Abstract
This study explored how UK general consumers and environmental activists emotionally and cognitively respond to green marketing claims by BP, Volkswagen, and Unilever. Using a mixed-method survey, 196 participants viewed environmental ads followed by greenwashing accusations. Quantitative results showed general consumers experienced higher cognitive dissonance and reduced purchase intention post-exposure, while activists reported lower trust and less discomfort. Qualitative findings revealed consumers’ emotional conflict and justification (loyalty, denial), contrasted with activists’ resolved dissonance and ideological distancing. Environmental awareness predicted skepticism but not consistent purchase behavior, indicating an attitude–behavior gap. These findings may offer practical implications for corporate communication strategies aimed at recovering trust and image repair after greenwashing accusations.
Keywords
Introduction
The ethical responsibility of being a “good corporate citizen” is becoming a foundational aspect of corporate social responsibility strategy for many corporations today, reinforced by the regular calls from consumers, investors, and regulatory bodies for sustainable products (Arienata et al., 2024). Corporations are now evaluated not only on financial performance but also on environmental contributions, prompting investments in sustainable innovations that build trust and brand credibility among eco-conscious consumers (Fatemi & Dubé, 2021; Mandarić et al., 2022). In the UK—as in many other markets—rising climate awareness and regulatory scrutiny have intensified preferences for sustainably sourced products across sectors such as food, energy, and fashion, reinforced by activism that challenges greenwashing through accountability mechanisms (Boyer et al., 2021; Stryja & Satzger, 2018; Zhu & Wang, 2020; Yu et al., 2020).
While Oxford English Dictionary defines greenwashing as “disinformation disseminated by an organization,” Greenpeace, an environmental activist NGO labels it as “the act of misleading consumers” on environmental practices (De Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Gatti & Seele, 2015). The prevalence of greenwashing has been particularly noticeable in industries that are under scrutiny for their environmental impact. High-profile cases from companies like Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” showcased manipulation of emissions testing despite environmentally framed marketing (Arouri et al., 2021; Kim & Lyon, 2015). Unilever has faced claims that high-level sustainability narratives have not always matched the environmental profile of its broader portfolio (Akturan, 2018; Chang & Hung, 2022). BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” rebranding, while projecting a renewable pivot, coexisted with continued fossil fuel investments, fueling accusations of greenwashing and credibility erosion (Pimonenko et al., 2020). Collectively, these cases underscore how audiences evaluate the alignment of claims and conduct and why perceived misalignment can trigger skepticism, distrust, and shifts in marketplace behavior (Zhang, 2022). This growing awareness of the environmental issues has led to confluence of consumer demand, rising activism, and the need for sustainable corporation practices. The evaluation of green marketing messages by general consumers and activists is critical in shaping their perceptions and influencing purchase intentions or actual decisions. Research shows that consumers exhibit a strong preference for brands that demonstrate a genuine commitment to environmentally friendly practices, as opposed to those that engage in superficial or misleading tactics (Vivek & Sahana, 2021).
General consumers tend to assess green marketing messages based on trust, perceived effectiveness, and personal values about sustainability. For instance, a study conducted nearly 10 years ago found that consumers’ perceptions of trust are significant predictors of their green consumption behavior, emphasizing the importance of improving consumer trust in green products (Yang & Chai, 2022). In addition, general consumers often engage with sustainability on a more surface level, typically driven by personal preferences, convenience, or perceived product quality (Norton et al., 2022; Oloyede & Lignou, 2021). Gallo et al. (2023) found that only a small segment of consumers, labeled “sustainable consumers,” align their purchasing decisions with their environmental values, representing a distinct group within the broader consumer base. For most consumers, sustainability competes with considerations such as cost and performance (Lin et al., 2023), creating an attitude-behavior gap that requires deeper psychological examination.
Environmental activism is a term used in reference to deliberate and diligent actions taken to protect or enhance the environment and raise public awareness of environmental issues (Fielding et al., 2008). Activists typically adopt a critical stance toward corporate sustainability messaging, closely scrutinizing environmental claims and actively calling out greenwashing, thereby influencing public discourse on corporate credibility (Leonidou et al., 2012). Their engagement goes beyond individual purchasing decisions; it reflects a deeper ethical commitment to sustainability as a societal imperative. As such, activists frequently participate in campaigns, advocacy, and collective actions that push for systemic change in corporate practices and broader policy frameworks (Hosta & Žabkar, 2020). This higher level of identity salience distinguishes activists from general consumers, positioning them as more vigilant and ideologically consistent in how they interpret and respond to green marketing messages.
This study integrates cognitive dissonance theory, identity theory with dissonance justification in the context of greenwashing, exploring how individuals of this distinct group reconcile conflicting sustainability narratives. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals experience psychological discomfort when confronted with contradictory beliefs, leading them to seek alignment between their values and the actions of corporations (Apriansyah & Muhmin, 2023). By analyzing real-world stimuli, such as green marketing claims in advertisements and documented instances of greenwashing from leading corporations like BP, Volkswagen, and Unilever, this research sought to establishes a controlled environment to evaluate the psychological and behavioral impacts of corporate environmental messaging on the two groups of consumers. Importantly, the study contrasts responses between environmental activists, who typically possess a heightened awareness and sensitivity to sustainability issues, and general consumers, who may exhibit varying levels of environmental concern (Kahraman & Kazançoğlu, 2019). This comparative analysis provides insights into the distinct motivations and reactions of these two groups and incorporates environmental awareness as a critical variable, influencing how individuals interpret and react to perceived greenwashing activities (Vayona et al., 2024).
The existing literature on greenwashing has largely emphasized consumer outcomes such as green brand loyalty, brand image, and green word of mouth, often from a corporate communication perspective (Akturan, 2018; Leonidou et al., 2012). Yet, less attention has been given to the psychological mechanisms shaping individual level responses to greenwashing, particularly among diverse audience groups such as general consumers and environmental activists. This oversight is significant given the growing prevalence of greenwashing accusations and their implications for corporate credibility, financial stability, and public trust in sustainability initiatives (Kim & Lyon, 2015). Prior research has shown that trust violations can induce dissonance-related discomfort (Wilkins et al., 2016) and that identity can foster behavioral resilience (Li et al., 2016). However, the interaction of these mechanisms remains underexplored. Specifically, how environmental identity might buffer trust erosion or shape the justification strategies individuals adopt when confronted with greenwashing, including tendencies towards moral licensing (Mazar & Zhong, 2010).
The findings of the research are intended to help deepen our theoretical understanding of the manner and means in which greenwashing messages are psychological processed by individuals in terms of their emotional as well as cognitive impacts in shaping attitudes toward corporate sustainability claims. Additionally, the study aims to facilitate practical guidance for corporations seeking to enhance their ethical and effective sustainability communications. By understanding the cognitive and emotional factors at play, organizations can better deal with the challenges posed by greenwashing accusations, thereby fostering trust among consumers and activists alike. Ultimately, this research underscores the necessity for more transparent corporate sustainability strategies that aligns with the values and expectations of all stakeholders, fostering environmentally responsible consumer behavior while maintaining corporate integrity (Kim & Lyon, 2015; Ramtiyal et al., 2023).
The study was guided by the following research questions:
RQ 1: How does environmental identity moderate the relationship between greenwashing accusations and trust erosion, and how does it influence the experience of cognitive dissonance
RQ 2: What dissonance justification strategies do environmental activists and general consumers employ in response to greenwashing, and how do these strategies affect their emotional reactions and behavioral intentions?
RQ 3: To what extent does environmental awareness predict skepticism and changes in purchase intentions among environmental activists and general consumers, and how does this reflect the attitude-behavior gap?
Theoretical Background
Cognitive Dissonance and Identity Theory in the Context of Greenwashing
This study investigated the psychological mechanisms through which general consumers and environmental activists respond to corporate greenwashing messages and controversies using Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) as its primary theoretical framework. Developed by Festinger (1957), CDT posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort referred to as dissonance when they hold or confront conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. This discomfort motivates individuals to seek to reduce the inconsistency, either by adjusting their beliefs or behaviors or by introducing new cognitions that restore internal coherence (Yakın et al., 2023).
In green marketing contexts, dissonance becomes particularly salient when consumers who value environmental responsibility are confronted with evidence that a corporation that, they believed to be sustainable has engaged in deceptive or harmful environmental practices (Wilkins et al., 2016). This contradiction between moral values and marketplace behavior or reality can trigger emotional and cognitive conflict/incongruency, potentially resulting in distrust, disengagement, or rationalization.
Crucially, the degree of dissonance experienced is moderated by pre-existing trust. Trust is defined as a psychological state grounded in positive expectations of another party’s behavior (Sanchez-Franco, 2009). Within consumer brand relationships, trust acts as a cognitive investment in which message credibility is anchored and reduces perceived risk. When this trust is violated, especially in morally significant domains such as sustainability, consumers may experience a sense of moral betrayal, leading to heightened dissonance. However, not all consumers experience this violation equally. General consumers, who tend to engage with sustainability claims at a surface level and assume brand sincerity are particularly susceptible to dissonance when exposed to greenwashing accusations. In contrast, environmental activists who often approach corporate environmental narratives with skepticism are less likely to trust such claims in the first place. Consequently, their expectancy disconfirmation is lower, resulting in weaker dissonance responses (Hosta & Žabkar, 2020; Mahapatra & Mishra, 2021).
To further account for this divergence in psychological processing, the study incorporates identity theory (Stryker, 1980, 1994), which addresses how a person’s self-concept influences their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors—is incorporated into this study to help explain this deviation in psychological processing. According to Li et al. (2016), identity can be conceptualized across three dimensions: (1) self-concept in relation to social structures and group membership, (2) self-concept based on personal traits such as gender or age, and (3) self-concept grounded in issue-based orientations or ideological commitments, such as environmentalism or political beliefs. These identity dimensions can independently predict behavioral intentions, beyond the influence of attitudes.
The third category—“issue-based identity”—is most relevant to the present study. Individuals who internalize environmentalism as a central part of their identity can be presumed to process sustainability messaging through an ideologically congruent lens. For example, an individual who identifies as an environmentalist would be more likely to critically evaluate and reject corporate narratives perceived as inconsistent, such as greenwashing. In contrast, general consumers, whose environmental identity may be weak, are more likely to accept such claims at face value making them more vulnerable to cognitive dissonance when contradictions arise.
By framing environmental activism as a salient identity position, identity theory provides a conceptual foundation for understanding why general consumers and activists may exhibit differing levels of trust, emotional reactivity, and justification behavior. While activists tend to maintain identity-congruent skepticism and stable evaluations over time, general consumers often struggle to reconcile their environmental concerns with prior brand loyalty, perceived product utility, or habitual consumption patterns.
Dissonance Justification Strategies in Response to Greenwashing
When individuals experience cognitive dissonance, they typically engage in psychological strategies to reduce discomfort and restore cognitive equilibrium. One of the most common pathways for dissonance reduction is the use of dissonance justifications, the addition of beliefs, explanations, or perceptions that align with pre-existing attitudes and help rationalize the inconsistency (Festinger, 1957; Wilkins et al., 2016).
In the greenwashing context, such justifications allow consumers to maintain favorable attitudes toward a brand despite being exposed to discrediting information. For instance, consumers might downplay the severity of the greenwashing accusations, emphasize the quality of the product, express hope for future improvement, or point to a lack of viable alternatives. These strategies enable individuals to continue purchasing or supporting the brand without fully confronting the ethical implications of their behavior (Gallo et al., 2023; Mahapatra & Mishra, 2021; Yap & Gaur, 2014). Building on this literature, this study theorizes that the tendency to employ such dissonance-reducing strategies varies by environmental identity. Specifically, proposing that general consumers, who may experience greater cognitive dissonance when confronted with greenwashing, are more likely to rely on emotion-regulatory strategies such as denial, loyalty, or resignation. In contrast, environmental activists, who approach green claims with greater skepticism are expected to show less reliance on such justifications. Instead, they may resolve dissonance by reinforcing their disengagement from the brand or industry, avoiding the need for justification altogether.
By examining these cognitive and emotional processes across consumer group, the research seeks to contribute to the theoretical understanding of how individuals respond to deceptive or misleading environmental-related marketing messages in branding, as well as how and why trust and emotional preparedness play a critical role in shaping those responses.
Hypotheses
H1: Following exposure to both green marketing and greenwashing accusations, environmental activists will report significantly lower trust in corporate environmental claims than general consumers.
H2a: After exposure to greenwashing accusations, environmental activists will exhibit significant negative emotional responses than general consumers.
H2b: Environmental activists will report lower levels of cognitive dissonance than general consumers following greenwashing accusations.
H2c: Environmental activists will rely less on dissonance-reducing strategies (e.g., denial, product justification, perceived lack of alternatives) compared to general consumers.
H3: General consumers will exhibit a higher reduction in purchase intention following greenwashing accusations compared to environmental activists.
H4: Higher levels of environmental awareness will correlate positively with increased skepticism towards corporate environmental claims, lower purchasing intentions, and lower trust in other company’s sustainability claims across both general consumers and environmental activists.
Methodology
Research Design
This research employed a stimulus-based survey design to explore how different consumer groups respond to greenwashing accusations in corporate messages associating products with sensitivity to environmental preservation. The study aimed to capture emotional and cognitive reactions as well as trust, justification of behaviors, and purchasing decisions, following exposure to green-themed marketing content and later, disclosure of greenwashing. A survey instrument was designed to simulate a realistic flow of consumer information exposure, reflecting how people might encounter corporate environmental claims, following a greenwashing accusation on social media or through advocacy groups.
Participants were asked to self-identify as either environmental activists or general consumers via a binary question at the outset of the survey (“How do you identify?” With options: environmental activist, general consumer). This classification was selected to enable clear comparative analysis between distinct identity, positions those with high versus low environmental salience. While this binary approach may seem to simplify (or limit) the spectrum of environmental identity, it aligns with prior environmental psychology research that uses categorical comparisons to highlight identity-based differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Fielding et al., 2008). Demographic information, including age, gender, education, income, and occupation, was collected anonymously to ensure participant privacy and reduce social desirability bias. The questionnaire included both structured questions and open-ended responses; the latter intended to capture deeper psychological reasoning behind participant choices.
Participants were then exposed to green-themed advertising content from three multinational corporations: BP, Volkswagen, and Unilever. The stimuli comprised three major campaigns later associated with greenwashing: “Clean Diesel” (2008, central to the Diesel gate scandal), Unilever’s “Sustainable Living Plan” (2010, criticized by NGOs for overstating sustainability outcomes), and BP’s “Keep Advancing” and “Possibilities Everywhere” (2019, challenged for promoting fossil fuel expansion under green narrative). These cases were selected for their high public visibility in the UK, clear environmental framing, and explicit contestation in media and academic discourse. A formal pretest was not conducted, as the study focused on brand familiarity rather than prior ad recognition as the key determinant of trust and dissonance. Participants viewed each full advertisement (video and image) embedded directly within the online questionnaire, ensuring standardized and controlled exposure with a confirmation step to proceed. This approach aligns with stimulus-based consumer research that emphasizes ecological validity through use of authentic, real-world corporate materials (Wilkins et el., 2016). Responses from those who indicated that they had not watched the ads were excluded from the final sample. After viewing the content, participants were asked to evaluate the credibility of the environmental claims, their trust in each brand, and their emotional reactions to advertising.
Following this initial phase, participants were shown information regarding greenwashing accusations related to the same three companies. Specifically, the accusation included: BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill (2010), Volkswagen’s Dieselgate emissions scandal (2015), and Greenpeace’s accusations against Unilever’s plastic footprint (2023). The participants then answered a second set of questions assessing the level of cognitive dissonance they experienced, any change in brand trust, and the dissonance justification strategies they used, such as belief in product quality, confidence in future improvements, disbelief in the accusations, or the perceived lack of alternatives. Participants also reported their past purchasing behavior and their likelihood of purchasing from these companies in the future.
Participants and Data Analysis
Upon receiving ethical approval from the ethics committee at the home institution, a total of 212 survey instruments were sent to respondents at universities, institutions involved in environmental activism. In all, 212 respondents received the survey, but 16 responses were excluded from eventual analysis because the participants had not viewed the required stimuli, resulting in a final sample of 196 valid responses. All participants were residents of the United Kingdom, and the sample consisted of individuals from a range of backgrounds, including university students and staff, Greenpeace members, and members of the public. The survey was administered at more than 300 Universities, environmental organizations and individuals through e-mails using email and digital channels/platforms. The survey remained open for a total of 73 days and was closed upon reaching data saturation, at which point no new qualitative insights emerged. Before beginning the questionnaire, participants were provided with information statement explaining the purpose of the study, the approximate duration (10–15 min), and the voluntary nature of participation. Participants were informed that the participation involved images and videos before responding to questions on brand familiarity, reactions to advertisements, and perceptions of corporate messaging. Participants were instructed that “if you agree to participate, kindly proceed to the questionnaire,” and continuation signified electronic informed consent. The study involved minimal risk, and all procedures were designed to protect participant confidentiality. Ethical standards upheld during this research, including the anonymity of participants, align with the guidelines in the literature concerning ethical research practices with consumer behavior assessments (Sun & Shi, 2022).
Quantitative data were analyzed using Stata 17 for group comparisons and SPSS for reliability (Cronbach’s α) and factor analyses (EFA). Independent t-tests and chi-square analyses were conducted to compare consumer group. Emotional responses and justification strategies were recoded into binary dummy variables (0 = not selected, 1 = selected). Independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to compare environmental activists and general consumers across emotional reactions, cognitive dissonance levels, justification tendencies, brand trust scores, and past and future purchasing behavior.
In addition to statistical analysis, a qualitative component was integrated through the thematic coding of open-ended responses. Of the 58 open-ended responses collected, 32 were selected for analysis based on clarity and relevance. These included 19 responses from self-identified environmental activists and 13 from general consumers. Coding was conducted using ATLAS.ti 25, following a thematic analysis approach. Codes were developed both inductively from the data and deductively based on psychological constructs such as dissonance reduction strategies, and ethical reasoning. Code frequencies were analyzed across identity groups, and representative quotations were used to contextualize and deepen interpretation of the quantitative findings. This mixed-methods integration allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of how identity influences consumer responses to corporate greenwashing.
Integration followed a convergent mixed-methods logic (Creswell & Clark, 2017), where quantitative results identified patterns (e.g., lower trust among activists in Table 1), and qualitative themes explained these patterns (e.g., “corporate distrust” narratives supporting H1). In case of non-significant statistical findings, qualitative insights (e.g., “lack of alternatives” in Table 7) clarified underlying reasons, such as the attitude-behavior gap in H4 (Table 6). This triangulation strengthened result credibility by confirming overlaps (e.g., low dissonance scores aligned with “resolved dissonance” code) and illuminating discrepancies between numerical trends and lived experiences.
Mean Trust Ratings and Statistical Differences by Consumer Group.
Note. N = 98 per group. Mean trust scores are based on a 5-point Likert scale. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
p-values < .001 are shown for clarity.
Measures, Reliability, and Validity
All questionnaire items were developed specifically for this study, but were conceptually guided by prior research. Environmental awareness was assessed using 5-point likert items measuring “the perceived importance of environmental issues,”“frequency of seeking environmental information,” and “familiarity with the term greenwashing,” informed by work on environmental concerns and awareness (Fielding et al., 2008). The three-item scale demonstrated modest reliability (Cronbach’s α = .59), which is acceptable for exploratory research given the multidimensional nature of awareness (Hair et al., 2009). Trust in corporate environmental claims was measured by evaluating the credibility of environmental claims for BP, Unilever, and Volkswagen, conceptually grounded in prior measures of green trust (Chen & Chang, 2013). This scale exhibited acceptable internal consistency (α = .70). Cognitive dissonance was captured using items reflecting psychological conflicts after exposure to accusations against each company, informed by dissonance frameworks (Sweeney et al., 2000), showed a strong scale of (α = .84).
Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the multi-item scales. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was .72, and Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 783.83, df = 36, p < .001) confirming sampling adequacy. Three components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, explaining 70.1% of the total variance. All items loaded strongly on their respective factors (>.58), supporting the distinctiveness of the constructs.
To assess common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. The unrotated solution indicated that the first factor accounted for 22.4% of the variance, well below the 50% threshold considered problematic (Podsakoff et al., 2003), suggesting that common method bias was unlikely to threaten validity.
Results
To recap, this study was designed to seek clearer understanding of different psychological processes and emotional factors at play in how general consumers and consumers involved in environmental activist work process marketing messages with environmental claims by three leading corporations in the UK. This part presents a comparative analysis of trust in corporate environmental claims between general consumers and environmental activists across three multinational companies: BP, Unilever, and Volkswagen. Following exposure to each company’s green-themed advertisement and subsequent greenwashing accusations, participants were asked to rate their level of trust in the brand’s environmental messaging. An independent samples t-test was conducted for each company to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the observed differences in level of trust.
For BP, general consumers reported a mean trust score of 2.36 (SD = 0.79), compared to 1.93 (SD = 0.80) for environmental activists; a difference that is statistically significant, t(194) = 3.67, p < .001, implying that environmental activists were more skeptical of BP’s sustainability messaging. While the mean difference was modest (Δ = 0.43), it reflects a consistent trend where more environmentally engaged individuals are less trusting of corporate environmental narratives, even when those messages are accompanied by strong visual or verbal claims.
In the case of Unilever, the trust gap between the two groups was the largest. General consumers rated the company’s environmental trustworthiness significantly higher (M = 4.24, SD = 1.20) than activists (M = 2.12, SD = 0.96), yielding a mean difference of 2.12. This difference is highly significant, t(194) = 13.69, p < .001. These results suggest that Unilever’s green image may resonate more effectively with the general consumer, while being perceived as disingenuous or inconsistent by environmental activists particularly after being confronted with accusations of greenwashing.
Similarly, for Volkswagen, general consumers reported a higher mean trust score (M = 2.91, SD = 0.79) compared to environmental activists (M = 2.14, SD = 0.80). This difference was also statistically significant, t(194) = 6.75, p < .001, with a mean gap of 0.77. Volkswagen’s prior involvement in environmental controversies may have contributed to generally low trust levels across both groups, but the difference still supports the notion that consumer type plays a key role in how corporate sustainability messages are interpreted.
Overall, these results support Hypothesis 1 (H1), which predicted that environmental activists would report lower trust in environmental claims made by corporations compared to general consumers.
A chi-square analysis comparing emotional responses between general consumers and environmental activists revealed distinct affective patterns aligned with their respective environmental orientations. Notably, environmental activists were significantly more likely to report feelings of frustration in response to greenwashing accusations (χ2(1) = 48.34, p < .001), with over half (n = 56) endorsing this emotion compared to only 10 general consumers. Similarly, optimism was significantly more prevalent among general consumers (χ2(1) = 24.62, p < .001), with 76 consumers reporting this reaction versus only 42 activists. These significant differences suggest divergent emotional processing: while activists exhibited heightened negative affect, consistent with a critical orientation toward corporate environmental claims, general consumers demonstrated a tendency toward more positive or hopeful interpretations.
Other emotional responses, such as doubt, neutrality, and “other” emotions, did not yield statistically significant differences between the groups (ps > .05). Although a slightly greater proportion of activists reported doubt (n = 18) than consumers (n = 11), this difference did not reach statistical significance (χ2(1) = 1.98, p = .159).
Overall, these findings offer instructive empirical support for the first component of Hypothesis 2 (H2a), suggesting that environmental identity plays an important role in shaping emotional responses to greenwashing. While general consumers may interpret green marketing claims through a more surface-level resulting in optimism even when faced with contradictory evidence activists appear more attuned to inconsistencies and respond with greater emotional reactivity, particularly frustration, possibly because of pre-existing skepticism.
Independent samples t-tests revealed statistically significant differences in cognitive dissonance levels between general consumers and environmental activists across all three companies.
For Unilever, general consumers reported substantially higher cognitive dissonance (M = 3.84, SD = 1.23) than activists (M = 1.87, SD = 0.95), with a large and significant mean difference of 1.97, t(194) = 12.53, p < .001, 95% CI [1.66, 2.28]. This suggests that consumers experienced greater psychological discomfort when exposed to conflicting information about a brand widely associated with sustainability.
Similarly, in the case of Volkswagen, cognitive dissonance was significantly higher among consumers (M = 2.85, SD = 0.91) than activists (M = 1.60, SD = 0.76), t(194) = 10.41, p < .001, with a mean difference of 1.24 (95% CI [1.01, 1.48]).
For BP, although the overall cognitive dissonance levels were lower, the difference remained significant. Consumers reported greater dissonance (M = 2.39, SD = 0.89) compared to activists (M = 1.68, SD = 0.84), with a mean difference of 0.70, t(194) = 5.67, p < .001, 95% CI [0.46, 0.95].
These findings support Hypothesis 2b, confirming that general consumers exhibit significantly higher levels of cognitive dissonance in response to greenwashing than activists. This disparity may reflect differing baseline expectations; general consumers may initially accept corporate environmental messaging at face value, experiencing dissonance when confronted with contradictory information. Activists, on the other hand, may approach such claims with skepticism from the outset, reducing the psychological conflict that follows exposure to greenwashing accusations.
Providing support for H2c, participants reported varying justifications for continued purchasing from companies accused of greenwashing. General consumers were significantly more likely than activists to select “product quality is unmatched” (M = 0.80, SD = 0.41 vs. M = 0.45, SD = 0.50), t(194) = 5.34, p < .001, and “there are no better alternatives” (M = 0.73, SD = 0.44 vs. M = 0.47, SD = 0.50), t(194) = 3.92, p < .001. Activists were more likely to endorse “I believe their environmental initiatives will improve” (M = 0.58, SD = 0.50) than consumers (M = 0.12, SD = 0.33), t(194) = -7.64, p < .001. Consumers were also significantly more likely to indicate “I don’t think the accusations are credible” (M = 0.49, SD = 0.50 vs. M = 0.01, SD = 0.10), t(194) = 9.26, p < .001.
Responses for “none of the above,”“other,” and “all of the above” did not differ significantly between the two groups (ps > .05).
A composite change score was calculated for each participant by averaging the difference between post- and pre-exposure purchase intention ratings for three companies (BP, Unilever, and Volkswagen). Negative values indicate a decline in purchase intention after exposure to greenwashing content. The results revealed a significantly reduction in purchase intention among general consumers (M = –0.65, SD = 0.67) compared to environmental activists (M = –0.13, SD = 0.53), t(194) = –6.00, p < .001, 95% CI [–0.69, –0.35]. The between-group difference of −0.52 points suggest a substantially stronger behavioral shift among consumers in response to the greenwashing allegations.
These findings support hypothesis H3. While both groups reduced their purchase intentions following exposure, the magnitude of change was more pronounced among consumers. This pattern likely reflects preexisting skepticism among activists, who may have entered the study with already low purchase intentions, thus showing a smaller reduction (i.e., a potential floor effect). Conversely, general consumers appear to have experienced a stronger disconfirmation of expectations and thus exhibited more behavioral adjustment. This result aligns with cognitive dissonance theory and further supports the role of prior trust in shaping post-exposure consumer behavior.
To examine the influence of environmental awareness on consumer outcomes following greenwashing accusations, three linear regressions were conducted with awareness as the independent variable.
Results indicated that environmental awareness significantly predicted increased skepticism toward corporate environmental claims (B = –0.243, SE = 0.053, t = –4.61, p < .001, 95% CI [–0.35, –0.14]). Participants with higher awareness were less likely to believe in the credibility of sustainability messages, suggesting a more critical cognitive orientation toward green claims.
Awareness also significantly predicted reduced trust in other companies’ environmental messaging (B = –0.113, SE = 0.046, t = –2.45, p = .015, 95% CI [–0.20, –0.02]). This spillover effect implies that greater environmental awareness may lead to a general skepticism toward corporate sustainability efforts beyond the specific accused companies.
However, awareness did not significantly predict post-exposure purchase intentions (B = –0.074, SE = 0.075, t = –0.99, p = .324, 95% CI [–0.22, 0.07]). While the negative direction of the coefficient suggests a trend toward reduced purchasing, the effect was not statistically significant. This may suggest the presence of dissonance justification strategies: environmentally aware individuals, although more skeptical and distrusting, may continue purchasing due to rationalizations such as product quality, lack of alternatives, or habitual behavior.
This table summarizes the distribution of thematic codes identified in open-ended responses from environmental activists (n = 19) and general consumers (n = 13). Codes represent recurring patterns in participants’ emotional responses, justifications, and perceptions of corporate environmental claims.
Trust, Dissonance, and Justification: Qualitative Responses to Corporate Environmental Claims
The qualitative analysis of open-ended responses from environmental activists (n = 19) and general consumers (n = 13) offered insights into the emotional, cognitive, and moral dimensions of consumer responses to corporate greenwashing accusations. These responses were analyzed thematically in relation to each hypothesis and serve to complement and contextualize the quantitative findings.
Trust and Identity-Based Skepticism
In line with H1, which envisaged that environmental activists would report lower trust in corporate environmental claims than general consumers, the qualitative data underscored an ideological divide between the two groups. Activists consistently expressed deep-rooted skepticism and disengagement from corporate sustainability narratives. As one participant stated, “No amount of emotional manipulation, minute improvements, or happy vibes can change the cold hard facts that they are serious polluters.” Another echoed this sentiment: “I don’t trust these companies anyway.” A third echoed: “Those leading brands are taking very meaningless steps to make their product sustainable, but are trying to sell them as such.” Such responses suggest a baseline mistrust aligned with quantitative findings showing significantly lower post-exposure trust levels among activists (M = 1.63) compared to general consumers (M = 2.85).
In contrast, general consumers often acknowledge distrust while maintaining brand attachment or resignation. For example, “I don’t trust any of the corporations but we aren't left with much choice as a consumer.” Another noted: “I’m not much of an environmentalist and I love VW cars so…” a comment that typifies how product loyalty or habitual consumption may override ethical concerns. Other consumer responded “They might be bad for the environment, but their products are reliable” and “It’s hard to avoid them—they're everywhere.” These illustrate how brand familiarity, perceived necessity, or resignation may soften trust erosion even after greenwashing exposure, supporting H1’s predicted gap.
Dissonance and Emotion Regulation
Hypothesis 2 proposed that general consumers would exhibit greater cognitive dissonance and heavier reliance on emotion-regulating justifications compared to environmental activists. The qualitative data supported pattern alongside quantitative evidence—general consumers reported significantly higher dissonance (M = 3.42 vs. 2.28; Table 2) aligned with “ethical resignation” theme (Table 7), suggesting inner conflict. For instance, one participant shared, “I want to be environmentally aware when purchasing, and I feel guilt for knowingly buying from them.” Another rationalized their choice pragmatically: “So no point paying more when I can just get the bad cheaper stuff.” Additional responses further illustrated this tension: “You can’t win; they all do it” and “It’s frustrating, but I’ll still buy the product.” These reflect classic dissonance-justification strategies, including denial, resignation, and product-based rationalization (Table 3), corroborating H2b and H2c’s predicted consumer vulnerability.
Comparison of Cognitive Dissonance Scores Between Consumer Types.
Note. Cognitive dissonance scores are based on self-reported reactions following exposure to greenwashing accusations. Higher scores indicate greater psychological discomfort.
Justifications for Continued Purchase Following Greenwashing Accusations.
By contrast, activists exhibited greater ideological clarity and emotional resolution, with “resolved dissonance” (Table 7) echoing lower scores. One participant remarked, “I’ve already made the decision not to buy their products anymore,” while another noted, “I stopped trusting them long ago—nothing new here.” Additional responded, “I don’t feel conflicted because I already knew that they were expert greenwashers, I just feel really angry that they get away with harming the environment and lying about it.” These suggest activists’ preexisting skepticism buffers conflict (H2b), channeling energy into frustration (Table 4; H2a) over justification, maintaining value-congruent disengagement (H2c). Together, the findings highlight identity’s moderating role in dissonance processing.
Chi-square Test of Emotional Responses by Consumer Type.
Note. Emotional responses were binary coded (1 = selected; 0 = not selected). N = 98 per group. χ2 = Chi-square statistic.
Significant results (p < .05) are highlighted.
Purchase Intention and Pre-existing Beliefs
Hypothesis 3 anticipated that general consumers would exhibit a greater reduction in purchase intention following greenwashing exposure than environmental activists. This hypothesis was supported by the data (Table 5). Although activists reported lower post-exposure purchase intentions overall (M = 1.52) compared to general consumers (M = 2.43), the magnitude of change was significantly greater among consumers. This outcome likely reflects activists’ baseline skepticism and ideological disengagement from brands they had already disavowed. Qualitative themes “resolved dissonance” (Table 7) confirmed this stability: as one activist stated, “I’ve already made the decision to avoid them regardless,” while another noted, “These companies have never been on my ethical radar.” While the third explained, “I was already aware of these issues and they are what had already impacted my views.” Such statements highlight how activists’ purchase intentions were largely insulated from exposure effects.
Change in Purchase Intentions by Consumer Type Following Greenwashing Exposure.
Note. Change scores were calculated as pre–post purchase intention scores averaged across three companies (BP, Unilever, Volkswagen).
In contrast, general consumers who initially placed higher trust in the companies expressed emerging hesitations, re-evaluation post exposure, consistent with cognitive dissonance theory. Themes of “ethical resignation” (Table 7) illustrated this disruption, after learning of the greenwashing. One participant remarked, “I don’t think I’ll keep buying from them after this,” and another reflected, “This makes me question if I should support them anymore.” And a third acknowledged, “I know I need to do more to buy greener products and support more B corps instead of the easy options which are often made by companies like Unilever.” These quotes illustrate a process of post-exposure re-evaluation; wherein previously habitual or unexamined behavior was reconsidered considering new information. This behavioral shift is consistent with cognitive dissonance theory, which posits that individuals experiencing value-action conflict will adjust attitudes or intentions to restore coherence.
This triangulation thus confirmed that while activists’ purchase intentions were already value-congruent and resistant to further erosion, consumers experienced significant behavioral disruption when faced with conflicting information. This narrative underscores identity’s moderating role in shaping post -exposure purchasing behavior, thereby corroborating H3.
Environmental Awareness, Systemic Doubt, and Resigned Justification
Lastly, H4 predicted that higher levels of environmental awareness would positively correlate with increased skepticism, lower trust, and reduced purchase intention. Quantitative evidence partially supported this: awareness significantly predicted skepticism (B = −0.243, p < .001) and reduced trust (B = −0.113, p = .015; Table 6), but did not strongly forecast purchase intentions (B = −0.074, p = .324). Qualitative responses help explain this attitude-behavior gap. Activists expressed systemic structural constraints, captured in lack of alternatives and ethical resignation (Table 7). One participant noted, “It’s difficult… avoiding them means living a different way of life,” and another added, “large brands are unfortunately hard to avoid.” Such responses show how high awareness fosters skepticism yet does not always translate into behavioral change.
Linear Regression Predicting Consumer Outcomes From Environmental Awareness.
Note. Each row presents results from a separate linear regression predicting the listed outcome variable from environmental awareness (N = 196). B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.
Frequency of Qualitative Codes by Participant Group.
General consumers echoed this resignation from a more pragmatic standpoint: “Not buying their products won’t change the environment… we just consume what we have” and “I don’t like BP as a company but unfortunately we rely on petrol.”
Consequently, general consumers may experience heightened dissonance precisely because they are unprepared to process such contradictions and as such must rely more heavily on denial, justification, or resignation to protect brand loyalty and purchase behavior. These findings illustrate that dissonance is not merely a function of accusation strength, but also of identity alignment, emotional preparedness, and ethical coping strategies, underscoring H4’s nuanced role in bridging attitudes and actions.
Discussion & Conclusion
This study examined how environmental identity shapes consumer responses to corporate greenwashing and provides empirical support for key theoretical expectations. All four hypotheses were supported. First, in line with H1, environmental activists reported significantly lower levels of trust in corporate environmental claims than general consumers, a pattern reinforced by both quantitative trust ratings and qualitative expressions of deep-seated skepticism. Second, consistent with H2a and H2b, general consumers exhibited stronger negative emotional responses and higher cognitive dissonance compared to activists, who demonstrated greater emotional detachment and ideological clarity. Additionally, H2c was supported by evidence that general consumers relied more heavily on dissonance-reducing justifications such as denial, product loyalty, and lack of alternatives whereas activists more often showed resolved disengagement. Regarding H3, general consumers displayed a significantly greater reduction in purchase intention after greenwashing exposure, suggesting a higher degree of behavioral disruption. Finally, results partially validated H4: while higher environmental awareness was associated with increased skepticism and lower trust, it did not consistently predict lower purchase intentions highlighting a persistent attitude–behavior gap.
Its key theoretical contribution lies in the emotional divergence observed between consumer groups. Environmental activists reported significantly higher frustration (M = 0.57) and doubt (M = 0.18) than general consumers (M = 0.10 and M = 0.11 respectively), χ2(1) = 48.34, p < .001 and χ2(1) = 1.98, p = .159. Conversely, general consumers reported more optimistic emotions (M = 0.78) compared to activists (M = 0.43), χ2(1) = 24.62, p < .001. This supports the first component of H2 and aligns with prior research suggesting that emotionally charged identities such as activist identities are associated with heightened affective responses to norm violations. General consumers, meanwhile, appeared to interpret environmental claims more heuristically, relying on surface-level cues (e.g., brand familiarity), which may buffer emotional reactivity when accusations arise.
In terms of cognitive dissonance, when participants were asked which brand caused the most conflict, a notably larger proportion of activists (n = 32) selected “None,” compared to just seven general consumers. General consumers more frequently selected BP and Unilever as sources of dissonance, χ2(3) = 22.48, p < .001. This suggests that activists, due to their baseline skepticism, may not have experienced strong dissonance because the accusations merely confirmed their expectations. In contrast, consumers who initially placed greater trust in these brands experienced more internal conflict when faced with accusations of greenwashing. This distinction reveals that dissonance is not uniformly experienced by all high-awareness individuals; rather, it arises most acutely when brand perceptions are incongruent with new information.
Yet, higher emotional sensitivity among activists does not uniformly translate into behavioral change. Analysis of post-accusation purchase intentions showed that general consumers exhibited a larger reduction (M = −0.65, SD = 0.67) compared to activists (M = −0.13, SD = 0.53), t(194) = −6.00, p < .001. While this finding might initially seem counterintuitive, it supports the H3 hypothesis that activists, due to their underlining skepticism, enter with already low purchase intentions and thus display a floor effect. General consumers, whose initial trust was higher, appear to experience greater behavioral disruption when confronted with evidence of misleading environment claims in ads accusations.
Justification patterns provide further insight into this dissonance-behavior gap. General consumers disproportionately endorsed reasons like product quality (M = 0.80) and lack of alternatives (M = 0.73), whereas activists were more likely to cite hope for environmental improvement (M = 0.58). Additionally, nearly half of general consumers (M = 0.49) stated they did not believe the accusations were credible, compared to just 1% of activists (M = 0.01), t(194) = 9.26, p < .001. This suggests that consumers engage in denial and rationalization to reduce dissonance without altering behavior patterns.
Moreover, regression analyses revealed that environmental awareness significantly predicted higher skepticism toward sustainability claims (B = −0.243, p < .001) and reduced trust in other brands (B = -0.113, p = .015), but had no significant impact on purchase intentions (B = −0.074, p = .324). This result is critical; while awareness activates cognitive scrutiny, it does not necessarily override product dependence or brand attachment. This further validates the need to examine not just whether consumers are aware, but how they manage the discomfort that awareness brings.
The study also explored perceptions of corporate sincerity and recovery. When asked if companies could genuinely commit to sustainability, 22.45% of activists responded positively, compared to 8.67% of general consumers. Furthermore, 12.76% of consumers reported complete disbelief (vs. only 1.53% of activists). These results suggest that activists, while skeptical, may remain open to redemption if corrective actions align with their values.
Beyond empirical confirmation of the hypotheses, this study makes two primary contributions. Theoretically, it introduces the concept of environmental identity as a “dissonance buffer” that moderates how consumers respond to greenwashing. In doing so, it extends cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and identity theory (Stryker, 1980) beyond aggregate accounts of trust erosion (Akturan,2018; Kim & Lyon, 2015) by revealing identity-driven responses. Methodologically, it advances the field by employing a stimulus-based mixed-method design that exposes participants to real world greenwashing cases and triangulates quantitative and qualitative evidence. This approach enhances ecological validity while clarifying gaps such as the attitude-behavior gap. Together, these contributions show that dissonance is shaped by identity differences, with significant implications for moral licensing and ethical consumption.
Practical Implications
This study design and findings provide actionable insights for companies aiming to rebuild trust after accusations of greenwashing, as well as for policymakers and environmental communicators seeking to facilitate more ethical consumer behavior. Participants were asked the following question: “What actions do you believe companies should take to regain trust after being accused of greenwashing?” The response patterns were strikingly varied by consumer type.
Among general consumers, the most selected trust-recovery strategy was increased transparency, endorsed by 79.6%, followed by accountability measures (65.3%), independent audits (56.1%), and concrete environmental action (65.3%). In contrast, public apologies were selected by only 13.3%, indicating a low perceived value for symbolic gestures alone.
Environmental activists, in contrast, prioritized more substantive and verifiable commitments; with just 41.8% endorsing transparency (vs. 79.6% of consumers), while a greater proportion supported concrete environmental action (48.9% vs. 15.3% of consumers). This suggests that symbolic transparency is insufficient to restore credibility among those already skeptical of corporate intent. Independent audits were endorsed by 14.3%, and accountability by 63.3%, mirroring consumer values to some extent but with a more critical lens. Apologies remained marginal at 14.3%, while just 1% of activists selected “none of the above” or “other.”
These findings underscore a crucial divergence in the conditions under which trust can be repaired. General consumers may be influenced by improved communication and familiar signals of transparency, but activists demand visible, structural reforms. Companies that rely solely on reputation management or PR-driven sustainability messaging risk further alienating the stakeholders most engaged with environmental issues.
By comparing environmental activists and general consumers, the findings reveal distinct patterns of trust, dissonance, justification, and purchase behavior. While activists approach sustainability claims with greater skepticism, general consumers are more susceptible to dissonance yet continue purchasing, often relying on loyalty or necessity-based justifications. Importantly, trust recovery hinges not on symbolic gestures but on concrete, verifiable actions. These findings may contribute not only to the literature on cognitive dissonance, dissonance justification disengagement, and consumer skepticism but also inform the design of more effective ethical accountability mechanisms and behavior-change strategies in sustainability communication.
Limitations
Notwithstanding, its likely useful contributions, this study has significant number of potential limitations that warrant consideration and mention. First, the data is based on self-reported measures, which could be susceptible to social desirability bias especially in a domain as morally charged as environmental responsibility. Participants may have over- or under-reported their reactions to align with perceived social norms. Also, the binary classification of participants as “general consumers” or “environmental activist” could overly simplify the multidimensional nature of environmental identity. Future research could employ validated scales such as the environmental identity scale (Clayton et al., 2021) to capture a more nuanced range of environmental identity.
Second, the convenience sampling approach, while enabling access to both target groups, could arguably have skewed the sample towards younger, more educated, and environmentally conscious individuals. These demographics may limit generalizability to older or less educated UK consumers. Although anonymity was maintained to mitigate bias, future research could employ probability sampling to improve representativeness/generalizability.
Third, the environmental awareness scale demonstrated a marginal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .59). While acceptable in exploratory research, this suggests measurement refinement is needed, future studies could expand or revise items to achieve stronger internal consistency.
Fourth, while the study employed cross-sectional data, causal inferences about the impact of greenwashing on cognitive dissonance and trust erosion should be interpreted with caution. Longitudinal designs would have better captured attitudinal and behavioral shifts over time. Moreover, the stimuli used three well-known corporate greenwashing cases which, may limit generalizability or not shed enough light of likely findings in studies dealing with of lesser-known brands or other sectors beyond fossil fuel and consumer goods.
Finally, while the study explored behavioral intentions, it did not capture actual behavior. Future research could benefit from incorporating observational or transactional data to validate whether dissonance truly translates into changes in consumption patterns. Additionally, settings in countries other than the UK may/could have yielded different results.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Not Applicable.
Ethical Considerations
This study received ethical approval from the EMU Social Sciences, Humanities and Administration (SOBIB) Ethics Sub-Committee at Eastern Mediterranean University.
Consent to Participate
Participants were informed about the study’s anonymity, and electronic consent was obtained by asking them to proceed if they agreed to take part in the research. All procedures complied with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human participants.
Author Contributions
Qudus Olanrewaju Afolabi designed the study, conducted data collection, performed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and drafted the manuscript. Assist. Prof. Dr. Baruck Opiyo contributed to proofreading, manuscript adjustments, and revisions. Both authors approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The authors confirm that the anonymized data supporting the findings of this study are included as supplementary materials with this submission.