Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Alyahia, M.; Azazz, A.M.S.;
Fayyad, S.; Elshaer, I.A.; Mohammad,
A.A.A. Greenwashing Behavior in
Hotels Industry: The Role of Green
Transparency and Green Authenticity.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031050
Academic Editors: Sangmook Lee,
Hyo-Jin Kim, Seunghwan Lee and
Sangguk Kang
Received: 7 December 2023
Revised: 12 January 2024
Accepted: 23 January 2024
Published: 25 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Greenwashing Behavior in Hotels Industry: The Role of
Green Transparency and Green Authenticity
Mansour Alyahia 1, * , Alaa M. S. Azazz 2, 3, * , Sameh Fayyad 4,5 , Ibrahim A. Elshaer 1,4
and Abuelkassem A. A. Mohammad 6,7
1Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia; ielshaer@kfu.edu.sa or ibrahim_elshaaer@tourism.suez.edu.eg
2Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
3Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
4Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt;
sameh.fayyad@tourism.suez.edu.eg
5Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
6Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Minia University, Minia 61519, Egypt; kassem.mohammad@mu.edu.eg
7Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality, King Salman International University, Sharm El Sheikh 8761250, Egypt
*Correspondence: malyahya@kfu.edu.sa (M.A.); aazazz@kfu.edu.sa (A.M.S.A.)
Abstract: Greenwashing has become a pervasive phenomenon in the tourism and hospitality sector,
posing significant challenges and potential reputational damage to green hotels. Despite its preva-
lence, research on mitigating greenwashing’s influence on guest trust and behavior remains limited.
This study addresses this gap by investigating the moderating roles of green authenticity (GA) and
green transparency (GTR) in the relationship between greenwashing and guest green trust (GT),
ultimately influencing patronage intentions (PI) towards green hotels. Employing a quantitative
approach, the study utilized a questionnaire survey administered to 309 participants, capturing their
experiences with green hotels. Subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis in Smart
PLS 4 confirmed several key findings. Firstly, hotel greenwashing negatively impacted green trust
and subsequent patronage intentions, encompassing both intentions to stay (IS) at green hotels and
willingness to pay a premium (WPP) for green hotels. Secondly, the study established green trust as
a significant mediator in the greenwashing–patronage relationship. Most importantly, the analysis
revealed the crucial moderating roles of both green authenticity and green transparency. Increased
perceptions of GA and GTR significantly attenuated the negative influence of greenwashing on green
trust and, consequently, strengthened the positive relationship between GT and PI. These findings
suggest that fostering genuine environmentally friendly practices and ensuring clear communica-
tion of sustainability efforts can effectively counteract the detrimental effects of greenwashing on
green-hotel patronage. The study’s implications extend to practical considerations for green-hotel
managers, offering insights into preventive measures to diminish the adverse effects of greenwashing,
thereby contributing to the long-term sustainability of their operations.
Keywords: greenwashing; authenticity; transparency; patronage; green hotels
1. Introduction
The growing concern for environmental preservation has led to a surge in demand for
eco-friendly hotels [
1
–
3
] that is aligned with the efforts of hospitality businesses to reduce
the negative consequences of their activities on the environment [
4
]. Eco-friendly hotels,
also known as green hotels, aim to minimize their negative environmental impact by imple-
menting eco-friendly practices such as recycling, lessening waste, utilizing energy-efficient
appliances and lighting, and serving locally sourced and organic food [
4
–
6
]. However,
these practices can be costly for hotels, as they often require investment in new equipment
and infrastructure [
5
]. As a result, some hotels may engage in greenwashing, which is the
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031050 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 2 of 20
act of making misleading or deceptive claims about their environmental performance [
7
,
8
].
For example, a hotel may encourage guests to reuse towels and bed linens or expect their
room to be cleaned less frequently to conserve water and energy, while the actual goal is
to reduce costs [
7
,
9
]. Even when hotels are genuinely implementing sustainable practices,
customers may still distrust these green initiatives due to the perception of greenwash-
ing [
8
,
10
] or the difficulty of distinguishing between real and fake green claims [
11
,
12
].
Both actual and perceived greenwashing can damage a hotel’s image and reputation, which
can ultimately impact guest perception, attitudes, willingness to pay, brand trust, and
staying intentions [
7
,
8
,
12
,
13
]. Greenwashing can also diminish the collective and global
efforts to protect the natural environment, which is one of the key resources for the tourism
and hospitality industry [
4
]. This makes green hotels susceptible to the negative impacts
of greenwashing; therefore, green hotel managers need to be proactive and prevent or
mitigate the negative impacts of perceived greenwashing to ensure the continuity and
success of their sustainable initiatives or operations.
A review of the research on greenwashing in the tourism and hospitality industry has
identified some gaps in knowledge and opportunities for further research. One key gap
is the lack of research on this topic, despite the pressing need to understand and address
greenwashing and its negative effects in the hotel industry. Ling and Aziz [
1
] highlighted
this gap and argued that there is a limited understanding of how greenwashing affects
consumers’ willingness to buy hotels’ green products/services. A recent systematic review
of studies on greenwashing in the hotel industry by Majeed and Kim [
8
] found that the
existing research is inconsistent, superficial, and fragmented and lacks an investigation of
the customer perspective on greenwashing. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions
about the extent of greenwashing in the hotel industry or how to manage its impact on
hotel guests. Furthermore, previous studies have focused mainly on the predictors and
consequences of greenwashing rather than addressing mitigation strategies for its unfa-
vorable outcomes [
1
–
3
,
7
,
14
]. Only a few studies investigated some possible moderators to
lessen the effects of greenwashing such as corporate capabilities, green knowledge, and
the environmental values of tourists [
5
,
13
,
15
]. Moreover, despite the fact that developing
countries are a key market for green brands because of their large populations, growing
economies, and increasing environmental challenges [
16
], previous studies [
1
,
17
–
19
] re-
ported that the majority of research on greenwashing practices has focused on Western
culture and omitted developing countries.
Accordingly, this study aims to elucidate the effects of hotel greenwashing and identify
potential strategies to mitigate its adverse consequences. Specifically, the study examines
how perceived hotel greenwashing affects green trust, “guest intentions to stay in green
hotels”, and “guest willingness to pay a premium for green hotels”. More importantly,
the study investigates the moderating effects of green authenticity and green transparency
on the relationship between hotel greenwashing and guest patronage. In so doing, this
study fills a gap in the literature and greatly adds to the body of knowledge about the sus-
tainability of the tourism and hospitality sector. The study’s findings also have significant
ramifications for the hospitality sector, since they shed light on the detrimental effects of
greenwashing and provide ways to counteract them. This knowledge can assist green-hotel
managers in designing and executing effective green marketing strategies that accurately
promote green initiatives and change customer perceptions of greenwashing.
2. Literature Review and Developing Hypotheses
2.1. Greenwashing in Hotels
Greenwashing is a form of corporate deception that uses environmental claims to mis-
lead consumers about an organization’s eco-friendly practices or about the environmental
benefits of its products and services [
2
,
20
,
21
]. It is the propagation of an unfounded or
misleading environmental image and involves practices or acts that seem environmentally
conscientious but have an underlying purpose of cost cutting and profit optimization [
2
].
Greenwashing occurs when companies use buzzwords such as “go-green”, “environmen-
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 3 of 20
tally friendly”, and “eco-friendly” to create a false impression of environmental respon-
sibility [
1
,
7
,
20
]. The relevant literature [
7
–
9
,
19
,
22
,
23
] revealed that hotel greenwashing
involves various practices such as misleading guests with fake or unreal hotel environmen-
tal initiatives. For example, some hotels may use masking tactics to persuade or encourage
guests to engage in eco-friendly programs, such as reusing towels/linens and conserving
water/electricity, to protect the environment while these practices are mainly intended to
reduce operating costs and maximize profits in the name of sustainability. Greenwashing
also includes overstating the hotel’s green image and selectively disclosing positive eco-
friendly information and/or concealing information about the hotel’s negative impacts on
the environment or attributing them to other factors. Making vague or unsubstantiated
claims about the hotel’s environmental practices through the use of eco-friendly marketing
buzzwords such as “green” or “sustainable” without having any actual environmental
initiatives is another common greenwashing practice.
Business organizations use greenwashing tactics to improve customer support and
boost profitability [
1
]. Up to 98% of eco-friendly products/services involve some sort
of greenwashing practice [
22
]. Nonetheless, greenwashing can cause various negative
consequences [
8
,
19
]. Greenwashing can undermine the trust between a hotel and its guests.
When guests feel that they are being misled by green hotels, they are less likely to trust
those hotels. According to a study by Nimri et al. [
12
], one in every three travelers doubted
hotels’ green claims. That is, when hotels made exaggerated or misleading claims about
their environmental practices, hotel guests might be skeptical or doubtful of hotels’ green
claims. Although deceptive tactics may result in short-term benefits, these misleading
green claims will eventually erode consumer trust [
1
]. Studies have shown that perceived
greenwashing unfavorably impacts guest confidence in the credibility of the sustainable
performance or claims of green hotels [5,7,19] and retail businesses [22].
Greenwashing can also adversely affect patronage intentions toward eco-friendly ho-
tels, particularly intentions to stay in green hotels or participate in hotels’ green initiatives.
When hotels make environmental claims that are not genuine, it evokes customers’ suspi-
cion or skepticism of these claims. Such skepticism can minimize customer participation
in a hotel’s green initiatives, e.g., linen reuse programs, and decrease the likelihood of
revisiting the hotel [
2
]. Green-hotel patronage is degraded when customers believe that
eco-friendly practices are merely a way for hotels to save money, rather than a genuine
commitment to sustainability [
24
]. Prior research [
11
] reported that hotel greenwashing
practices had negatively influenced green behavioral intentions. In the same vein, Ling and
Aziz [
1
] revealed that perceived greenwashing fear had a negative influence on green-hotel
patronage. Research also showed that greenwashing negatively impacted green brands [
25
]
or led to brand avoidance [13].
Tourists’ tendency to pay extra money for eco-friendly services can also be influenced
by their perception of hotel greenwashing. In this context, a study by Pulido-Fernández and
López-Sánchez [
26
] revealed that only guests with increased green intelligence were willing
to pay extra for sustainable destinations. Likewise, a study by Casado-Díaz et al. [
27
] revealed
that hotel guests were willing to pay a premium for actual sustainable initiatives such as water
conservation. Recently, Majeed and Kim [
8
] concluded that the perception of greenwashing
determines customers’ behavioral intentions toward green hospitality enterprises.
In light of the abovementioned literature on greenwashing’s potential negative impacts,
the following hypotheses are set forth for examination:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Hotel greenwashing negatively affects hotel green trust.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Hotel greenwashing negatively affects guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Hotel greenwashing negatively affects guests’ willingness to pay a premium
for green hotels.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 4 of 20
2.2. Green Trust
Green trust is a type of brand trust that is specifically related to a company’s environ-
mental practices. It is described as the belief that a corporation is committed to operating
in an environmentally responsible way and provides products and services that meet the
environmental expectations of its customers [
28
]. Green trust is built through the honest
and transparent presentation of business environmental facts, as well as the provision of
products and services that are truly environmentally friendly [
29
]. It is driven by con-
sumers’ environmental consciousness and their recognition of the eco-friendliness of a
firm’s products and services. Ultimately, green trust is the consumers’ confidence that
eco-friendly service providers will actually deliver on their sustainability claims [5].
Green trust is important because it can influence consumer behavior [
30
]. Trust is
the willingness to rely on another party based on the assumption that the party will be
able, dependable, and honest. As a result, consumer trust can have a significant impact on
behavioral decisions [
31
]. When consumers trust the green initiatives of a company, they are
more likely to purchase its products and services, even if they are more expensive than those
of competitors. They are also more likely to participate in the company’s environmental
initiatives and recommend it to others [
5
]. Conversely, a lack of green trust can have a
negative impact on consumer intentions to participate in green activities. For example,
a study by Rahman et al. [
2
] discovered that customers are reluctant to be involved in
hotel green initiatives, e.g., towel and bedsheet reuse, because they do not trust that hotels
are truly committed to sustainability. Hence, green trust can exert favorable effects on
guests’ intentions to visit or stay in green hotels and stimulate them to pay extra prices for
eco-friendly hotel services, as postulated in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Hotel green trust positively impacts guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Hotel green trust positively impacts guests’ willingness to pay premiums for
green hotels.
Brand trust is a complex concept that encompasses both consumers’ confidence in a
brand’s reliability and their willingness to act on that confidence [
32
–
35
]. Thus, behavioral
intentions, or the willingness to act toward a brand in certain ways, are a fundamental
component of brand trust [
33
–
35
]. Customers are less likely to trust companies that market
new products with false or misleading green declarations and overstate the green benefits
of their products [
28
]. Thus, building green trust is essential for encouraging consumers to
engage in environmentally responsible hospitality initiatives in the future [5].
Greenwashing in the hotel industry can influence consumers’ environmental patron-
age by affecting green trust. In other words, green trust is a key factor that influences how
consumers respond to hotel greenwashing. If consumers perceive that a hotel is deceptive
or untrustworthy, they are less likely to trust the hotel’s green endeavors and are less likely
to stay in the hotel or pay extra for its green products and services. A study by Rahman
et al. [
2
] found that guests were more likely to be skeptical of hotels that had an ulterior
motive for their green practices. This skepticism, in turn, negatively impacted guests’ in-
tentions to experience eco-friendly initiatives or revisit the hotel. Similarly, a study by Peng
and Chen [
10
] explained that the perception of greenwashing has a detrimental impact on
customer confidence and trust in the credibility of hotel green initiatives, ultimately leading
customers to cease purchasing the green products or services provided by hotels. This
study argues that green trust can play a substantial role in mediating the linkage between
hotel greenwashing and both guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness
to pay a premium for eco-friendly hotels.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Green trust mediates the linkage between greenwashing and guests’ intentions
to stay in green hotels.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 5 of 20
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Green trust mediates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and guests’
willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
2.3. Patronage
Tourists can support green hotels in a variety of ways, including expressing their
preference for green hotels when making reservations, spreading positive WOM about
their experience in eco-friendly hotels, showing willingness to pay extra money to stay in
green hotels, and returning to green hotels for future stays [
36
]. Environmentally conscious
customers are willing to stay in green hotels and pay more for sustainable hospitality
products and services [
2
,
26
,
37
]. However, the prevalence of greenwashing is threatening
tourists’ willingness to patronize green hotels. When hotels make false claims about
their sustainability practices, it can erode customer trust and lead them to hesitate to
pay extra for green hotels or even lead them to avoid the hotel brand altogether [
7
,
13
,
38
].
Even when hotels genuinely adopt eco-friendly initiatives, some guests believe that they
should pay less for green hotels, as they view these initiatives as hotel tactics to reduce
the level of comfort or save expenses [
27
]. González-Rodríguez et al. [
37
] reported that
research on green-hotel guests’ willingness to pay premium prices remains scarce and
provides inconclusive results. Likewise, the relationship between greenwashing and tourist
patronage is complex and remains understudied.
2.4. The Mitigating Role of Green Authenticity and Green Transparency
Preventing or handling the adverse effects of real or perceived greenwashing helps both
eco-conscious consumers and eco-friendly businesses. It also protects the environment and
makes a more sustainable future possible. To that end, this study examines how green authen-
ticity and green transparency could help mitigate the negative consequences of greenwashing.
2.4.1. Green Authenticity
Authenticity refers to the quality of being true to oneself, regardless of what others
think [
39
]. It is the act of being genuine, trustworthy, and consistent [
40
]. In business,
authenticity means being true to business values and beliefs and acting in a way that
is consistent with those values and beliefs [
40
]. Green authenticity refers to the extent
to which an enterprise’s environmental claims are genuine and credible [
18
]. Business
organizations nowadays are increasingly being urged to adopt eco-friendly practices and
market themselves as green brands. However, if businesses fail to provide authentically
eco-friendly products and services, their green marketing tactics can be perceived as
greenwashing [
41
]. Over the years, there has been an increase in demand for authentic
brands [
42
], and consumers have become more skeptical of corporate claims about the
environmental benefits of their products [
43
]. Likewise, tourists, among other stakeholders,
are increasingly interested in the authenticity of eco-friendly claims made by tourism
and hospitality enterprises [
18
]. As a result, it is essential for green hotels to fulfill their
environmental promises in order to maintain their credibility and customer trust.
The expanding prevalence of greenwashing is causing a number of negative conse-
quences for businesses [
4
]. In particular, greenwashing can lead to consumer distrust of
corporate environmental claims and negative patronage intentions towards green services [
8
].
This can damage businesses’ reputations and make it difficult for them to attract and retain
customers. This is where green authenticity can play a key role for business organizations to
avoid the negative consequences of greenwashing [
42
,
44
]. Green authenticity is the business’s
genuine commitment to sustainability and environmental protection. Authentic green busi-
nesses are forthcoming about their environmental practices and make credible claims about
the environmental benefits of their products and services. When customers perceives a green
business enterprise to be authentic, they tend to believe its environmental practices, which
boosts customers’ trust in its products/services and stimulates their positive intentions [
18
,
40
].
Furthermore, green authenticity can help companies to differentiate themselves from their
competitors. This can give the company a competitive advantage that enables it to attract new
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 6 of 20
customers and charge premium prices for its products. Research has shown that green authen-
ticity has a number of positive benefits for businesses. For instance, green authenticity can aid
companies in winning their customers’ trust and fostering loyalty [
18
,
40
]. Green authenticity
can also help businesses to distinguish their authentic eco-friendly products/services and
capitalize on their genuine environmental benefits to charge premium prices [
42
,
44
]. Accord-
ingly, this study argues that the authenticity of hotels’ green initiatives can offset the adverse
outcomes of greenwashing and strengthen the positive effects of green trust and suggests the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8a (H8a). Green authenticity moderates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and
hotel green trust.
Hypothesis 8b (H8b). Green authenticity moderates the influence of green trust towards guests’
intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hypothesis 8c (H8c). Green authenticity moderates the influence of green trust towards guests’
willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
2.4.2. Green Transparency
Transparency is the disclosure of information by an organization to its stakehold-
ers [
45
]. It is a compound concept that can be characterized by three key elements: truthful-
ness, accountability, and engagement [
46
]. Truthfulness refers to the provision of accurate
and complete information, even when it is negative. Accountability refers to the willingness
of an organization to take responsibility for its actions and decisions. Engagement refers to
the process of involving stakeholders by providing them with the information they need to
make informed decisions. Transparency is particularly important for hotels, as consumers
are increasingly demanding information about the sustainability practices of the businesses
they patronize. Hotels can build trust with environmentally conscious customers when they
become transparent about their eco-friendly performance/initiatives and when employees
demonstrate sufficient knowledge and awareness of green issues [
8
,
47
]. Conversely, the
deliberate failure to disclose information about eco-friendly initiatives, i.e., green hushing,
or the selective sharing of green information can raise customer doubts about a hotel’s
sustainability performance [8,47].
Green transparency is the practice of being open and honest about a company’s envi-
ronmental practices. It includes disclosing information about the environmental effects of
the company’s services, products, and operations; setting clear sustainability goals; and be-
ing accountable for its actions [
45
,
46
]. Thus, green transparency can contradict or mitigate
the perception of greenwashing and its associated outcomes in a number of ways. First,
green transparency reflects a company’s real commitment to sustainability and its willing-
ness to be held accountable for its actions. This builds trust with consumers and makes
them more likely to believe the company’s environmental claims. Trust is essential for
building strong customer relationships [
33
,
48
], and green transparency can help companies
to establish themselves as credible and trustworthy entities in the sustainability sphere [
5
].
Moreover, green transparency helps to address customer concerns. When customers have
access to information about a company’s environmental practices, they can make more
informed decisions about the products they buy and the companies they support. This
is especially important for environmentally conscious consumers, who are increasingly
looking to patronize businesses that are committed to sustainability [26]. Corporate trans-
parency has also been shown to positively contribute to guest patronage. This is likely
because customers value organizations that are honest and accountable [
49
]. Corporate
transparency encourages customers to engage in eco-friendly programs or initiatives, as
indicated by the study of Vaccaro and Echeverri [
50
]. Additionally, transparency can help
customers to make informed decisions about which hotels to patronize. According to
Majeed and Kim [
8
], customer perception of greenwashing is determined by the hotel’s
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 7 of 20
green efforts, for example, divulging green facts, using green marketing, and sharing green
expertise. This suggests that hotels can reduce the risk of being perceived as greenwashing
by being transparent about their sustainability practices.
Hence, this study proposes that green transparency, through its moderating effects,
can alleviate the negative influences of greenwashing on green trust and enhance the
connection between green trust and guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels as well as
guests’ willingness to pay more. The following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 9a (H9a). Green transparency moderates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and
hotel green trust.
Hypothesis 9b (H9b). Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’
intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hypothesis 9c (H9c). Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’
willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
In light of the abovementioned literature and postulated hypotheses, the conceptual
model proposed in this study is graphically presented in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
Corporate transparency has also been shown to positively contribute to guest patronage.
This is likely because customers value organizations that are honest and accountable [49].
Corporate transparency encourages customers to engage in eco-friendly programs or ini-
tiatives, as indicated by the study of Vaccaro and Echeverri [50]. Additionally, transpar-
ency can help customers to make informed decisions about which hotels to patronize. Ac-
cording to Majeed and Kim [8], customer perception of greenwashing is determined by
the hotel’s green efforts, for example, divulging green facts, using green marketing, and
sharing green expertise. This suggests that hotels can reduce the risk of being perceived
as greenwashing by being transparent about their sustainability practices.
Hence, this study proposes that green transparency, through its moderating effects,
can alleviate the negative influences of greenwashing on green trust and enhance the con-
nection between green trust and guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels as well as guests’
willingness to pay more. The following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 9a (H9a). Green transparency moderates the linkage between hotel greenwashing
and hotel green trust.
Hypothesis 9b (H9b). Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’ in-
tentions to stay in green hotels.
Hypothesis 9c (H9c). Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’ will-
ingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
In light of the abovementioned literature and postulated hypotheses, the conceptual
model proposed in this study is graphically presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Study hypotheses and conceptual model.
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument and Measures
This study employed a quantitative approach using a questionnaire survey to collect
primary data. The questionnaire consists of three main sections. The first section served
as an introduction, outlining the study’s purpose, obtaining consent from participants,
and ensuring the anonymity of their responses. The second section captured the partici-
pants’ sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, education, age group, occupa-
tion, income, primary travel purpose, and frequency of hotel stays. The third section pre-
sented the measures for the study’s constructs.
This research adopted all measures from previous studies, with minor modifications
to suit its specific context. To measure perceived greenwashing in hotels, a two-
Figure 1. Study hypotheses and conceptual model.
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument and Measures
This study employed a quantitative approach using a questionnaire survey to collect
primary data. The questionnaire consists of three main sections. The first section served as
an introduction, outlining the study’s purpose, obtaining consent from participants, and
ensuring the anonymity of their responses. The second section captured the participants’
sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, education, age group, occupation,
income, primary travel purpose, and frequency of hotel stays. The third section presented
the measures for the study’s constructs.
This research adopted all measures from previous studies, with minor modifications to
suit its specific context. To measure perceived greenwashing in hotels, a two-dimensional
scale of “false claims” and “misleading information”, consisting of ten items, was adapted
from Quoquab et al. [
51
]. A 5-item scale adapted from Erdem and Swait [
52
] was used to
measure perceived green trust. Transparency was measured on a five-item scale adapted
from Hustvedt and Kang [
48
], while authenticity was operationalized on a six-item scale
taken from Men and Tsai [
53
]. “Intentions to stay in green hotels” were measured on a
three-item scale adapted from Suki and Suki [
15
], and the three items used to measure
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 8 of 20
“willingness to pay a premium for green hotels” were taken from previous studies by
González-Rodríguez et al. [
37
] and Lee et al. [
54
]. All constructs were measured on a
five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
3.2. Participants and Procedures
The study collected data via questionnaires in the form of time-lagged surveys dis-
tributed among hotel customers in the cities of Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada, Egypt.
The data was collected starting in June 2023 using convenience sampling and drop-off and
pick-up methods. Hotel customers voluntarily responded to the survey expressed their
willingness to complete the second part of the survey via email, all responses were kept
confidential. The surveys were carried out with the assistance of our postgraduate students
employed by the sample hotels. Tourists lodging in 100 five- and four-star hotels were
chosen through the research team’s network and the hotels’ recognition as environmentally
friendly establishments. In the first survey stage, the study collected data on the inde-
pendent variables of greenwashing, the moderating variables of green authenticity and
green transparency, and demographic information. The data of the dependent variables of
“willing to pay a premium for green hotels” and “intention to stay at green hotels”, and
the mediating variable of green trust were collected in the second survey by contacting the
same customers through emails. Hence, data were gathered at two distinct time points
to mitigate the risk of reverse causality and common methodological biases. Five hun-
dred copies of the questionnaires were disseminated among the two surveys. After the
unqualified forms were removed (such as surveys that could not be matched with the first
questionnaire or had incomplete responses), 309 replies were received, i.e., a follow-up rate
of 61.8%. The sample consisted of 236 males (76.4%) and 73 females (23.6%). While our
sample leaned towards males at 76% due to the low response rate of female participants,
we believe that this demographic distribution is unlikely to have significantly skewed our
finding and that the results remain robust and applicable across genders. (Other demo-
graphic data are shown in Table 1). Except for the sections relevant to demographic data,
all items were rated using five-point Likert scales.
Table 1. Respondents’ profile.
Category Group (N = 309) Frequency %
Gender
Male 236 76.4
Female 73 23.6
Age group
20–25 68 22
26–34 96 31.1
35–45 63 20.4
46 and above 82 26.5
Education
High school diploma 76 24.6
Bachelor’s degree 164 53.1
Graduate degree 69 22.3
Primary travel purpose Business 52 16.8
Leisure 257 83.2
Frequency of hotel stays
One time 67 21.7
Two times 86 27.8
Three times 94 30.4
More than three times 62 20.1
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 9 of 20
Table 1. Cont.
Category Group (N = 309) Frequency %
Occupation
Private sector 157 50.8
Government/semi-government sector 78 25.2
Business owners 46 14.9
Others 28 9.1
Income ($)
Below 5000 94 30.4
5000–10,000 172 55.7
Above 10,000 43 13.9
3.3. Data Analysis Procedures
In the current study, SEM-PLS path modeling in the Smart PLS 4 program was used
to assess the hypothesized model. For a number of reasons, the PLS method is suited
for the current study. First, this method makes it simpler for the researcher to evaluate
relationships between constructs and their corresponding latent indicators in the outer
model while also assessing relationships between constructs in the inner model. Second,
PLS-SEM is appropriate for complex research models, particularly those incorporating
mediation and moderation. Third, compared to other tools for path modeling, such
AMOS, PLS has a more user-friendly graphical user interface. Fourth, this technique is a
trustworthy component-based approach that has been widely applied in past studies [
55
].
This technique is a two-step analysis approach; in the first stage, the validity and reliability
of the measurement (outer) model are investigated, whereas the structural (inner) model is
evaluated in the second step to test the suggested hypotheses [55].
4. Results
4.1. Psychometric Characteristics of the Measurement Model
Before the hypotheses were tested, a measuring (outer) model was developed and as-
sessed. Because PLS-SEM uses a different SEM method than CB-SEM, fit indices that are fre-
quently used in CB-SEM are either unavailable or not recommended (Hair Jr et al., 2016) [
55
].
Based on Hair et al. [
56
], a model fit in PLS-SEM can be evaluated by applying the following
standards: “factor loadings” (
λ
), “Cronbach’s alpha” (a), and “composite reliability” (CR)
should all be greater than 0.70 for “internal reliability”, and “average variance extracted”
(AVE) should exceed 0.50 for “convergent validity” (CV). As for “discriminant validity”
(DV), each factor’s AVE must be more than its “squared inter-construct correlations” [57].
As portrayed in the Appendix ATable A1, the CV of our outer model is good. Simi-
larly, AVEs in the Appendix ATable A3 reinforce the model’s DV. Furthermore, in reply
to the several criticisms of Fornell and Larcker’s criterion, researchers investigated the
“heterotrait–monotrait ratio” of correlation (HTMT) to estimate the DV. As displayed in the
Appendix ATable A4, the DV is a good fit because all HTMTs are <0.90 [58].
4.2. Structural Model and Hypothesis Tests
A structural model must be assessed using the VIF, R
2
, Q
2
, and path coefficients
because PLS-SEM does not have the global fit indices that CB-SEM provides, such as CFI,
TLI, and RMSEA [
56
]. For the possibility of “multi-collinearity” among constructs to be
avoided, VIFs should be <5.0 for items; an R
2
of 0.20 or more is a highly suitable cut-off in
behavioral research, and similarly, Q
2
should also meet the recommended point of 0.0 [
56
].
All criteria in Table 2prove that the structural model fits the data.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 10 of 20
Table 2. VIF, R2, and Q2results.
Items VIF Items VIF Items VIF Items VIF Items VIF
GW-1 2.871 GW-8 3.939 IS-2 4.583 GA-1 3.107 GTR-1 2.656
GW-2 2.964 GW-9 2.314 IS-3 4.598 GA-2 3.775 GTR-2 3.735
GW-3 2.360 GW-10 2.636 GT-1 3.685 GA-3 4.599 GTR-3 3.985
GW-4 3.449 WPP-1 4.003 GT-2 3.774 GA-4 4.802 GTR-4 4.481
GW-5 3.735 WPP-2 3.958 GT-3 4.064 GA-5 4.796 GTR_5 3.579
GW-6 3.466 WPP-3 4.351 GT-4 4.046 GA-6 3.362
GW-7 3.262 IS-1 4.363 GT-5 4.229
“Willingness to pay a premium for green hotels” R20.546 Q20.478
“Intention to stay at green hotels” R20.448 Q20.393
Green trust R20.526 Q20.192
Further, Tenenhaus et al. [
59
] indicated that the following equation was employed to
assess the goodness of fit (GoF) of a PLS-SEM model, where values of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.36,
respectively, represent a low, medium, and high GoF. The GoF of the suggested model was
0.644, which is classified as a high GoF index.
GoF =qAVEavy ×R2avy (1)
The “standardized root mean square residual” (SRMR) was also tested to prove the
structure model’s validity. SRMR estimates the difference between the expected relation-
ships in a theoretical model (model-implied covariance matrix) and the actual relationships
observed in the data (observed covariance matrix). It is adjusted for model complexity,
providing a standardized measure that helps assess how well the model fits the real data.
Typically, lower values indicate a better model fit. SRMR > 0.1 is acceptable [
60
]. Our
model’s SRMR value is 0.066, representing a good model fit.
We tested the provided hypotheses for the study, as indicated in Table 3, after demon-
strating the validity of the outer and inner models.
Table 3. Hypothesis results obtained by bootstrapping.
Beta (β) T Statistics pValues Decision
Direct paths
H1-GW →GT −0.350 6.545 0.000 “Supported”
H2-GW →IS −0.124 2.244 0.025 “Supported”
H3-GW →WPP −0.294 5.856 0.000 “Supported”
H4-GT →IS 0.527 9.780 0.000 “Supported”
H5-GT →WPP 0.556 10.980 0.000 “Supported”
Indirect mediating paths
H6-GW →GT →IS −0.184 5.236 0.000 “Supported”
H7-GW →GT →WPP −0.194 5.486 0.000 “Supported”
Moderating effects
H8a-GW ×GA →GT 0.250 4.854 0.000 “Supported”
H8b-GT ×GA →IS 0.156 2.262 0.024 “Supported”
H8c-GT ×GA →WPP 0.136 2.156 0.032 “Supported”
H9a-GW ×GTR →GT 0.289 5.136 0.000 “Supported”
H9b-GT ×GTR →IS 0.132 2.279 0.023 “Supported”
H9c-GT ×GTR →WPP 0.127 2.044 0.042 “Supported”
The findings in Table 3and Figure 2demonstrate that GW had an impact on GT
(
β=−0.350
, t = 6.545, p< 0.000), IS (
β
=
−
0.124, t = 2.244, p< 0.025), and WPP (
β
=
−
0.294,
t = 5.856
,p< 0.000); thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. The results also showed that
GT affected IS at
β
= 0.527, t = 9.780, and p< 0.000 and WPP at
β
= 0.556, t = 10.980, and
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 11 of 20
p < 0.000, confirming H4 and H5. Additionally, GT mediated the influence of GW on IS
at
β
=
−
0.184, t = 5.236,
p< 0.000
, and the impact of GW on WPP at
β
=
−
0.194, t = 5.486,
p< 0.000, suggesting that H6 and H7 can be presumed correct.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
5.856, p < 0.000); thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. The results also showed that GT
affected IS at β = 0.527, t = 9.780, and p < 0.000 and WPP at β = 0.556, t = 10.980, and p <
0.000, confirming H4 and H5. Additionally, GT mediated the influence of GW on IS at β =
−0.184, t = 5.236, p < 0.000, and the impact of GW on WPP at β = −0.194, t = 5.486, p < 0.000,
suggesting that H6 and H7 can be presumed correct.
Figure 2. Estimation of structural model.
Concerning moderation analysis, Figure 3 proves that GA dampens the negative im-
pact of GW on GT (β = 0.250, t = 4.854, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens the positive
effects of GT on IS (β = 0.156, t = 2.262, and p = 0.024) and on WPP (β = 0.136, t = 2.256, and
p = 0.032), supporting H8a, H8b, and H8c. Similarly, Figure 4 shows that GTR dampens
the negative impact of GW on GT (β = 0.289, t = 5.136, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens
the positive effects of GT on IS (β = 0.132, t = 2.279, and p = 0.023) and on WPP (β = 0.127, t
= 2.044, and p = 0.042), supporting H9a, H9b, and H9c.
Figure 3. The moderating influence of GA on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
Figure 2. Estimation of structural model.
Concerning moderation analysis, Figure 3proves that GA dampens the negative
impact of GW on GT (
β
= 0.250, t = 4.854, and p= 0.000), whereas it strengthens the positive
effects of GT on IS (
β
= 0.156, t = 2.262, and p= 0.024) and on WPP (
β
= 0.136, t = 2.256, and
p= 0.032), supporting H8a, H8b, and H8c. Similarly, Figure 4shows that GTR dampens the
negative impact of GW on GT (
β
= 0.289, t = 5.136, and p= 0.000), whereas it strengthens
the positive effects of GT on IS (
β
= 0.132, t = 2.279, and p= 0.023) and on WPP (
β
= 0.127,
t = 2.044, and p= 0.042), supporting H9a, H9b, and H9c.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
5.856, p < 0.000); thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. The results also showed that GT
affected IS at β = 0.527, t = 9.780, and p < 0.000 and WPP at β = 0.556, t = 10.980, and p <
0.000, confirming H4 and H5. Additionally, GT mediated the influence of GW on IS at β =
−0.184, t = 5.236, p < 0.000, and the impact of GW on WPP at β = −0.194, t = 5.486, p < 0.000,
suggesting that H6 and H7 can be presumed correct.
Figure 2. Estimation of structural model.
Concerning moderation analysis, Figure 3 proves that GA dampens the negative im-
pact of GW on GT (β = 0.250, t = 4.854, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens the positive
effects of GT on IS (β = 0.156, t = 2.262, and p = 0.024) and on WPP (β = 0.136, t = 2.256, and
p = 0.032), supporting H8a, H8b, and H8c. Similarly, Figure 4 shows that GTR dampens
the negative impact of GW on GT (β = 0.289, t = 5.136, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens
the positive effects of GT on IS (β = 0.132, t = 2.279, and p = 0.023) and on WPP (β = 0.127, t
= 2.044, and p = 0.042), supporting H9a, H9b, and H9c.
Figure 3. The moderating influence of GA on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
Figure 3. The moderating influence of GA on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 12 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
Figure 4. The moderating influence of GTR on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Despite its potential adverse consequences, hotels still engage in greenwashing to
aract environmentally conscious guests, enhance their image, and gain a competitive
edge. It allows them to appear eco-friendly without making significant sustainable
changes, potentially saving costs and complying with the standardized criteria for
“green” practices in the industry. Prior studies indicated that customer perceptions of
greenwashing continually caused them to have a negative aitude towards a company’s
eco-friendly efforts, leading them to mistrust green products [2,7,8,10,61]. This is con-
sistent with the results of our study, which showed that customers’ perceptions of green-
washing negatively influence their trust in green hotel services and products. In the same
vein, the results revealed that customers’ perceptions of greenwashing also negatively af-
fect their intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green
hotels. On this topic, many scholars have confirmed that greenwashing practices decrease
guests’ intentions to revisit eco-friendly hotels or engage in green hotel practices [62–64]
and their readiness to pay extra for green hotel services [2,7,37]. In contrast, the findings
demonstrated that guests’ green trust positively affects their intentions to stay in green
hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. Sung et al. [65] adopted the
theory of planned behavior (TPB) to prove that green trust affects guests’ willingness to
specify green-hotel staying intentions, but Sultana et al. [66] indicated that few studies
have discovered the effect of guests’ green trust in their preference to stay at or revisit
green hotels. The relationship between green trust and willingness to pay premiums in
the context of green hotels has also received lile research [67], but in general, this rela-
tionship has been proved in many studies [68,69]. Based on confirming the above direct
relationships, the results confirmed the mediating role of green trust between greenwash-
ing and intention to stay in green hotels and between greenwashing and willingness to
pay premiums for green hotels.
Prior research has addressed chiefly the predictors and results of greenwashing ra-
ther than the solutions for mitigating its unfavorable repercussions. Therefore, the current
study examined how to strengthen green trust by testing two moderators, i.e., green au-
thenticity and green transparency, on the trust paths in the study model to mitigate the
effect of guests’ perceptions of greenwashing by green hotels and strengthen the green
trust effect. In this context, the results demonstrated that green authenticity and green
transparency dampen the negative influence of greenwashing on green trust while
strengthening the effect of green trust on guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels and
their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. Scholars have indicated that green
authenticity can restore or enhance green brand trust that has been lost because of unac-
ceptable practices, e.g., greenwashing [44] and that a firm’s green transparency may gen-
erate trust linked with eco-friendly responsibilities and considerations in customers’
minds, which may promote guests’ trust and satisfaction [70,71].
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the sustainability of the
tourism and hospitality industry in several ways. First, it responds to the call of prior
Figure 4. The moderating influence of GTR on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Despite its potential adverse consequences, hotels still engage in greenwashing to
attract environmentally conscious guests, enhance their image, and gain a competitive
edge. It allows them to appear eco-friendly without making significant sustainable changes,
potentially saving costs and complying with the standardized criteria for “green” practices
in the industry. Prior studies indicated that customer perceptions of greenwashing contin-
ually caused them to have a negative attitude towards a company’s eco-friendly efforts,
leading them to mistrust green products [
2
,
7
,
8
,
10
,
61
]. This is consistent with the results of
our study, which showed that customers’ perceptions of greenwashing negatively influence
their trust in green hotel services and products. In the same vein, the results revealed that
customers’ perceptions of greenwashing also negatively affect their intentions to stay in
green hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. On this topic, many
scholars have confirmed that greenwashing practices decrease guests’ intentions to revisit
eco-friendly hotels or engage in green hotel practices [
62
–
64
] and their readiness to pay
extra for green hotel services [
2
,
7
,
37
]. In contrast, the findings demonstrated that guests’
green trust positively affects their intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to
pay premiums for green hotels. Sung et al. [
65
] adopted the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) to prove that green trust affects guests’ willingness to specify green-hotel staying
intentions, but Sultana et al. [
66
] indicated that few studies have discovered the effect of
guests’ green trust in their preference to stay at or revisit green hotels. The relationship
between green trust and willingness to pay premiums in the context of green hotels has
also received little research [
67
], but in general, this relationship has been proved in many
studies [
68
,
69
]. Based on confirming the above direct relationships, the results confirmed
the mediating role of green trust between greenwashing and intention to stay in green
hotels and between greenwashing and willingness to pay premiums for green hotels.
Prior research has addressed chiefly the predictors and results of greenwashing rather
than the solutions for mitigating its unfavorable repercussions. Therefore, the current study
examined how to strengthen green trust by testing two moderators, i.e., green authenticity
and green transparency, on the trust paths in the study model to mitigate the effect of
guests’ perceptions of greenwashing by green hotels and strengthen the green trust effect.
In this context, the results demonstrated that green authenticity and green transparency
dampen the negative influence of greenwashing on green trust while strengthening the
effect of green trust on guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to
pay premiums for green hotels. Scholars have indicated that green authenticity can restore
or enhance green brand trust that has been lost because of unacceptable practices, e.g.,
greenwashing [
44
] and that a firm’s green transparency may generate trust linked with
eco-friendly responsibilities and considerations in customers’ minds, which may promote
guests’ trust and satisfaction [70,71].
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the sustainability of the
tourism and hospitality industry in several ways. First, it responds to the call of prior re-
search for further investigation of the greenwashing phenomenon in the context of the hotel
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 13 of 20
industry. Second, despite the extant literature on greenwashing, few studies have touched
upon the subject of preventing or mitigating its unfavorable ramifications. This study
addresses this gap by developing and examining a theoretical model of greenwashing–
patronage linkage in hotel settings, which incorporates the moderating roles of green
authenticity and green transparency. The model identifies green authenticity and green
transparency as two key strategies for mitigating the negative consequences of greenwash-
ing. Third, the findings of this study expand our knowledge of how greenwashing can
adversely affect green trust and patronage of green hotels, as well as how to mitigate its
negative outcomes in hotel settings.
5.2. Practical Implications
This study offers several practical recommendations that enable tourism and hospi-
tality managers to effectively address greenwashing, mitigate its negative consequences,
and appropriately promote their green initiatives and encourage tourists to actively engage
with green hotel facilities and activities.
Greenwashing can damage a business’s reputation and erode its credibility, making it
difficult for the business to attract customers and investors. To overcome these negative
perceptions, green hotels need to carefully manage customer expectations and communi-
cate the benefits of their eco-friendly practices clearly and accurately. They can achieve
this by highlighting the environmental and financial advantages of their practices, as well
as the positive impact they have on the guest experience. Additionally, green hotel man-
agers should avoid overstating their eco-friendly activities or exaggerating the sustainable
benefits of their products when developing and marketing their green services.
Eco-hotel managers should be transparent about their sustainability practices by
sharing honest and comprehensive information about their green initiatives and avoiding
unsubstantiated green claims. It is also essential for hotel management to be authentic by
demonstrating a genuine commitment to environmental sustainability and communicating
this message to customers effectively. By doing so, hoteliers can build trust with customers
and encourage them to stay at and pay extra for green hotels.
Tourists can identify and choose truly green hotels with the help of third-party certifi-
cations and customer reviews. Hospitality managers can use these resources to authenticate
their eco-friendly programs and earn guests’ trust. To build trust and strengthen relation-
ships, hotel managers should have open and honest conversations with eco-conscious
guests. By working together, hoteliers and tourists can promote sustainable tourism and
create a more environmentally friendly hospitality industry.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
The current study has some limitations. One significant limitation of this study is
related to its generalizability. The gender imbalance (the number of male participants
significantly exceeded that of females) could impact the generalizability of the findings,
as the perspectives and experiences of females may not be adequately represented in the
analysis. Future research should strive for a more balanced and representative sample.
The research was conducted within a specific geographical area or among a particular
group of hotels, which may limit the applicability of the findings to a broader context.
The hotel industry is diverse, and the mitigating factors explored in this study may vary
across regions, cultures, and types of hotels. The findings are based on self-reported
survey data, which may introduce some subjectivity. It is important to approach these
results with caution, as they lack additional supporting evidence from alternative sources
or methods. Thus, future studies can approach green hotels’ perspective to explore the
extent to which perceived greenwashing affected occupancy levels or room rates. Moreover,
the research employed a cross-sectional design, which captures data at a single point in
time. While this design allows an examination of relationships between variables, it cannot
establish causality or trace the dynamics of these relationships over time. Longitudinal
or experimental designs may offer more insight into causal relationships as well; further
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 14 of 20
studies in this area can adopt a qualitative approach to investigate hotel guests’ perception
of greenwashing to provide rich information that enables a profound understanding of this
phenomenon. Future studies can also examine other moderators such as income, education,
travel purpose, environmental consciousness, and environmental certification.
Author Contributions: Methodology, M.A.; Validation, A.M.S.A. and A.A.A.M.; Data curation,
S.F.; Writing—original draft, I.A.E. and S.F.; Writing—review & editing, A.M.S.A. and A.A.A.M.;
Supervision, I.A.E.; Project administration, A.M.S.A. and I.A.E.; Funding acquisition, M.A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for
Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. 5650].
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee,
King Faisal University (project number: 5650, date of approval: 25 April 2023).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The measurement-model statistics.
Items λa CR AVE
Greenwashing (GW) 0.951 0.958 0.696
False claims (FC) 0.928 0.943 0.735
GW-1 0.816
GW-2 0.856
GW-3 0.817
GW-4 0.878
GW-5 0.886
GW-6 0.886
Misleading information (MI) 0.913 0.939 0.793
GW-7 0.906
GW-8 0.927
GW-9 0.848
GW-10 0.881
Willing to pay a premium for green hotels (WPP) 0.937 0.960 0.888
WPP-1 0.942
WPP-2 0.937
WPP-3 0.948
Intention to stay at green hotels (IS) 0.944 0.964 0.899
IS-1 0.946
IS-2 0.949
IS-3 0.948
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 15 of 20
Table A1. Cont.
Items λa CR AVE
Green trust (GT) 0.950 0.962 0.834
GT-1 0.902
GT-2 0.910
GT-3 0.920
GT-4 0.915
GT-5 0.921
Green authenticity (GA) 0.949 0.959 0.796
GA-1 0.863
GA-2 0.884
GA-3 0.913
GA-4 0.917
GA-5 0.909
GA-6 0.865
Green transparency (GTR) 0.932 0.948 0.786
GTR-1 0.848
GTR-2 0.881
GTR-3 0.893
GTR-4 0.923
GTR-5 0.888
Note: a = “Cronbach’s alpha”;
λ
= “factor loading”; CR = “composite reliability”; AVE = “average variance
extracted”.
Table A2. Cross-loadings.
FC MI IS WPP GT GA GTR
GW_1 0.816 0.752 −0.085 −0.262 −0.290 0.375 0.065
GW_2 0.856 0.780 −0.028 −0.212 −0.267 0.403 0.036
GW_3 0.817 0.598 −0.048 −0.263 −0.254 0.299 0.026
GW_4 0.878 0.679 −0.141 −0.354 −0.270 0.260 0.081
GW_5 0.886 0.695 −0.071 −0.265 −0.230 0.291 0.075
GW_6 0.886 0.762 −0.061 −0.265 −0.277 0.273 0.017
GW_7 0.764 0.906 −0.052 −0.192 −0.237 0.207 0.043
GW_8 0.755 0.927 −0.153 −0.312 −0.328 0.192 0.058
GW_9 0.654 0.848 −0.088 −0.278 −0.193 0.117 −0.020
GW_10 0.784 0.881 −0.114 −0.270 −0.313 0.364 0.052
IS_1 −0.116 −0.145 0.946 0.771 0.453 0.278 0.250
IS_2 −0.063 −0.093 0.949 0.747 0.448 0.318 0.201
IS_3 −0.061 −0.089 0.948 0.782 0.444 0.292 0.225
WPP_1 −0.285 −0.259 0.768 0.942 0.557 0.148 0.283
WPP_2 −0.311 −0.319 0.746 0.937 0.522 0.130 0.225
WPP_3 −0.294 −0.257 0.770 0.948 0.533 0.188 0.332
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 16 of 20
Table A2. Cont.
FC MI IS WPP GT GA GTR
GT_1 −0.339 −0.292 0.368 0.467 0.902 −0.204 −0.065
GT_2 −0.294 −0.281 0.427 0.533 0.910 −0.102 −0.015
GT_3 −0.280 −0.294 0.474 0.556 0.920 −0.114 −0.004
GT_4 −0.278 −0.278 0.409 0.506 0.915 −0.084 −0.028
GT_5 −0.224 −0.239 0.473 0.536 0.921 −0.082 −0.042
GA_1 0.336 0.201 0.301 0.158 −0.144 0.863 0.295
GA_2 0.362 0.270 0.237 0.110 −0.193 0.884 0.354
GA_3 0.442 0.348 0.217 0.068 −0.173 0.913 0.219
GA_4 0.315 0.207 0.347 0.209 −0.027 0.917 0.291
GA_5 0.273 0.177 0.295 0.195 −0.051 0.909 0.263
GA_6 0.273 0.161 0.241 0.109 −0.124 0.865 0.221
GTR_1 0.054 0.019 0.210 0.278 −0.031 0.268 0.848
GTR_2 0.021 0.028 0.174 0.256 −0.041 0.272 0.881
GTR_3 0.055 0.046 0.195 0.249 −0.039 0.306 0.893
GTR_4 0.012 0.003 0.208 0.276 −0.036 0.235 0.923
GTR_5 0.110 0.075 0.258 0.264 −0.001 0.295 0.888
Table A3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
FC GA GT GTR IS MI WPP
False claims 0.857
Green authenticity 0.370 0.892
Green trust −0.309 −0.127 0.913
Green transparency 0.058 0.310 −0.033 0.887
Intention to stay at green hotels −0.085 0.313 0.473 0.238 0.948
Misleading information 0.832 0.250 −0.303 0.039 −0.115 0.891
Willing to pay a premium for green hotels −0.315 0.166 0.570 0.299 0.808 −0.295 0.942
Note: Values off the diagonal line are squared inter-construct correlations, while values on the diagonal line are AVEs.
Table A4. HTMT matrix.
FC GA GT GTR IS MI WPP
False claims
Green authenticity 0.399
Green trust 0.330 0.142
Green transparency 0.065 0.327 0.042
Intention to stay at green hotels 0.090 0.324 0.497 0.251
Misleading information 0.895 0.271 0.323 0.056 0.123
Willingness to pay a premium for green hotels 0.339 0.168 0.603 0.318 0.860 0.321
Note: For appropriate DV, all HTMT values need to be <0.90.
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 17 of 20
Appendix B. Scale Items for Measuring Study Constructs
I-Greenwashing (GW) (Quoquab et al., 2022) [51]:
A. False claims (FC)
The hotel overstates the environmental/sustainable functionality of its products/services.
What the hotel claims in its ads on green is impossible to do.
I think the hotel is faking the environmental benefits to sell products/services.
The hotel overclaims its environmental benefits.
The hotels’ green features in the ads are vague.
The hotel uses words like “environmental protection” in its ads to cheat people.
II. Misleading information (MI)
The hotel uses misleading words in the ads to show that it cares for the environment.
The hotel misleads its guests by using visual artist’s impressions with green to sell its
products/services.
It is easy for the hotel to mislead its guests to sale its products by using green ads.
The hotel uses misleading visual and/or graphics in the ads to show that it cares for
the environment.
III. Green Trust (GT) (Erdem & Swait 2004) [52]:
The hotel does not pretend to be environmentally friendly when it isn’t.
The hotel’s environmental claims are believable.
I expect the hotel to keep its environmental promises.
The hotel has a name you can trust.
The hotel delivers what it promises.
IV. Green Authenticity (GA) (Men & Tsai, 2014; based on Shen & Kim, 2012) [39,53]:
The hotel always tells the truth.
I believe that the hotel’s environmental actions are genuine.
I feel that the hotel accepts and learns from environmental mistakes.
I believe that the hotel’s environmental behavior matches its core values.
The hotel’s environmental beliefs and actions are consistent.
I think the hotel matches the environmental rhetoric with its action.
V. Green Transparency (GTR) (Hustvedt and Kang 2013) [48]:
Information about the hotel’s environmental activities is easily accessible.
It is easy to obtain sufficient information about the hotel’s environmental activities.
This hotel would be honest and sincere in addressing environmental and societal issues.
I can rely on this hotel to solve the problem of environmental and societal issues.
This hotel would make any effort to improve the environmental and societal issues.
VI. Willing to pay premium for green hotel (WPP) (Lee et al., 2010) [54]:
It is acceptable to pay a premium to stay at a hotel that engages in environmental practices.
I am willing to pay more to stay at an environmentally friendly hotel.
I am willing to spend extra to support the hotel’s effort to be environmentally sustainable.
VII. Intention to stay at green hotels (IS) (Suki & Suki, 2014) [15]:
I am willing to stay at a green hotel when touring.
I plan to stay at a green hotel when touring.
I will actively try to stay at a green hotel when touring.
References
1.
Ling, T.L.; Aziz, N.A. The Impacts of Perceived Greenwash Fear on Attitude, Reasons and Green Hotel Patronage Intention.
Asia-Pac. J. Innov. Hosp. Tour. 2021,10, 41–61.
2.
Rahman, I.; Park, J.; Chi, C.G. Consequences of “Greenwashing”: Consumers’ Reactions to Hotels’ Green Initiatives. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014,27, 1054–1081. [CrossRef]
3.
Tark, J.; Oh, W.-Y. Hilton Faces Greenwashing Challenge. In Social and Sustainability Marketing; Productivity Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2021; pp. 865–868.
4.
Khatter, A. Challenges and Solutions for Environmental Sustainability in the Hospitality Sector. Sustainability 2023,15, 11491.
[CrossRef]
5.
Gupta, A.; Dash, S.; Mishra, A. All That Glitters Is Not Green: Creating Trustworthy Ecofriendly Services at Green Hotels. Tour.
Manag. 2019,70, 155–169. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 18 of 20
6.
Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.; Lee, J.-S. Empirical Investigation of the Roles of Attitudes toward Green Behaviors, Overall Image, Gender,
and Age in Hotel Customers’ Eco-Friendly Decision-Making Process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009,28, 519–528. [CrossRef]
7.
Chen, H.; Bernard, S.; Rahman, I. Greenwashing in Hotels: A Structural Model of Trust and Behavioral Intentions. J. Clean. Prod.
2019,206, 326–335. [CrossRef]
8.
Majeed, S.; Kim, W.G. A Reflection of Greenwashing Practices in the Hospitality Industry: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manag. 2023,35, 1125–1146. [CrossRef]
9. Tufts, S.; Milne, S. Greening, Green-Washing, and Union Activism in Hospitality. Women Environ. 2015,94, 41–43.
10.
Peng, N.; Chen, A. Luxury Hotels Going Green—The Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Hesitation. J. Sustain. Tour.
2019,27, 1374–1392. [CrossRef]
11.
Nguyen, T.T.H.; Yang, Z.; Nguyen, N.; Johnson, L.W.; Cao, T.K. Greenwash and Green Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of
Green Skepticism. Sustainability 2019,11, 2653. [CrossRef]
12.
Nimri, R.; Patiar, A.; Kensbock, S. A Green Step Forward: Eliciting Consumers’ Purchasing Decisions Regarding Green Hotel
Accommodation in Australia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017,33, 43–50. [CrossRef]
13.
Xiao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Guo, D. Will Greenwashing Result in Brand Avoidance? A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 2022,
14, 7204. [CrossRef]
14. Self, R.M.; Self, D.R.; Bell-Haynes, J. Marketing Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: Ecotourism or Greenwashing? Int. Bus. Econ.
Res. J. IBER 2010,9, 111–126. [CrossRef]
15.
Mohd Suki, N.; Mohd Suki, N. Consumers’ Environmental Behaviour towards Staying at a Green Hotel: Moderation of Green
Hotel Knowledge. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2015,26, 103–117. [CrossRef]
16.
Nguyen, T.N.; Phan, T.T.H.; Cao, T.K.; Nguyen, H.V. Green Purchase Behavior: Mitigating Barriers in Developing Countries.
Strateg. Dir. 2017,33, 4–6. [CrossRef]
17.
Leonidou, C.N.; Skarmeas, D. Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of Green Skepticism. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,
144, 401–415. [CrossRef]
18.
Nassani, A.A.; Yousaf, Z.; Radulescu, M.; Haffar, M. Environmental Performance through Environmental Resources Conservation
Efforts: Does Corporate Social Responsibility Authenticity Act as Mediator? Sustainability 2022,14, 2330. [CrossRef]
19.
Yang, Z.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, H.N.; Nguyen, T.T.N.; Cao, T.T. Greenwashing Behaviours: Causes, Taxonomy and Conse-
quences Based on a Systematic Literature Review. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020,21, 1486–1507. [CrossRef]
20.
Andreoli, T.; Costa, E.; Prearo, L. Consumer Judgment on the Practice of Greenwashing: Scale Development and Validation. Braz.
Bus. Rev. 2022,19, 508–524. [CrossRef]
21. Parguel, B.; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical
Corporate Communication. J. Bus. Ethics 2011,102, 15–28. [CrossRef]
22.
Martínez, M.P.; Cremasco, C.P.; Gabriel Filho, L.R.A.; Braga Junior, S.S.; Bednaski, A.V.; Quevedo-Silva, F.; Correa, C.M.; Da Silva,
D.; Moura-Leite Padgett, R.C. Fuzzy Inference System to Study the Behavior of the Green Consumer Facing the Perception of
Greenwashing. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,242, 116064. [CrossRef]
23.
Shen, L.; Qian, J.; Chen, S.C. Effective Communication Strategies of Sustainable Hospitality: A Qualitative Exploration. Sustain-
ability 2020,12, 6920. [CrossRef]
24.
Baker, M.A.; Davis, E.A.; Weaver, P.A. Eco-Friendly Attitudes, Barriers to Participation, and Differences in Behavior at Green
Hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014,55, 89–99. [CrossRef]
25.
Pimonenko, T.; Bilan, Y.; Horák, J.; Starchenko, L.; Gajda, W. Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability 2020,12, 1679. [CrossRef]
26.
Pulido-Fernández, J.; López-Sánchez, Y. Are Tourists Really Willing to Pay More for Sustainable Destinations? Sustainability 2016,
8, 1240. [CrossRef]
27. Casado-Díaz, A.B.; Sellers-Rubio, R.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sancho-Esper, F. Predictors of Willingness to Pay a Price Premium
for Hotels’ Water-Saving Initiatives. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020,37, 773–784. [CrossRef]
28.
Chen, Y.-S. The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green Satisfaction, and Green Trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2010,
93, 307–319. [CrossRef]
29.
Mezger, A.; Cabanelas, P.; Cabiddu, F.; Rüdiger, K. What Does It Matter for Trust of Green Consumers? An Application to German
Electricity Market. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,242, 118484. [CrossRef]
30.
Iyer, G.R.; Jarvis, L. CSR Adoption in the Multinational Hospitality Context: A Review of Representative Research and Avenues
for Future Research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019,31, 2376–2393. [CrossRef]
31.
Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer Trust in B2C E-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence: Experiments in e-Products
and e-Services. Omega 2004,32, 407–424. [CrossRef]
32.
Castaldo, S.; Premazzi, K.; Zerbini, F. The Meaning(s) of Trust. A Content Analysis on the Diverse Conceptualizations of Trust in
Scholarly Research on Business Relationships. J. Bus. Ethics 2010,96, 657–668. [CrossRef]
33.
Kang, J.; Hustvedt, G. Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency
and Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2014,125, 253–265. [CrossRef]
34. Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. J. Mark. 1994,58, 20–38. [CrossRef]
35.
Munuera-Aleman, J.L.; Delgado-Ballester, E.; Yague-Guillen, M.J. Development and Validation of a Brand Trust Scale.
Int. J. Mark. Res. 2003,45, 1–18. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 19 of 20
36.
Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Mika, M.; Kubal-Czerwi´nska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Pawłowska-Legwand, A. Predictors of Patronage
Intentions towards ‘Green’ Hotels in an Emerging Tourism Market. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022,103, 103221. [CrossRef]
37.
González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Font, X. Factors Influencing Willingness of Customers of Environmentally
Friendly Hotels to Pay a Price Premium. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020,32, 60–80. [CrossRef]
38.
Lee, H.; Jai, T.-M.; Li, X. Guests’ Perceptions of Green Hotel Practices and Management Responses on TripAdvisor. J. Hosp. Tour.
Technol. 2016,7, 182–199. [CrossRef]
39.
Shen, H.; Kim, J.-N. The Authentic Enterprise: Another Buzz Word, or a True Driver of Quality Relationships? J. Public Relat. Res.
2012,24, 371–389. [CrossRef]
40.
Men, L.R.; Hung-Baesecke, C.F. Engaging Employees in China: The Impact of Communication Channels, Organizational
Transparency, and Authenticity. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2015,20, 448–467. [CrossRef]
41.
Butt, A.; Khan, S.N.; Zakir, M.M.; Rana, W.; Laila, A. Firms Greenwashing Practices and Consumers’ Perception: Role of
Marketing and Non-Marketing External Stake Holders in Firms Greenwashing Practices. Indian J. Econ. Bus. 2021,20, 689–706.
42.
Fritz, K.; Schoenmueller, V.; Bruhn, M. Authenticity in Branding—Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Authenticity.
Eur. J. Mark. 2017,51, 324–348. [CrossRef]
43.
Jog, D.; Singhal, D. Greenwashing Understanding among Indian Consumers and Its Impact on Their Green Consumption. Glob.
Bus. Rev. 2020. [CrossRef]
44.
Xu, Y.; Du, J.; Shahzad, F.; Li, X. Untying the Influence of Green Brand Authenticity on Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intention: A
Moderation–Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 724452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Holtz, S. Tactical Transparency: The Value of Getting Personal in Business. In Proceedings of the Webinar Presententation, Online,
20 May 2009.
46.
Rawlins, B. Give the Emperor a Mirror: Toward Developing a Stakeholder Measurement of Organizational Transparency. J. Public
Relat. Res. 2008,21, 71–99. [CrossRef]
47.
Chen, M.F.; Tung, P.J. Developing an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model to Predict Consumers’ Intention to Visit Green
Hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014,36, 221–230. [CrossRef]
48.
Hustvedt, G.; Kang, J. Consumer Perceptions of Transparency: A Scale Development and Validation. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J.
2013,41, 299–313. [CrossRef]
49.
Kim, S.-B.; Kim, D.-Y. The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility, Ability, Reputation, and Transparency on Hotel Customer
Loyalty in the U.S.: A Gender-Based Approach. SpringerPlus 2016,5, 1537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Vaccaro, A.; Patiño Echeverri, D. Corporate Transparency and Green Management. J. Bus. Ethics 2010,95, 487–506. [CrossRef]
51.
Quoquab, F.; Sivadasan, R.; Mohammad, J. “Do They Mean What They Say?” Measuring Greenwash in the Sustainable Property
Development Sector. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022,34, 778–799. [CrossRef]
52. Erdem, T.; Swait, J. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. J. Consum. Res. 2004,31, 191–198. [CrossRef]
53.
Men, L.R.; Tsai, W.-H.S. Perceptual, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Outcomes of Organization–Public Engagement on Corporate
Social Networking Sites. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014,26, 417–435. [CrossRef]
54.
Lee, J.-S.; Hsu, L.-T.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding How Consumers View Green Hotels: How a Hotel’s Green Image Can
Influence Behavioural Intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010,18, 901–914. [CrossRef]
55.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM);
SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
56.
Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019,
31, 2–24. [CrossRef]
57.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
58.
Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
2001,18, 185–214. [CrossRef]
59.
Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005,48, 159–205. [CrossRef]
60.
Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification.
Psychol. Methods 1998,3, 424–453. [CrossRef]
61.
Polonsky, M.J.; Grau, S.L.; Garma, R. The New Greenwash?: Potential Marketing Problems with Carbon Offsets. Int. J. Bus. Stud.
2020,18, 49–54.
62.
Szabo, S.; Webster, J. Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions. J. Bus.
Ethics 2021,171, 719–739. [CrossRef]
63.
Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Cao, C.; Huang, S. The Influence of Greenwashing Perception on Green Purchasing Intentions: The Mediating
Role of Green Word-of-Mouth and Moderating Role of Green Concern. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,187, 740–750. [CrossRef]
64.
Tan, L.L. A Stimulus-Organism-Response Perspective to Examine Green Hotel Patronage Intention. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022,
35, 1552–1568. [CrossRef]
65.
Sung, P.L.; Hsiao, T.Y.; Huang, L.; Morrison, A.M. The Influence of Green Trust on Travel Agency Intentions to Promote
Low-Carbon Tours for the Purpose of Sustainable Development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021,28, 1185–1199.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 1050 20 of 20
66.
Sultana, N.; Amin, S.; Islam, A. Influence of Perceived Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern on Customers’
Green Hotel Visit Intention: Mediating Role of Green Trust. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2022,14, 223–243. [CrossRef]
67.
Yadav, R.; Balaji, M.S.; Jebarajakirthy, C. How Psychological and Contextual Factors Contribute to Travelers’ Propensity to Choose
Green Hotels? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019,77, 385–395. [CrossRef]
68.
Roosen, J.; Bieberstein, A.; Blanchemanche, S.; Goddard, E.; Marette, S.; Vandermoere, F. Trust and Willingness to Pay for
Nanotechnology Food. Food Policy 2015,52, 75–83. [CrossRef]
69.
Nocella, G.; Romano, D.; Stefani, G. Consumers’ Attitudes, Trust and Willingness to Pay for Food Information. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 2014,38, 153–165. [CrossRef]
70.
Deng, Y.-Y.; Yang, Y.-C. Exploring the Role of Green Attributes Transparency Influencing Green Customer Citizenship Behavior.
Br. Food J. 2021,124, 1473–1484. [CrossRef]
71. Johnson, M.D.; Ettlie, J.E. Technology, Customization, and Reliability. J. Qual. Manag. 2001,6, 193–210. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
