-0115

53.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Schumann

(1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

54.

Schmuck

Matthes

Naderer

(2018). Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect–reason–involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652

55.

Seele

Gatti

(2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1912

56.

Siano

Vollero

Conte

Amabile

(2017). “More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.002

57.

Skarmeas

Leonidou

C. N.

(2013). When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004

58.

Spaniol

M. J.

Danilova Jensen

Nielsen

Rosdahl

C. G.

Schmidt

C. J.

(2024). Defining greenwashing: A concept analysis. Sustainability, 16, Article 9055. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209055

59.

Sterbenk

Champlin

Windels

(2022). Is femvertising the new greenwashing? Examining corporate commitment to gender equality. Journal of Business Research, 177, 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04755-x

60.

TerraChoice. (2010). Sins of greenwashing. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing

61.

Thompson

Anderson

Hansen

Kahle

(2009). Green segmentation and environmental certification: Insights from forest products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(5), 319–334.

62.

Urbański

ul Haque

(2020). Are you environmentally conscious enough to differentiate between greenwashed and sustainable items? A global consumers perspective. Sustainability, 12(5), Article 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051786

63.

UNEP. (2017). The long view - Exploring product lifetime extension. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/the_long_view_2017.pdf

64.

UNEP and UNFCCC. (2023). The sustainable fashion communication playbook. Nairobi.

65.

Zhang

Xie

(2020). Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing: Corporate social responsibility and information transparency. Management Science, 66, 3095–3112.

Greenwashing: Unmasking the Hype and Finding the Truth

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Foundations and Methodology

Analyzing Product Claims

Does the Product or Its Packaging Prominently Feature Images of Nature (e.g., Mountains, Forests, Flowers) that are Not Directly Related to the Product’s Function or Ingredients?

Are There Any Deficient Authenticity Claims, Such as Green, Organic, Eco-Friendly, Carbon Neutral, Natural, or Energy-Efficient, Without Proof?

Are There Specific, Measurable Claims, Such as the Percentage of Recycled Materials Used, or Energy Efficiency Compared to Predecessors?

Verifying Certifications and Labels

If the Product has Any Environmental Certifications or Ecolabels Accompanying the Claims, are These Certifications or Labels Recognized by National, International Authorities, or Independent Organizations, Such as the United Nations, the European Union, or B Corp?

Is It Possible to Access the Content or Claims of Environmental Certifications or Labels Through Digital Information Tools Like Digital Product Passports and QR Codes?

Assessing Holistic Sustainability

Do environmental Certifications or Digital Product Passports (QR) Provide a Life Cycle Assessment from the Extraction of Natural Resources to the Disposal of the Product?

Does the Digital Product Passport (QR) Address Social Issues Like Fair Working Conditions and Women’s Employment, in Addition to Environmental Concerns?

Is the Company’s Commitment to Sustainability Fully Reflected Across All Its Product Categories in Terms of Social and Environmental Considerations?

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References