Content uploaded by Ashok Sharma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ashok Sharma on Mar 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume-04 ISSN: 2455-3085 (Online)
Issue-01 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
January -2019 www.rrjournals.com [UGC Listed Journal]
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 607 | P a g e
GREENWASHING: A Study on the Effects of Greenwashing on Consumer
Perception and Trust Build-Up
*1Manvi Khandelwal, 2Ashok Sharma & 3Vinamra Jain
1Research Scholar, Amity Business School, Amity University, Noida (India)
2Professor, Amity Business School, Amity University, Noida (India)
3Assisatant Professor, Amity Business School, Amity University, Noida (India)
ARTICLE DETAILS
ABSTRACT
Article History
Published Online: 10 January 2019
The growing prominence of green advertising has led to an increased confusion in the
minds of the consumers about the green claims used in numerous advertisements. The
purpose of the study is to identify the sectors where greenwashing is most rampant from the
consumer‘s perspective and to analyze the consumer‘s perception of greenwashing tactics,
identify the reasons for greenwashing by brands from the consumer‘s perspective. The
convenience sampling was used for data collection. A sample size of 150 was chosen for
the study. The respondents comprised of individuals across different age group and
professions in Delhi NCR. Research findings showed that the most rampant sectors where
greenwashing is prevalent are ‗Automobile‘, ‗Industrial Manufacturing‘ and ‗Beauty
products/cosmetics (65.7%). Consumers perceive usage of ‗fluffy language‘ such as the use
of words like ‗eco- friendly‘, ‗natural‘ as the most frequently used greenwashing
communication tactic. A lack of proper regulatory system and compliance by the companies
result in poorly researched products and misleading claims aimed at manipulating
consumer.
Keywords
Greenwashing, perception, green
advertising
*Corresponding Author
Email: manvi.khandelwal[at]outlook.com
1. Introduction
In the early 1990s, products touting environmental claims
saw an exponential rise. Although the ‗green‘ phenomenon
vanished as swiftly as it appeared, to attract an increasing
segment of environmentally aware consumers, many
producers are again resorting to the practice of endorsing their
products, or even themselves, as being green. Therefore,
usage of environmentally friendly sounding claims which are
actually ambiguous and at times may be false is becoming
commonplace. ‗Greenwashing‘ refers to disseminating
incomplete or false information by a company in order to
project an ecologically responsible public image. It is not a new
phenomenon; since the mid-1980s, the term ‗greenwashing‘
has garnered wide acceptance and recognition for describing
the practice of making exaggerated or overblown claims of
eco-friendliness or sustainability in an effort to capture market
share.
In current times, appealing at just the functional or
emotional level is not sufficient for a brand. A social obligation
is expected of businesses by the consumers. In the consumer
product industry, firms usually have to incorporate an
ecological dimension to establish a successful brand (Kotler,
2011).
More than half of 18,000 consumers surveyed in 2014
from all over the world stated that environmental performance
was a source of worry for them (Globescan, 2014).
Compared to previous years, an amplified concern about the
environmental issues was shown by consumers in most
countries. In a study conducted by the American PR firm
(Edelman, 2012), consumers‘ attitude regarding the social
responsibility claims by the corporates were examined. The
study comprised 16 countries and its 8,000 consumers.
Irrespective of the country, it exhibited the consumer belief in
the increased importance of environmental responsibility.
Additionally, it was revealed that 85 percent of the consumers
were keen to change brand or alter their own conduct to help
improve the environment. Several instances have occurred
where unjustified and exaggerated claims of eco-friendliness
and sustainability have been made by companies striving to
meet the demand for green products by consumers
(Terrachoice, 2010). Companies‘ attempt to rapidly meet this
increasing demand for green products has led to the rise of the
term greenwashing, which has grown considerably over the
past years and has become increasingly debatable. In this
study, greenwashing is defined as deceptive or misleading
ecological claims that are ambiguous, untrue, or omits vital
information or a combination of these (Carlson, L., Grove, S.
J., & Kangun, N., 1993). For instance, when it comes to either
branding, marketing or packaging, over 90 percent of North
American consumer products are guilty of greenwashing on
some way or the other (Terrachoice, 2010).
Among some consumers, there is a distrust for
communication by corporates concerning green and eco-
friendly products. Instead of actually adhering to their
communicated green message, there are doubts that firms are
framing a responsible green image without really altering their
behavior, therefore the term greenwashing (Darnall, N,
Pointing, & Vazquez-Brust, 2012) (Jones, P., Clarke-Hill, C.,
Comfort, D., & Hillier, 2008) The use of greenwashing in
marketing efforts leads to numerous questions regarding the
term and its consequences. When consumers are making
choices, what is the role played by design and communication
of advertisements? Is it actually possible to influence buying
Volume-04, Issue-01, January-2019 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 608 | Page
intentions and obtain a more environmentally friendly image
with the use of irrelevant claims and greenwashed messages?
There are many sins of green washing like Sin of the Hidden
Trade-off: A claim proposing that a product is ‗green‘ on the
basis of a narrow set of traits without considering other
significant environmental issues. Sin of No Proof: An
environmental claim that cannot be validated by readily
available supporting information or by a credible third-party
certification. The sin of Vagueness: A claim that is so broad
or poorly articulated that its actual meaning is likely to be
misconstrued by the consumer. Sin of Worshipping False
Labels: A product that falsely gives the impression of a third-
party endorsement either through words or images when no
such thing exists; so called fake labels. The sin of
Irrelevance: It is an environmental claim that may be truthful
but for consumers seeking environmentally friendly products, it
is unhelpful or holds no importance. The sin of Lesser of Two
Evils: A claim that might hold true within the product category,
but at the peril of diverting the buyer from the wider-reaching
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. The Sin of
Fibbing: Environmental claims that are purely dishonest.
2. Review of Literature
Green or environmentally friendly products can be largely
defined as products ―that when compared to the standard
substitutes, will cause less harm to the environment, in terms
of contaminating the earth or diminishing the natural resources,
and/or can be preserved or recycled (Shamdasani, P., Ong
Chon-Lin, G. , & Richmond, D. , 1993). From consumer‘s
perspective, being green constitutes of a lifestyle of minimal
impact on the environment, or in the best case, making choices
that help and benefit the environment. In the pursuit of
minimizing environmental damage, consumers are met with
many decisions (Banerjee, S., Gulas, C.S., & Iyer, E., 1995).
Being green is about consistent efforts, whether large or small,
to lessen the environmental impact.
Numerous strategies are employed by companies to show
their concern for environmental issues. A green advertisement
is one such strategy. The concept of green advertising began
in the 1970s when oil price hike instigated recession and
ecological damages that had been disregarded for long. In a
very short span of time, people were confronted with the fact
that resources were limited and that their usage had a
significant impact on the environment. Companies tried to get
on board this green movement and reacted to consumer‘s
anxiety by employing marketing strategies communicating
green messages (Haytko, D. L. & Matulich, E., 2008) Banerjee
et. Al (1995) explain green advertising as any advertisement
that meets one or more of the subsequent criteria: (1) The
association between a product/service and the biophysical
environment is directly or indirectly addressed by it. (2)
Endorses a green lifestyle with or without stressing a
product/service. (3) Showcases an environmentally
responsible corporate image. (Pranee, C., 2010) establishes
that green advertising must be truthful and lawful and in
adherence to environmental rules, regulations, and policies. In
practice, companies often do not conform to all these
statements but manage to follow the set guidelines in their
arena of advertisement (Eltell, T. & Åberg, 2012).
3. Skepticism towards green advertisement
The growing prominence of green advertising has led to
an increased confusion in the minds of the consumers about
the green claims used in numerous advertisements. One of the
key reasons for the confusion is the absence of commonly
accepted definitions of usual claims used by advertisers such
as ―environmentally friendly‖, ―biodegradable‖, ―natural‖, ―ozone
friendly‖, etc. (Paço, A. M. F. & Reis, R., 2012).
Often, there is a lack of knowledge on the part of the
consumers to comprehend the information that such claims are
based on and although the specificity of guidelines is
increasing, green product claims remain to be unclear and
dubious (Newell, S.J., Goldsmith, R.E., & Banzhaf, E.J., 1998).
In contrast, it is likely that the message will be ignored
altogether by the consumer of it is too descriptive or technical
(Paço & Reis, 2012). The difficulties associated with
discovering the truth and the false in green advertising has led
to an overall cynicism among consumers. This skepticism has
made it tough for the actual eco-friendly firms to communicate
their environmental contribution, which may hamper the growth
and development of real green products. In fact, if the
environmental benefits explained by the ads and labels are
stopped being trusted by the consumers, the effort of
employing green communication for marketing may be lost.
Unconsciously, the skeptical consumer might hinder
environmentally friendly products and their development Paço
& Reis, 2012).
If an advertisement is perceived as environmentally
misleading or greenwashed by consumers, they perceive it as
deceptive (Newell et. al, 1998). Therefore, consumers who
identify an advertisement as greenwashed should perceive it
as more deceptive than a neutral ad. The question is if
consumers can detect the greenwashed claims.
Green or Greenwashed advertising claims
Carlson et. al (1993) categorize environmental advertising
claims by dividing the claims into a matrix of 5 different types:
(1) Product-oriented: claims with a focus on characteristics of
a product (e.g., biodegradable). (2) Process oriented: core
production methods or disposal procedures within the
company (e.g., uses only recyclable materials). (3) Image
orientated: the organization is associated with an ecological
cause (e.g., dedicated to saving the trees or the oceans). (4)
Environmental fact: describing the environment or its state at
large through an independent statement (e.g., forests are
being demolished). (5) Amalgamation of the claims above.
Often, the efforts to explain the phenomenon of greenwashing
differ as the term is defined in a vague and broad concept.
(Delmas, M. A. & Burbano, V., 2011)define the term as ‗a
juncture of two organizational behaviors: poor ecological
performance and communicating positively about
environmental performance.
They projected a typology of organizations constructed on
two dimensions: (a) environmental performance (differentiating
between ―green‖ and ―brown‖ establishments) and (b)
communication about environmental performance
(differentiating between ―vocal‖ and ―silent‖ establishments). A
typology with four cells is formed with these two dimensions.
Firms that combine good ecological performance with positive
communication about their environmental performance are
Volume-04, Issue-01, January-2019 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 609 | Page
called vocal green firms. Firms who have good environmental
performance but do not communicate about it are called silent
green organizations. Firms that combine poor ecological
performance with positive communication regarding their
environmental performance And organizations that combine
bad environmental performance with positive communication
are greenwashing organizations. The final category is of silent
brown organizations which have poor environmental
performance and make no communication regarding their
ecological performance.
In their report titled ―The Drivers of Green Washing‖,
Magali A. Delmas and Vanessa Cuerel Burbano proposed that
occurrence of greenwashing has risen steeply in recent years;
firms have been increasingly combining poor environmental
performance and practices with positive communication about
their environmental performance.
Consumer and investor‘s confidence in ecologically
responsible organizations and green products can be deeply
affected negatively because of greenwashing; leading to
stakeholder‘s reluctance to reward organizations for their eco-
friendly performance. In turn, the incentives to engage in
ecologically detrimental behavior by the firms' increases, which
generate negative externalities and hence affect social welfare
negatively.
4. Why companies use greenwashed advertisement
According to Delmas and Burbano (2011), there are
primarily four fundamental reasons why firms choose to
engage in greenwashing: The character of the firm:
Greenwashing is strongly driven by customers‘ and
competitors‘ expectations to positively emphasize their
environmental performance. For instance, more than the
service industry, there‘s a greater pressure on consumer
products from consumers to follow environmentally friendly
practices and green marketing is much more recurrent here.
Ethical climate and incentive structure: Large financial goals
often lead managers to indulge in unethical practices to
achieve them. So, a company‘s willingness to engage in
unscrupulous practices for profits and enhancing their
environmental standing is greatly impacted by the firm and the
industry‘s ethical climate.
Organizational inertia: New environmental targets and
measures are set up by managers and marketing experts, and
companies are painted as ‗green‘ much before these requisites
are met. Particularly in large older firms, because of the
organizational inertia, operational changes are difficult despite
the promises.
Business‘s internal communication and its effectiveness:
Different departments of a company often communicate poorly
or sub-optimally. Many times, a well-developed strategy for
green marketing by certain superiors or an outside marketing
firm is not aligned with the objectives or resources of other
parts of the organization. Often, inertia in the organization is
associated with this factor.
5. Purpose of the study
To identify the sectors where greenwashing is most
rampant from the consumer‘s perspective. To analyze the
consumer‘s perception of greenwashing tactics. To identify the
reasons for greenwashing by brands from the consumer‘s
perspective. To analyze consumer loyalty and trust build up
towards green claiming brands.
6. Research Methodology
The convenience sampling was used by the researcher in
selecting the sample from the target population. A sample size
of 150 was chosen for the study. The respondents comprised
of individuals across different age group and professions in
Delhi NCR. A structured questionnaire was used to obtain
relevant primary data which was mailed to respondents. The
questionnaire was constructed using a 5-point rating scale and
consisted of 15 questions. The questionnaire contained various
aspects of greenwashing advertisement and the primary focus
is the consumer‘s perception of greenwashing and its
communication. Personal interviews and observations were
also made for further clarification. SPSS statistics was used to
perform the necessary analysis of the data. Bar graphs, tables,
and charts have been used to present the data. Further
analysis was carried out by calculating the Mean Scores and
performing Cross Tabulations with the help of SPSS.
7. Data Analysis and interpretations
Table1: Respondents profile
Frequency
Gender
Female
84
Male
66
Age
Below 20
13
20-30
73
30-40
47
40 and above
17
Occupation
Self-employed
48
Service
55
Homemaker
17
Student
30
Annual Income
Less than 5 Lakh
49
5-10 Lakh
58
10-15 Lakh
19
More than 15 Lakh
24
Green User
Yes
62
No
88
Out of the total respondents, 55.7% were female and
44.3% were male. 48.6% are in the age group 21-30, 31.4%
are in between 31-40, 11.4% are 40 and above and 8.6% are
below the age of 20. 37% are in service, 31.4% are self-
employed, 20% are students and 11.4% are a homemaker.
38.6% have their annual income between 5-10 lac, 32.9%
have less than 5 lacs, 15.7% have income 15 lac and above
Volume-04, Issue-01, January-2019 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 610 | Page
and 12.9% have income between 10-15 lac. 58.6% of them
consider themselves green users while 41.4% do not consider
themselves green users.
Table 2: Reasons for buying green
products
Frequency
I think Green products are relevant to my
shopping needs
68
I am aware of Green products
66
Easy availability of the Green products
58
The wide variety of Green products
39
I trust Green–product claims
44
I think Green products are of superior
quality
49
Value for money
44
Out of the total 150 respondents, 62 are green product
users. Further, 78.1% of the users cited ‗value for money‘ and
75% cited ‗I think green products are of superior quality‘ as the
primary reasons they go for green products. Other key reasons
for opting for green products are ‗I trust green-product claims‘
(65.6%), ‗awareness of green products‘ (56.3%), ‗relevance of
green products to the shopping needs‘ and ‗easy availability of
green products‘ (50%).
Table 3: Reasons for not buying Green
Products
Frequency
Don't think Green products are relevant to
shopping needs
56
I am unaware of Green products
24
Don't know where to find Green products
66
Feel there are not enough Green product
options
60
Don't trust Green–product claims
38
I think Green products are of lesser quality
26
I think Green products are too expensive
47
Out of the total 150 respondents, 88 denied being green
users. Further, 75.6% of the non-users cited ‗don‘t trust green-
product‘ claims as the chief reason for not buying green
products. The next key reason is ‗not enough green options‘
(68.3%) followed by ‗I think green products are too expensive‘
(63.4%). Other reasons for not buying green products are
‗don‘t think green products are relevant to the shopping needs‘
(53.7%), ‗don‘t know where to find green products‘ (43.9%) and
‗unawareness of green products‘ (29.3%)
Table 4: Sectors where the greenwashing
concept is more rampant according to
consumer
Frequency
Agriculture
49
Automobile
116
Beauty products/Cosmetics
99
Clothing
56
Electronics
94
Food/Beverage
56
Financial Services
28
Government
36
Healthcare
88
Industrial manufacturing
112
Utility goods
77
From the data collected, the most rampant sector engaged
in greenwashing as per the consumer‘s perspective is
‗automobiles‘ with 116 respondents (77.1%) opting for it which
is closely followed by ‗industrial manufacturing‘ with
112(74.3%) responses. The other sectors are ‗beauty
products/cosmetics‘ with 99 (65.7%) responses, ‗electronics‘ at
94(62.9%), ‗healthcare‘ (58.6%), ‗utility goods‘ (51.4%),
clothing and foods/beverages (37.1%), agriculture (32.9%),
‗government‘ (24.3%) and lastly ‗financial services (18.6%).It is
evident from the study that consumers perceive automobiles
and industrial manufacturing as sectors which mislead them
the most regarding their green claims and have the highest
probability of engaging in greenwashing.
The data obtained from the questionnaire meets the
reliability standards. Cronbach‘s Alpha value gained is 0.729
and the minimum acceptable value for the reliability of data is
0.7.
Table 5: Greenwashing tactics perceived
by the consumers
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Fluffy language(Words or terms with 2 clear
meaning e.g. eco- friendly
1.63
0.783
Green product vs. dirty company(Such as
efficient light bulbs made in a factory that
pollutes rivers.)
2.04
0.751
Suggestive pictures(Green images that
indicate an (unjustified) green impact (e.g.
flowers blooming from exhaust pipes).
1.96
0.824
Emphasizing one tiny green attribute when
everything else is not green
2.03
0.701
Declaring they are slightly greener than the
rest, even if the rest are pretty terrible.
2.06
0.883
Greening a dangerous product (e.g.
Cigarettes)
2
0.722
Use of scientific words
1.83
0.722
It could be right, but there is no evidence
2.37
0.951
Totally fabricated claims or data.
2.56
1.03
The most commonly used greenwashing communication
tactic as perceived by the consumers is ‗fluffy language‘ with a
mean score of 1.63. The second place is occupied by ‗use of
scientific words with a mean score of 1.83 followed
Volume-04, Issue-01, January-2019 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 611 | Page
by‗suggestive pictures‘ with a mean score of 1.96. Other
greenwashing tactics used by the companies and their mean
scores are ‗greening a dangerous product‘ (2.00),
‗emphasizing one tiny green attribute when everything else is
not green‘ (2.03), ‗green product vs dirty company‘ (2.04),
‗declaring they are slightly greener than the rest even if rest is
pretty terrible‘ (2.06), ‗totally fabricated claims or data‘ (2.56)
and ‗no evidence‘ (2.37)
Table 6: Reasons why companies use
Greenwashing as perceived by
Consumer
Mean
Std.
Deviation
To Increase brand credibility
1.63
0.685
To Improve company or brand image
1.94
0.657
Competitive advantage
2.27
0.588
Employee satisfaction, morale, retention
2.47
0.829
Product, service or market innovation
2.16
0.792
Business model or process innovation
2.13
0.76
New sources of revenue or cash flow
2.21
0.815
Enhanced stakeholder relations
2.8
0.987
The most common reason for the brands to engage in
greenwashing as perceived by the consumers is ‗to increase
the brand credibility‘ with a mean score of1.63. The second
most important reason is ‗‘to improve company or brand
image‘. Other motives and their mean scores are ‗business
model or process innovation‘ (2.13), ‗product, service or market
innovation‘ (2.16), ‗new sources of revenue or cash flow‘
(2.21), ‗competitive advantage‘ (2.27), ‗employee satisfaction,
morale, retention‘ (2.47), and ‗enhanced stakeholder relations‘
(2.80)
Table7:
Crosstab
I will terminate
any relationship
between me
and the
company if I find
the brand is
engaged in
Greenwashing.
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Total
Victim of
Greenwashing
Yes
22
7
8
37
No
20
3
2
25
Maybe
30
38
20
88
Total
72
48
30
150
Out of the 37 respondents who agreed to have been
victims of greenwashing, 22 agreed that they will terminate any
relationship with the company engaged in greenwashing, 7
were neutral, 8 disagreed. Out of the 25 respondents who have
never been a victim of greenwashing, 20 agreed that they will
terminate any relationship with the company engaged in
greenwashing, 3 were neutral and 2 disagreed. The maximum
number of respondents, i.e., 88 opted for ‗maybe‘ and were
unsure whether they have been victims of greenwashing. Out
of these 88 people, 30 agreed that they will terminate any
relationship with the company engaged in greenwashing, 48
were neutral, 30 disagreed
Table 8: Crosstab
I intend to keep purchasing
from the
brands claiming green.
Total
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Victim of
Greenwashing
Yes
17
10
10
37
No
15
4
6
25
Maybe
48
30
10
88
Total
80
44
26
150
Interpretation: Out of the 37 respondents who agreed to
have been victims of greenwashing, 17 agreed that they intend
to keep purchasing from the brands claiming green, 10 were
neutral and 10 disagreed. Out of the 25 respondents who have
never been a victim of greenwashing, 15 agreed that they
intend to keep purchasing from the brands claiming green, 4
were neutral and 6 disagreed. The maximum number of
respondents, i.e., 88 opted for ‗maybe‘ and were unsure
whether they have been victims of greenwashing. Out of these
88 people, 48 agreed that they intend to keep purchasing from
the brands claiming green, 30 were neutral and 10 disagreed.
8. Result and discussions
According to the consumers, the most rampant sectors
where greenwashing is prevalent are ‗Automobile‘ (77.1%),
‗Industrial Manufacturing‘ (74.3%) and ‗Beauty
products/cosmetics (65.7%). Consumers perceive usage of
‗fluffy language‘ such as the use of words like ‗eco- friendly‘,
‗natural‘ as the most frequently used greenwashing
communication tactic. It is followed by the use of ‗scientific
language‘, use of ‗suggestive pictures‘ such as that of flowers
blooming from an exhaust pipe or unnecessarily using the
green background to falsely imply a green product or brand
and ‗greening a dangerous product‘ such as cigarettes.
‗Increasing the brand credibility‘ is one of the major reasons
why brands engage in greenwashing according to consumer
perception. Portraying a brand as ‗green‘ is supposed make it
more trustworthy and reliable. ‗Improving the company or
brand image‘, ‗business or process innovation‘ and ‗new
revenues of cash flow‘ are other reasons consumer perceive
as motivating organizations to greenwash consumers.
Out of the total respondents surveyed, 25% agreed to have
been greenwashed while only 16% denied being
greenwashed. A majority of those surveyed, i.e., 59% were
unsure whether they had been greenwashed at some point. It
can be inferred that consumer awareness about greenwashing
is relatively low and so they can be easily misled by the profit-
hungry companies.
Irrespective of the fact whether they have been
greenwashed before, a majority of the respondents were in
agreement that they will terminate any relationship with the
Volume-04, Issue-01, January-2019 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary
RRIJM 2015, All Rights Reserved 612 | Page
brand if they find out about its greenwashing practices.
However, the respondents show an inclination towards the
brands claiming green which may lead to repeat buying
behavior. It can be inferred that merely portraying a brand as
green can have significant trust build up among the consumers
and increase consumer loyalty.
9. Conclusion
In recent times, the number of products advertised as
being green as increased enormously. Changing consumer
lifestyle, growing awareness about harmful chemicals,
increasing disposable incomes, proven efficacy of natural
products and growing concern for the issues plaguing the
environment have all led to companies trying to cash on this
shift in consumer attitude. As a result, greenwashing has
become rampant, as the overlap between the real business
practices and what is communicated to the consumers
reduces. Especially in India, a lack of proper regulatory system
and compliance by the companies result in poorly researched
products and misleading claims aimed at manipulating
consumer.
The presence of loopholes and an almost-80-year law
finally affect only one segment — consumers. Buyers often do
not have enough information about such products but
nevertheless, make purchases based on advertisements and
market positioning.
From the study conducted, it is inferred that consumers do
have an understanding of greenwashing tactics used by the
firms such as the use of words like ‗herbal‘, ‗organic‘ and
natural but when it comes to their buying behavior, they often
do not make informed choices and end up being greenwashed.
‗Green‘ suggestive labels, pictures, words, and packaging
seem attractive to the new age consumer who is inclined to
buy the product.
Firms try to increase their credibility and improve brand
image through the practice of greenwashing. But the truth is
once the false claims are revealed, there is a greater risk of
tarnishing the brand image and losing the trust built over the
years among the consumers as happened with the case of
Volkswagen, also leading to legal hassles. Hence, it is
imperative for companies to conduct their business ethically
and for the consumers to be aware and make informed
purchase choices such as check if the product packaging has
the full list of ingredients, take a look at what is mentioned in
the company‘s website and that the product should be certified
by an authorized government body.
References
1. (2014). Retrieved from Globescan: https://globescan.com
2. Banerjee, S., Gulas, C.S., & Iyer, E., (1995). Shades of
green: a multidimensional analysis of environmental
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 21-31.
3. Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A Content
Analysis of Environmental Advertising Claims: A Matrix
Method Approach. Journal of Advertising, 27-39.
4. Darnall, N, Pointing, C., & Vazquez-Brust, D. (2012). Green-
Growth: Managing the Transition to Sustainable Capitalism.
New York: Springer, 287-308.
5. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of
greenwashing. California management review, pp. 64-87.
6. Edelman. (2012). Executive Summary: 2012 Edelman
Goodpurpose Study.
Eltell, T. , & Åberg. (2012). Reklamjuridikguiden. Stockholm:
Liber.
7. Haytko, D. L., & Matulich, E. (2008). Green Advertising and
Environmentally Responsible Consumer Behaviors: Linkages
Examined. Journal of Management and Marketing Research,
1-11.
8. Jones, P., Clarke-Hill, C., Comfort, D., & Hillier. (2008).
Marketing and sustainability.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 123-130.
9. Newell, S.J., Goldsmith, R.E., & Banzhaf, E.J. (1998). The
effects of misleading environmental claims on consumer
perceptions of advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 48-60.
10. Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R., (2012). Factors affecting
skepticism towards green advertising. Journal of Advertising,
147-155.
11. Pranee, C. (2010). Marketing ethical implication & social
responsibility. International Journal of Organizational
Innovation, 6-21.
12. Shamdasani, P., Ong Chon-Lin, G., & Richmond, D., (1993).
Exploring Green Consumers in an Oriental Culture: Role of
Personal and Marketing Mix Factors. Advances in Consumer
Research, 488-493.
13. Terrachoice. (2010). Retrieved from
http://sinsofgreenwashing.com
