Undoing greenwashing: the roles of greenwashing severity, consumer forgiveness, growth beliefs and apology sincerity

Vina Paramitha, Ser Zian Tan, Weng Marc Lim

Journal of Product & Brand Management

ISSN: 1061-0421

Open Access. Article publication date: 10 January 2025

755

Abstract

Purpose

Amidst growing concerns about environmental sustainability, brands face the challenge of upholding authenticity in their green marketing efforts. While existing research primarily focuses on understanding and preventing greenwashing, there is a critical need to explore its consequences and mitigation strategies. This study aims to investigate the effects of greenwashing across varying levels of severity on consumer forgiveness and brand attitude, with growth beliefs and apology sincerity serving as moderators.

Design/methodology/approach

This study conducted a between-subjects online experiment in two phases: Phase 1 examined the effects of greenwashing severity on brand attitude, mediated by consumer forgiveness and moderated by their growth beliefs, whereas Phase 2 tested the moderating role of apology sincerity.

Findings

This study identifies different types of greenwashing and reveals that higher perceived severity of active greenwashing worsens brand attitude through reduced consumer forgiveness. However, consumers with stronger growth beliefs show greater forgiveness, moderating the negative impact of greenwashing severity. Crucially, a sincere apology effectively mitigates the detrimental effects of greenwashing severity on brand attitude.

Research limitations/implications

This study offers actionable insights for brand managers, highlighting that fostering growth beliefs and offering sincere apologies can mitigate the negative impacts of greenwashing.

Originality/value

This study advances the greenwashing literature by highlighting the negative consequences of greenwashing on consumer forgiveness and brand attitude, and underscoring the role of growth beliefs and apology sincerity as effective mitigation strategies.

Keywords

Citation

Paramitha, V., Tan, S.Z. and Lim, W.M. (2025), "Undoing greenwashing: the roles of greenwashing severity, consumer forgiveness, growth beliefs and apology sincerity", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2023-4846

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Vina Paramitha, Ser Zian Tan and Weng Marc Lim.

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Greenwashing involves deceptive practices that create a false positive environmental image through tactics such as misleading labeling, hidden trade-offs, lack of proof and vague marketing (; ; ; ). While research has addressed identifying (; ) and preventing () greenwashing, there is a gap in understanding how the severity of greenwashing affects consumer forgiveness and brand outcomes. Severe greenwashing, such as falsely claiming carbon neutrality or using deceptive eco-labels, often results in stronger consumer backlash and long-term damage to brand reputation (). For instance, Burberry faced significant criticism for burning unsold products to maintain exclusivity (). In contrast, less severe forms, like overstating a product’s eco-friendly packaging, though disappointing, are more forgivable if brands improve transparency and commit to sustainable practices (). For example, H&M’s misleading claims about sustainability have a less immediate environmental impact and can be remedied more quickly if the brand takes corrective actions, such as transparent communication and tangible improvements in sustainability practices ().

Previous research has pinpointed factors contributing to the perceived severity of greenwashing, including consumer knowledge (), perceptions of its impacts on individuals and society (), transparency in company practices () and the alignment between brand actions and claims (). However, it is equally crucial to distinguish between types of greenwashing deception (active or passive) and levels of severity (high or low), to fully understand its consequences. For instance, active greenwashing could involve misleading consumers through false claims about a product’s environmental benefits, whereas passive greenwashing might involve failing to disclose the full environmental impact of a product (). These two forms of deceptive practices carry varying levels of severity depending on the extent of the negative impacts or harm they cause to the environment and society.

This study shifts the focus from traditional approaches to managing greenwashing crises to understanding how different types and severities of greenwashing influence consumer forgiveness and brand attitude from an attribution perspective. While previous research has mainly explored the causes of greenwashing (e.g. ; ), this study builds on work by distinguishing between active and passive greenwashing and examining how perceived severity shape consumer responses. Severity is evaluated based on the perceived consequences of greenwashing, such as environmental and societal damage, and how seriously these are perceived. Although intentional wrongdoing is often deemed unacceptable, prior research shows that consumer responses can vary based on how brands communicate their green efforts, whether at the company or product level, and the nature of deception involved (). For instance, brands that are forgiven for minor transgressions, such as inaccurate green claims, may restore their reputation through genuine corrective actions (). However, brands implicated in more severe incidents, such as pollution from improper disposal, may face long-term reputational damage and struggle to regain trust (). Notably, brand transgressions can significantly damage brand value and foster brand hate (), underscoring the lasting impact of unmet consumer expectations, especially in cases of greenwashing.

Building on this foundation, while past research has linked greenwashing’s impact to outcomes such as brand evaluation () and market share (), as well as consumer interaction (), satisfaction () and purchase intent (), this study advances the discourse by positioning consumer forgiveness as a critical factor in brand recovery. Forgiveness plays an instrumental role in restoring brand reputation (), trust () and loyalty (), as well as safeguarding against brand switching and negative word-of-mouth (), making it an essential focus for addressing the aftermath of greenwashing incidents. Notably, forgiveness is both intrapersonal and interpersonal (), as well as emotional and decisional (). This study builds on model, which integrates these attributes, to investigate how consumer forgiveness can reshape attitudes and facilitate recovery within the consumer−brand relationship.

To delineate the boundary conditions on the relationship between the perceived severity of greenwashing and consumer forgiveness, this study introduces growth beliefs as a moderator. Growth beliefs, defined as the view that relationships evolve through effort (), emphasize mutual effort and resilience in nurturing positive consumer−brand relationships. It is suggested that consumers who endorse growth beliefs are more likely to forgive brands engaged in greenwashing, viewing such instances as opportunities for learning and improvement. Acknowledging that consumer responses to brand transgressions vary based on brand affinity (), this study focuses on preferred brands to better understand how forgiveness unfolds in the context of greenwashing and its impact on brand relationships. Thus, this study explores how the severity of greenwashing affects brand attitude, considering the interplay of consumer beliefs about brand relationships (i.e. growth beliefs), perceptions of apology sincerity and forgiveness.

As brands, especially those in the fashion industry, face growing pressure to adopt greener practices, this study offers valuable insights for practitioners by highlighting the importance of developing effective corporate accountability and transparency strategies, such as sustainability roadmaps and sincere communication. These insights are particularly relevant for brands in the early stages of their green transformation, as they provide a strategic framework for building and maintaining consumer trust while transitioning to more sustainable operations. Given the rise of active greenwashing and the increased scrutiny of environmental claims, brand managers must proactively address potential greenwashing issues throughout the supply chain and ensure that their sustainability efforts are perceived as genuine commitments. This comprehensive approach, integrating consumer forgiveness, growth beliefs and apology sincerity, provides a holistic understanding of the path to the aftermath of greenwashing, shedding light on the answers to the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1.

To what extent does the perceived severity of greenwashing influence consumer attitudes toward the affected brand?

RQ2.

To what extent will consumer forgiveness mediate the relationship between greenwashing severity and changes in brand attitude?

RQ3.

How do growth beliefs among consumers influence their forgiveness of brands inflicted by greenwashing?

RQ4.

In what ways does the perceived sincerity of a brand’s apology affect the relationship between greenwashing severity and brand attitude?

This study uses a two-phase experimental approach to examine the impact of greenwashing. Phase 1 examines the effects of greenwashing severity on consumer forgiveness and brand attitude, considering the moderating role of growth beliefs. Phase 2 evaluates the role of apology sincerity in this dynamic. Using experimental scenarios, these studies investigate how varying levels of greenwashing severity influence consumer forgiveness and brand attitude, and how these (negative) consequences can be mitigated − shedding light on both the extent of the issue (greenwashing severity) and the effectiveness of the solutions (internal: growth beliefs; external: apology sincerity).

2. Theoretical development

2.1 Greenwashing and consumer−brand relationships

Past research has advanced our understanding of attribution by exploring how variables such as perceptions of apology (), fairness () and severity () influence consumer judgments. Attribution theory (; , ) identifies three dimensions for attributing failure: locus of causality, controllability and stability. In the context of greenwashing, locus of causality determines responsibility (), controllability assesses preventability () and stability evaluates the persistence of deceptive behavior (). This study emphasizes the first two dimensions, as consumers may assign blame to a brand differently based on whether greenwashing involves active (e.g. fabricating false information) or passive (e.g. omitting or selectively disclosing information) deception (). Active deceptions are viewed as more morally questionable, leading to greater blame (), and brands are typically held more accountable for active deceptions than passive ones ().

In addition, this study addresses the relationship between greenwashing severity and consumer responses by considering beliefs in consumer−brand relationships. Consumers’ attribution of responsibility can vary based on their perception of their relationship with the brand. Those who view their brand relationships as dynamic and evolving, based on implicit theories of relationships (), tend to assign less blame and are more forgiving during brand transgressions. This contrasts with consumers who hold destiny beliefs, perceiving their loyalty as predetermined and believing they have little control over their brand choices (). Such consumers may react passively to brand transgressions. Conversely, consumers with growth beliefs see their relationship with a brand as flexible and capable of being strengthened through positive interactions (), which results in more forgiving and resilient responses to issues such as greenwashing.

2.2 Perceived severity and brand attitude

Perceived severity is an individual’s assessment of the seriousness of harmful situations (). This concept, applicable in diverse contexts such as crime (), environmental hazards () and health risks (), is instrumental in examining psychological reactions and coping mechanisms. While efforts have been made to categorize greenwashing based on firm and product level (), environmental performance (), communication distortion () and supply chain (), such typologies have yet to incorporate perceived severity into the model. Given the relevance of perceived severity in assessing consumer responses to brand transgressions such as greenwashing, its inclusion in investigating the phenomenon is crucial for advancing the understanding of greenwashing. Therefore, this study proposes a new typology of greenwashing that integrates both the type of deception and the perceived severity based on the harm it causes. Building upon the distinction between active and passive greenwashing (), this study introduces four quadrants that vary based on the brand’s type of greenwashing deception and the level of its severity ().

Recognizing the multifaceted nature of greenwashing, specifying its types is essential for context-specific understanding. Active greenwashing involves making false claims about a company’s practices or a product’s environmental attributes, whereas passive greenwashing entails selectively highlighting positive information while omitting negative environmental details (). In this study’s investigation, both types of greenwashing can vary in severity. Active greenwashing is often deemed highly severe, particularly if it contradicts brand promises and causes societal harm (). Conversely, if the brand provides false information (e.g. about recyclable materials), this active greenwashing may be seen as less severe, especially if it causes less damage to society (). This study focuses on active greenwashing, as companies are more accountable for deliberately falsifying information, which directly impacts consumer trust and the strength of the consumer−brand relationship.

In terms of consumer−brand relationships, prior research has examined the impact of greenwashing on consumers, including their attitudes (), trust () and loyalty () toward a brand. However, few studies have considered how varying levels of severity across different types of greenwashing lead to different outcomes. Most literature has focused on understanding and preventing greenwashing ().

Extending extant understanding, the severity of greenwashing could dictate consumers’ attitudes and subsequent actions toward the brand. A higher (versus lower) perceived severity of transgression may lead to more adverse reactions, such as boycotting the brand or spreading negative word-of-mouth (; ), reflecting a significantly negative brand attitude. This study thus postulates that high (versus low) perceived severity of greenwashing leads to a more negative brand attitude. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1.

High (versus low) perceived severity of greenwashing negatively impacts brand attitude.

2.3 The mediating role of consumer forgiveness

Consumer forgiveness, defined as the willingness to overlook a brand’s transgression (), is crucial in maintaining consumer−brand relationships. Rooted in psychological contract theory, this concept underscores that breaches such as greenwashing disrupt the mutual expectations between consumers and brands (). Despite these violations, consumers may choose to forgive and continue their relationship with the brand. However, the likelihood of forgiveness varies with the severity of the transgression. Research shows that as the severity of a brand’s wrongdoing increases, the probability of consumer forgiveness decreases (). In cases of severe greenwashing, consumers are more likely to seek redress or switch brands rather than forgive (). Conversely, when the perceived severity is lower, forgiveness is more likely, leading to a more positive brand attitude (). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that higher perceived severity of greenwashing correlates with decreased forgiveness and negatively impacts brand attitude. In contrast, lower perceived severity is expected to promote forgiveness and a more positive brand attitude, highlighting the mediating role of forgiveness in this relationship. This forms the basis for the following hypothesis:

H2.

Consumer forgiveness mediates the relationship between the perceived severity of greenwashing and brand attitude.

2.4 The moderating role of growth beliefs

Growth beliefs, or the perspective that relationships can evolve and strengthen through effort and overcoming challenges, play a significant role in consumer−brand relationships (). Consumers with strong growth beliefs tend to perceive difficulties, including brand transgressions, not as deal-breakers but as opportunities to deepen the relationship (). In the context of greenwashing, consumers with stronger growth beliefs may view the incident as a hurdle that, if overcome, could reinforce their commitment and loyalty to the brand. They are likely to see greenwashing not as a definitive breach of trust but as a test of the brand’s commitment to improvement and a chance for the relationship to grow stronger (). Therefore, the impact of greenwashing severity on their willingness to forgive the brand may be diminished; these consumers are more inclined to forgive and maintain their relationship with the brand, believing in its potential for positive change. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3.

The negative impact of perceived severity of greenwashing on consumer forgiveness is less pronounced among consumers with stronger growth beliefs.

2.5 The moderating role of apology sincerity

Perceived sincerity in a brand’s apology is the extent to which consumers believe the apology to be genuine, heartfelt and authentic (). This perception encapsulates the brand’s apparent honesty, remorse and commitment to rectifying its wrongdoing (). Noteworthily, the sincerity of a brand’s apology significantly shapes consumer attitudes, emotions and reactions toward the brand following a transgression (). When a brand acknowledges its greenwashing practices and offers a sincere apology, this acknowledgment can positively impact consumer attitudes. A genuine apology reflects accountability, empathy and a commitment to improvement, which can resonate deeply with consumers, leading to a more favorable perception of the brand (). Furthermore, a sincere apology can provide closure and a sense of restoration, mitigating the negative impact of greenwashing and enhancing consumer perceptions of the brand (). Therefore, in the case of greenwashing, it is hypothesized that the perceived sincerity of a brand’s apology moderates the relationship between the severity of greenwashing and the resultant brand attitude. A sincere apology may buffer the adverse effects of high perceived severity, leading to a more positive brand attitude. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H4.

The perceived sincerity of a brand’s apology improves brand attitude, mitigating the negative effects of perceived severity of greenwashing.

3. Methodology

To empirically test the hypotheses, this study designed a two-phase experiment, focusing on the fashion industry as the context for exploring greenwashing. Each phase was tailored to address specific hypotheses and involved distinct manipulations and measurements. This study used a between-subjects design, where participants were randomly assigned to different scenarios. The scenarios were presented as hypothetical situations involving a fashion brand accused of greenwashing. After reading the scenarios, participants responded to a series of questions measuring relevant variables on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”). The selection of the experimental methodology in this study facilitates direct comparisons between various scenarios (). This approach enables an evaluation of the impact of greenwashing severity within diverse contexts ().

Phase 1 concentrated on the first three hypotheses (H1H3), which relate to the perceived severity of greenwashing, consumer forgiveness, growth beliefs and brand attitude. To manipulate the perceived severity of greenwashing, this study created scenarios depicting different levels of greenwashing within the fashion industry. In the high-severity scenario, the brand engaged in harmful waste disposal methods, causing significant environmental harm. In contrast, the low-severity scenario featured false labeling, resulting in comparatively less environmental damage. Brand attitude, consumer forgiveness and growth beliefs were measured using established scales to assess participants’ responses to consumer−brand relationships.

Phase 2 focused on the fourth hypothesis (H4), which examines the moderating role of apology sincerity. Both low and high-severity greenwashing scenarios were presented along with a brand apology to assess how apology sincerity influenced consumer attitudes. Participants rated the apology’s sincerity and its interaction with greenwashing severity in shaping brand attitude, crucial for determining if genuine apologies mitigate high-severity greenwashing’s negative impact.

4. Phase 1

4.1 Methods

4.1.1 Design

In Phase 1, this study used a one-factor, two-level between-subjects design focusing on perceived severity (high versus low) of greenwashing. This study recruited 208 participants through an online questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics. Most respondents were from Asian countries, predominantly Indonesia and Malaysia (71.2% females, 72.1% aged between 18 and 25). Given that the fashion industry, particularly sustainable fashion, has seen significant growth and prominence in Asian countries and among younger demographics (; ), focusing on Asian respondents provides valuable insights into consumer behaviors and preferences in this influential market segment (see ).

4.1.2 Procedure

Participants were first asked to identify their preferred fashion brand, anchoring the questionnaire to a specific brand. Having participants specify their favorite brands, this study validates their growth beliefs, especially regarding brand relationships. Consistent with approach, this method enables us to explore participants’ emotional connections and evaluate the impact of forgiving transgressions by their preferred brands on these relationships. Each participant was then exposed to one of the two scenarios: one depicting high and the other low perceived severity of greenwashing. These scenarios aimed to elicit varying levels of perceived severity regarding the environmental impact of the brand’s actions (see ).

4.1.3 Measures

To verify the effectiveness of the manipulation, this study included four statements assessing the perceived severity of greenwashing (α = 0.92) adapted from and . These statements were designed to capture the participants’ perception of the negative impact and seriousness of the brand’s actions. Adapted from , consumer forgiveness was measured using four statements (α = 0.94) to gauge the participants’ willingness to forgive the brand following the greenwashing incident. In addition, the participants’ attitudes toward the brand were assessed using three statements (α = 0.95), adapted from , to determine their overall perception of the brand post-scenario. To measure growth beliefs, participants responded to 11 statements (α = 0.82) based on (see ).

4.2 Results and discussion

4.2.1 Manipulation check

The manipulation of greenwashing severity was effective. Participants exposed to the high-severity condition reported a significantly higher severity of greenwashing (M = 4.11, SD = 0.71) compared to those in the low-severity condition (M = 2.21, SD = 0.44; t[206] = −20.75, p < 0.001). This validates the distinct impact of varying severity levels of greenwashing.

4.2.2 Direct effect of greenwashing severity

Consistent with H1, there was a significant difference in brand attitude between the high and low perceived severity conditions of greenwashing. Participants in the high-severity scenario showed a notably lower brand attitude (M = 2.84, SD = 1.00) compared to those in the low-severity scenario (M = 3.48, SD = 0.83; F[1, 206] = 21.92, p < 0.001). This finding confirms that the perceived severity of greenwashing adversely affects brand attitude, with higher severity having a more pronounced impact than lower severity.

4.2.3 Mediating effect of consumer forgiveness

A mediation analysis using PROCESS Model 4 () with 5,000 bootstrap resamples was carried out to test H2. The analysis revealed that consumer forgiveness partially mediates the relationship between perceived severity of greenwashing and brand attitude. The direct effect remained significant (β = −0.28, SE = 0.06, t = −5.06, p < 0.001) while the indirect effect was also significant (β = −0.18, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: −0.31 to −0.09) (). The fact that the direct effect remains significant even in the presence of the mediator suggests that while consumer forgiveness plays a role in shaping brand attitude post-greenwashing, perceived severity of greenwashing also has a direct impact that is not solely mediated by forgiveness. In other words, consumer forgiveness does not fully account for the influence of perceived severity of greenwashing on brand attitude; it weakens but does not completely mitigate this direct relationship. This indicates a partial mediation and supports H2.

4.2.4 Moderating effect of growth beliefs

A moderated-mediation analysis using PROCESS Model 7 () with 5,000 bootstrap resamples was conducted to test H3. The analysis tested whether growth beliefs moderate the mediating effect of consumer forgiveness on the relationship between perceived severity of greenwashing and brand attitude. The study’s results indicate a significant interaction effect between perceived severity of greenwashing and growth beliefs on consumer forgiveness (β = 0.32, SE = 0.09, t = 3.71, p < 0.001). Specifically, among participants with low levels of growth belief, those evaluating a high (versus low) perceived severity of greenwashing displayed lower levels of consumer forgiveness (β = −0.54, SE = 0.11, t = −4.95, p < 0.001). However, such effects did not emerge among participants with high growth beliefs (β = −0.15, SE = 0.17, t = −0.87, p = 0.39 > 0.05) ().

Moreover, there was a significant positive effect of consumer forgiveness on brand attitude (β = 0.46, SE = 0.07, t = 7.05, p < 0.001). These results thus led to a significant index of moderated mediation (β = 0.15, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01–0.27), such that the indirect effect was significant among those with low levels of growth belief (β = −0.23, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: −0.36 to −0.13), but not among those with high levels of growth belief (β = −0.08, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: −0.24 to 0.01), indicating that the mediation effect of consumer forgiveness varies based on growth beliefs. In other words, the pathway through which perceived severity of greenwashing affects brand attitude via consumer forgiveness is contingent on the level of growth beliefs. This result supports H3 and highlights the importance of growth beliefs in shaping consumer responses to greenwashing. It suggests that individuals who view relationships (in this case, consumer−brand relationships) as capable of growth and development are less likely to allow the severity of a brand’s greenwashing to negatively affect their brand attitude through decreased forgiveness.

5. Phase 2

5.1 Methods

5.1.1 Design and procedure

Building on Phase 1, Phase 2 of the study introduced an additional variable: the perceived sincerity of a brand’s apology. This phase endeavored to examine how apology sincerity moderates the relationship between the perceived severity of greenwashing and brand attitude. Participants, including those from both the high and low-severity conditions of Phase 1, were presented with a new scenario wherein the brand issued an apology for its greenwashing behavior.

5.1.2 Measures

Participants rated the sincerity of the brand’s apology (α = 0.96) using a five-point scale with three statements adapted from . These statements aimed to gauge perceptions of the apology’s authenticity and genuineness. To assess the apology’s impact on brand attitude, the same three statements from were administered again, allowing for a comparison before and after the apology’s introduction. This repeated measure provided insights into the apology’s effectiveness in altering consumer attitudes toward the brand.

5.2 Results and discussion

5.2.1 Moderating effect of apology sincerity

A moderation analysis using PROCESS Model 1 () with 5,000 bootstrap resamples was performed to test H4. This analysis sought to determine whether the perceived sincerity of a brand’s apology moderated the relationship between the perceived severity of greenwashing and brand attitude. Consistent with this study’s prediction, a significant moderating effect was found (β = 0.13, t = 3.36, p < 0.001) (). This result implies that the impact of greenwashing severity on brand attitude is influenced by how sincere the brand’s apology is perceived to be.

The analysis revealed a significant difference in post-apology brand attitude between high and low-severity conditions. Participants exposed to high-severity greenwashing reported a less positive brand attitude post-apology (M = 3.74, SD = 0.68) compared to those in the low-severity scenario (M = 4.08, SD = 0.58; t[206] = 3.59, p < 0.001), supporting H4. Comparing pre-apology results from Phase 1, participants in the high perceived severity condition reported mean scores of 2.84 (SD = 1.00) while in the low-severity condition mean scores were 3.48 (SD = 0.83). Post-apology in Phase 2, mean scores improved to 3.74 (SD = 0.68) in the high-severity condition and 4.08 (SD = 0.58) in the low-severity condition, indicating a significant improvement in brand attitude after the apology across both severity conditions. This underscores the effectiveness of a sincere apology in positively influencing consumer perceptions amid greenwashing. However, the impact of the apology appears more substantial in the lower severity condition, suggesting its effectiveness is influenced by the initial perceived severity of the transgression.

6. Theoretical contributions

Greenwashing, characterized by misleading environmental claims (), increasingly threatens brand trust and loyalty due to consumer misinformation (; ). This study examines how consumer responses to greenwashing are influenced by attributions (; , ) and lay beliefs about consumer−brand relationships (). The findings indicate that when greenwashing is perceived as less severe, consumers are more inclined to forgive the brand, resulting in more favorable evaluations. Furthermore, consumers with strong growth beliefs − those who see brand relationships as dynamic and evolving − are particularly forgiving and maintain more positive attitudes even in the face of greenwashing. This underscores the importance of consumers’ psychological predispositions in shaping their reactions to brand transgressions. Moreover, sincere apologies are shown to improve brand attitude across various severity levels (; ), with their effectiveness being more pronounced in low-severity scenarios.

This study advances the greenwashing literature beyond its conventional focus on brand management during crises (; ; ) by examining the aftermath of greenwashing through an attribution lens, an area less examined in existing literature. Applying attribution theory, this study explores how consumers assign blame and responsibility to brands based on the perceived severity of their greenwashing actions. This study advances attribution theory by illustrating that the impact of greenwashing on consumer forgiveness varies with the perceived severity of the transgression. Previous research has examined various greenwashing deceptions (), but this study adds depth by focusing on active greenwashing. It reveals that when brands spread false environmental claims without significant harm, consumers are more likely to forgive them. This highlights the importance of perceived severity in shaping consumer responses to greenwashing, further advancing attribution theory in consumer−brand relationships.

This study offers new insights into the role of consumer forgiveness in post-crisis recovery, emphasizing its significance in the aftermath of transgressions (; ). While previous research primarily viewed consumer forgiveness as a recovery outcome (; ), this study explores its mediating role in shaping brand attitude, enhancing understanding of how forgiveness influences brand perception following greenwashing. It is important to recognize, however, that forgiveness does not always result in positive evaluations (; ). Although forgiveness has been shown to mediate factors such as perceived justice, satisfaction, negative word-of-mouth, re-patronage intention and reconciliation (; ), its ability to counteract negative perceptions, especially in cases of severe greenwashing, remains critical. The study’s findings suggest that forgiveness can indeed improve brand evaluations. Specifically, the effectiveness of a brand’s apology in improving consumer attitudes, even after severe greenwashing, depends on its perceived sincerity, highlighting the crucial role of genuine apologies in mitigating the negative effects of greenwashing.

This study extends the use of implicit theories of relationships (; ) to consumer−brand relationships, particularly in response to greenwashing. While these theories have been applied to areas such as financial decisions (), moral identity () and sustainable consumption (), their role in consumer−brand relationships and brand transgressions, such as greenwashing, remains underexplored. This study fills that gap, showing that consumers with stronger growth beliefs are more forgiving of greenwashing, viewing it as a chance for brands to learn and improve, resulting in less severe negative evaluations. It highlights how consumers’ views on relationship development influence their reactions to brand misconduct.

7. Managerial implications

Given the significant financial investments and complex logistics required for implementing green practices (), it is vital for brands, particularly those in the early stages of their green transformation journey, to develop and communicate clear sustainability roadmaps (). This study suggests that transparency in these efforts is crucial. Brands can take inspiration from other brands such as Apple and DHL, which have openly shared their sustainability roadmaps, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and social responsibility (; ). As consumers become increasingly vigilant about sustainability claims, brands must anticipate greater scrutiny (; ). This study reveals that when greenwashing is perceived as less severe, consumers are more forgiving and tend to evaluate the brand more positively. Brands should also proactively address potential greenwashing issues from their suppliers (), ensuring that their entire supply chain aligns with their sustainability standards ().

This study highlights that consumers with strong growth beliefs are more forgiving toward brands engaged in greenwashing. In this regard, developing communication strategies that resonate with consumers’ growth beliefs can aid in fostering forgiveness and rebuilding trust post-greenwashing incidents. This approach is particularly relevant for brands in the fast-fashion industry aiming to transition toward more environmentally responsible practices, where maintaining consistency in actions and communication is key. Furthermore, this study indicates that sincere apologies can effectively mitigate the negative impact of greenwashing on brand attitude. Brand managers should ensure that their apologies are perceived as genuine, honest and reflective of a genuine commitment to rectify the wrongdoing. This is especially crucial for brands striving to uphold ethical marketing practices and maintain positive brand images. Overall, these managerial implications, derived from the study’s findings, provide a strategic framework for brands aiming to reconcile the paradox of marketing and sustainability ().

8. Limitations and directions for future research

While this study provides foundational insights into brand recovery following greenwashing, several limitations suggest directions for future research. First, the focus on the fashion industry may limit the generalizability of this study’s findings. Different industries have distinct greenwashing behaviors and consequences (; ). In industries such as cosmetics and food, where products directly impact consumers’ health and well-being, the sensitivity to greenwashing might be particularly acute. Hence, future research should explore the effects of perceived greenwashing severity across diverse industries, expanding the understanding of how these perceptions shape brand evaluation in various marketing contexts.

Second, this study only focuses on active greenwashing deception by distinguishing high and low perceived severity. While this approach provides deeper insights into how specific deception practices in the fashion industry impact consumer forgiveness and brand attitude, it may not fully reflect the complexity of real-world situations where both active and passive greenwashing deceptions may occur simultaneously. For example, a brand might selectively report positive information about their sustainable sourcing (passive), but it may later be revealed that their supply chain includes factories that exploit workers and pollute the environment (active). Therefore, future research should explore these complexities or variations of greenwashing deception to uncover more comprehensive effects on post-greenwashing outcomes.

Third, this study examined how consumers respond to isolated instances of greenwashing, where they had not previously encountered instances of greenwashing by the brand. While consumers sometimes base their choices on evaluations of a company’s green ratings (), understanding how consumers respond to brands with a history of transgression is complicated due to various factors such as brand equity (), capability reputation () and recall bias (). Nonetheless, examining brands with a history of greenwashing can provide insights into the long-term effects of greenwashing on brand trust and loyalty. Assessing the diagnosticity of transgressions − particularly their severity, centrality and consistency () − could further illuminate how consumers interpret repeated or severe greenwashing incidents and their impact on brand perception. Crucially, understanding how consumers perceive trustworthy and untrustworthy brands can help brands address potential reputational risks associated with deceptive greenwashing practices.

Fourth, this study investigated consumer forgiveness as a mediator in the context of greenwashing. However, other mediators such as consumer knowledge () and skepticism () might also influence the relationship between perceived severity and brand attitude. Moreover, individual factors such as culture, demographics and values in forgiveness, as highlighted by , could influence these relationships. Future research should explore these variables to enrich the understanding of the factors influencing consumer responses to greenwashing.

Finally, this study used a between-subjects experimental design to compare consumer responses to varying levels of active greenwashing severity, providing valuable insights by minimizing confounding effects (). However, future research could benefit from longitudinal studies to track changes in consumer perception and field experiments to capture real-world behavior, such as actual willingness to pay or satisfaction. Addressing the implications and limitations of greenwashing can enhance brand recovery strategies, consumer trust and sustainable practices. These efforts are key to promoting ethical marketing and corporate responsibility in today’s marketplace.

Figures

Direct and mediation effects (Phase 1)

Figure 1

Direct and mediation effects (Phase 1)

Moderated-mediation effects (Phase 1)

Figure 2

Moderated-mediation effects (Phase 1)

Moderation effects (Phase 2)

Figure 3

Moderation effects (Phase 2)

Proposed typology of deceptive forms of greenwashing

Type of greenwashing deception
Active Passive
Level of severity
High Brands deliberately misrepresent or manipulate environmental claims, causing significant harm to the environment and society
For example, a fashion brand claims its operations are carbon-neutral while secretly burning their unsold products, causing major pollution and health issues for nearby communities
Brands disseminate incomplete or inaccurate information about their environmental practices, causing significant harm to the environment and society
For example, a fashion brand touts its use of organic cotton but fails to disclose that its dyeing process releases harmful chemicals into local water supplies, significantly affecting wildlife and communities
Low Brands deliberately disseminate false information about their environmental efforts, yet such practice did not cause significant harm to the environment and society
For example, a fashion brand markets its collection as “eco-friendly” despite using only a small percentage of recycled materials, with limited environmental impact
Brands disseminate incomplete or inaccurate information about their environmental practices, yet such practice did not cause significant harm to the environment and society
For example, a fashion brand claims its packaging is “sustainable” without specifying that the materials can only be recycled in certain facilities

Source: Authors’ own work

Selected studies on greenwashing in the context of consumer−brand relationships

Author(s) Independent variable(s) Mediator(s) Moderator(s) Dependent variable(s) Method Findings
Greenwashing behavior of a brand Greenwashing perception of the entire industry Brand attitudes toward other brands in the industry Purchasing intention of green products from other brands Experiment Greenwashing behavior of a brand negatively affects purchasing intention of green products from other brands. Greenwashing perception of the entire industry partially mediates the relationship between greenwashing behavior of a brand and purchasing intention of green products from other brands. Brand attitudes toward other brands in the industry negatively moderates the relationship between greenwashing perception of the entire industry and purchasing intention of green products from other brands
Greenwashing Green brand love, green brand image, green brand loyalty Green purchase behavior Structural equation modeling (SEM) Greenwashing negatively affects green purchase behavior. Green brand love, green brand image and green brand loyalty positively affect green purchase behavior and are negatively influenced by greenwashing
Greenwashing Green brand image, green satisfaction, green trust Information and knowledge Green brand equity Structural equation modeling (SEM) Greenwashing is not significantly related to green brand equity (possibly due to the halo effect). Greenwashing is adversely related to green brand image, green satisfaction and green trust, which positively influence green brand equity. Green brand image, green satisfaction and green trust fully mediate the relationship between greenwashing and green brand equity. Information and knowledge moderate the relationship between greenwashing and green brand equity, thereby strengthening their adverse relationship
Excessive product packaging Greenwashing,
green confusion
Brand credibility Green brand equity Structural equation modeling (SEM) Excessive product packaging positively predicts greenwashing and green confusion. Greenwashing has a negative impact on green brand equity. Brand credibility moderates the negative relationship between greenwashing and green brand equity, thereby reducing the negative effect of greenwashing
Greenwashing Brand loyalty Brand avoidance, brand hate, brand retaliation, negative word-of-mouth Structural equation modeling (SEM) Greenwashing is positively correlated with brand avoidance, brand hate, brand retaliation and negative word-of-mouth. Brand loyalty moderates the relationship between greenwashing and brand avoidance, brand hate, brand retaliation and negative word-of-mouth
The present study Perceived severity of greenwashing (high versus low) Consumer forgiveness Growth beliefs, apology sincerity Brand attitude Experiment A high (versus low) perceived severity of greenwashing worsens brand attitude, a relationship mediated by consumer forgiveness
The negative impact of greenwashing severity on consumer forgiveness is less pronounced in consumers with stronger growth beliefs. A sincere apology effectively mitigates the detrimental effects of greenwashing severity on brand attitude

Source: Authors’ own work

Profile of participants

Demographic n (208) % (100)
Gender
Female 60 28.8
Male 148 71.2
Age
18–25 150 72.1
26–35 50 24.0
36–45 8 3.8
Education level
Pre-university/foundation/diploma 10 4.8
Bachelor’s degree 128 61.5
Master’s degree/doctorate 70 33.7
Income level
< US$500 121 58.2
US$501–US$1,000 34 16.3
US$1,001–US$1,500 20 9.6
US$1,501–US$2,000 17 8.2
US$2,001–US$2,500 4 1.9
> US$2,500 12 5.8

Source: Authors’ own work

Measures

Variable Items Loading Source
Phase 1
Independent variable:
Perceived severity of greenwashing (high versus low)
(α = 0.92)
PS1 I think the negative impact of [brand]’s actions are very high 0.86 and
PS2 I think [brand]’s actions are critical 0.85
PS3 I think [brand]’s actions are a serious threat 0.88
PS4 I think [brand]’s actions can be life-threatening 0.83
Dependent variable:
Brand attitude
(α = 0.95)
BA1 As a brand, I think [brand] is good 0.60
BA2 As a brand, I think [brand] is pleasant 0.62
BA3 As a brand, I think [brand] is attractive 0.62
Mediator:
Consumer forgiveness
(α = 0.94)
CF1 I forgive [brand] for the incident 0.81
CF2 Even though the incident annoyed me, I have goodwill for [brand] 0.88
CF3 Despite the incident, I want to have a positive relationship with [brand] 0.85
CF4 Although the incident aggravated me, I am putting the negative feeling aside so I could continue the relationship with [brand] 0.89
Moderator:
Growth beliefs
(α = 0.82)
GB1 The ideal relationship develops gradually over time 0.83
GB2 A successful relationship evolves through hard work and resolution of incompatibilities 0.76
GB3 A successful relationship is mostly a matter of learning to resolve conflicts with a partner 0.71
GB4 Challenges and obstacles in a relationship can make love even stronger 0.80
GB5 Problems in a relationship can bring partners closer together 0.85
GB6 Relationships often fail because people do not try hard enough 0.72
GB7 With enough effort, almost any relationship can work 0.66
GB8 It takes a lot of time and effort to cultivate a good relationship 0.77
GB9 Without conflict from time to time, relationships cannot improve 0.67
GB10 Arguments often enable a relationship to improve 0.80
GB11 Successful relationships require regular maintenance 0.78
Phase 2
Independent variable:
Perceived severity of greenwashing (high versus low)
(α = 0.92)
PS1 I think the negative impact of [brand]’s actions are very high 0.86 and
PS2 I think [brand]’s actions are critical 0.81
PS3 I think [brand]’s actions are a serious threat 0.95
PS4 I think [brand]’s actions can be life-threatening 0.94
Dependent variable:
Post-apology brand attitude
(α = 0.95)
BA1 As a brand, I think [brand] is good 0.83
BA2 As a brand, I think [brand] is pleasant 0.88
BA3 As a brand, I think [brand] is attractive 0.90
Moderator:
Apology sincerity
(α = 0.96)
AP1
AP2
AP3
I think [brand]’s apology is sincere
I think [brand]’s apology is honest
I think [brand]’s apology is genuine
0.92
0.91
0.87
Notes:

All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 5 = “strongly agree”)

Source: Authors’ own work

Appendix 1

Appendix 2. Experimental scenarios

Panel A. Scenario depicting high perceived severity of greenwashing (Group 1 in Phase 1).

Recently, the international environmental NGO Greenpeace investigated [Brand] and caught the brand disposing of unsold clothing by incineration (burning), causing pollution that affects the surrounding wildlife and community. The toxic chemicals released by the incineration destroyed the habitats of many endangered species and caused widespread health problems for local residents. There has been no official word from [Brand] since the incident.

Panel B. Scenario depicting low perceived severity of greenwashing (Group 2 in Phase 1).

Recently, the international environmental NGO Greenpeace investigated [Brand] and caught the brand making false claims about its clothing materials. [Brand] claimed that its latest collection was made entirely from recycled materials. In reality, [Brand] had only used a small percentage of recycled materials in its clothing while the rest was made from conventionally grown cotton and other nonrecycled materials. There has been no official word from [Brand] since the incident.

Panel C. Scenario depicting brand apology (Groups 1 and 2 in Phase 2).

In response to the criticisms from the incident, [Brand] issued a public apology, stating that it will take full responsibility for its actions and the impact they may have had on the environment, the community and the trust of its customers. [Brand] also reassured stakeholders of its commitment to change by revising its sustainability practices and making the necessary changes to ensure its sustainability claims are transparent and accurate moving forward.

Source: Authors’ own work

Appendix 3

References

Abdulla, H. (2022), “H&M under fire in US over sustainable material claims”, available at: www.just-style.com/news/hm-under-fire-in-us-over-sustainable-material-claims/

Adamkiewicz, J., Kochanska, E., Adamkiewicz, I. and Łukasik, R.M. (2022), “Greenwashing and sustainable fashion industry”, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, Vol. 38, p. 100710, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2022.100710.

Ali, F., El-Manstrly, D. and Abbasi, G.A. (2023), “Would you forgive me? From perceived justice and complaint handling to customer forgiveness and brand credibility-symmetrical and asymmetrical perspectives”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 166, p. 114138, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114138.

Apple Inc (2020), “Apple commits to be 100 percent carbon neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030”, available at: www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-100-percent-carbon-neutral-for-its-supply-chain-and-products-by-2030/

Baumeister, R.F., Exline, J.J. and Sommer, K.L. (1998), “The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness”, Dimensions of Forgiveness: Psychological Research and Theological Perspectives, Vol. 1, pp. 79-104.

Bladt, D., van Capelleveen, G. and Yazan, D.M. (2023), “The influence of greenwashing practices on brand attitude: a multidimensional consumer analysis in Germany”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 597-625, doi: 10.1002/bse.3496.

Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F., Piracci, G., Bellia, R. and Casini, L. (2023), “Effect of executional greenwashing on market share of food products: an empirical study on green-coloured packaging”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 391, p. 136258, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136258.

Bruner, G.C., Hensel, P.J. and James, K. (2005), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Behavior & Advertising, Thomson Higher Education.

Cai, R. and Qu, H. (2018), “Customers’ perceived justice, emotions, direct and indirect reactions to service recovery: moderating effects of recovery efforts”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 323-345, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2018.1385434.

Castka, P. and Corbett, C.J. (2016), “Governance of eco-labels: expert opinion and media coverage”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 309-326, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2474-3.

Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-32, doi: 10.1108/10610429510083730.

Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2013), “Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 114 No. 3, pp. 489-500, doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0.

Chen, Y.S., Tien, W.P., Lee, Y.I. and Tsai, M.N. (2017), “Greenwash and green brand equity”, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, pp. 1797-1803. 10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806783.

Davvetas, V., Ulqinaku, A. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2024), “Brand transgressions: how, when, and why home country bias backfires”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 976-997, doi: 10.1007/s11747-024-01018-9.

Delgado-Ballester, E., López-López, I. and Bernal, A. (2023), “Online firestorms: an act of civic engagement or a narcissistic boost? The role of brand misconduct appraisals”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 257-272, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-08-2021-3627.

Delmas, M.A. and Burbano, V.C. (2011), “The drivers of greenwashing”, California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 64-87, doi: 10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64.

DHL Group (2021), “DPDHL accelerated roadmap to decarbonization. DHL”, available at: www.dpdhl.com/en/media-relations/press-releases/2021/dpdhl-accelerated-roadmap-to-decarbonization.html

Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., D’Amore, G. and Tiscini, R. (2022), “Responsible innovation and ethical corporate behavior in the Asian fashion industry: a systematic literature review and avenues ahead”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, doi: 10.1007/s10490-022-09844-7.

Fernandes, J., Segev, S. and Leopold, J.K. (2020), “When consumers learn to spot deception in advertising: testing a literacy intervention to combat greenwashing”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1115-1149, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2020.1765656.

Fetscherin, M. and Sampedro, A. (2019), “Brand forgiveness”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 633-652, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-04-2018-1845.

Folkes, V.S. (1984), “Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 398-409, doi: 10.1086/208978.

Folkes, V.S. and Kamins, M.A. (1999), “Effects of information about firms’ ethical and unethical actions on consumers’ attitudes”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-259, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_03.

Gatti, L., Pizzetti, M. and Seele, P. (2021), “Green lies and their effect on intention to invest”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 127, pp. 228-240, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.028.

Gong, S., Sheng, G., Peverelli, P. and Dai, J. (2021), “Green branding effects on consumer response: examining a brand stereotype-based mechanism”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1033-1046, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-03-2020-2785.

Ha, M.T., Ngan, V.T.K. and Nguyen, P.N. (2022), “Greenwash and green brand equity: the mediating role of green brand image, green satisfaction and green trust and the moderating role of information and knowledge”, Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 904-922, doi: 10.1111/beer.12462.

Hai-Ming, C., Li-Chi, L., Tao-Sheng, C. and Chen-Ling, F. (2020), “The effects of social responsibility and hypocrisy on the relationship among psychological contract violation, trust and perceived betrayal”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 241-261, doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-06-2019-0100.

Hameed, I. and Waris, I. (2018), “Eco labels and eco conscious consumer behavior: the mediating effect of green trust and environmental concern”, Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 86-105, doi: 10.20547/jms.2014.1805205.

Hameed, I., Hyder, Z., Imran, M. and Shafiq, K. (2021), “Greenwash and green purchase behavior: an environmentally sustainable perspective”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 13113-13134, doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01202-1.

Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2019), “The critical role of customer forgiveness in successful service recovery”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, pp. 376-391, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.049.

Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach, Guilford Publications.

He, H., Chao, M.M. and Zhu, W. (2019), “Cause-related marketing and employee engagement: the roles of admiration, implicit morality beliefs, and moral identity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, pp. 83-92, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.013.

Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J. and Oates, C.J. (2016), “What is sustainable fashion?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 400-416, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-07-2015-0052.

Hur, J. and Jang, S. (. (2019), “Is consumer forgiveness possible? Examining rumination and distraction in hotel service failures”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1567-1587, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2017-0395.

Ibrahim, F.M., Olatunji, B.T. and Shuaib-Rahim, H.O. (2020), “Perceived severity of environmental hazards and agrochemical use among farmers in Ido local government area, Ibadan, Nigeria”, Journal of Forestry Research and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-98.

Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G. and Papagiannakis, G. (2023), “The impact of perceived greenwashing on customer satisfaction and the contingent role of capability reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 185 No. 2, pp. 333-347, doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05151-9.

Johnston, R. and Fern, A. (1999), “Service recovery strategies for single and double deviation scenarios”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 69-82, doi: 10.1080/02642069900000019.

Kaleta, K. and Mróz, J. (2022), “Gender differences in forgiveness and its affective correlates”, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 2819-2837, doi: 10.1007/s10943-021-01369-5.

Kapitan, S., Kennedy, A.M. and Berth, N. (2019), “Sustainably superior versus greenwasher: a scale measure of B2B sustainability positioning”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 76, pp. 84-97, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.003.

Kennedy, E. and Guzmán, F. (2021), “No matter what you do, I still love you: an examination of consumer reaction to brand transgressions”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 594-608, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-07-2019-2450.

Knee, C.R. (1998), “Implicit theories of relationships: assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 360-370, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360.

Knee, C.R., Patrick, H. and Lonsbary, C. (2003), “Implicit theories of relationships: orientations toward evaluation and cultivation”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-55, doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3.

Koay, K.Y., Lim, W.M., Khoo, K.L., Xavier, J.A. and Poon, W.C. (2024), “Consumers’ motivation to purchase second-hand clothing: a multimethod investigation anchored on belief elicitation and theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 502-515, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-05-2023-4512.

Kuchmaner, C.A., Wiggins, J. and Grimm, P.E. (2019), “The role of network embeddedness and psychological ownership in consumer responses to brand transgressions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 129-143, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2019.05.006.

Laato, S., Islam, A.N., Farooq, A. and Dhir, A. (2020), “Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: the stimulus-organism-response approach”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 57, p. 102224, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102224.

Lee, M.T. and Raschke, R.L. (2023), “Stakeholder legitimacy in firm greening and financial performance: what about greenwashing temptations?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 155, p. 113393, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113393.

Li, J.B., Yang, A., Dou, K. and Cheung, R.Y. (2020), “Self-control moderates the association between perceived severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mental health problems among the Chinese public”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 13, p. 4820, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134820.

Lim, W.M. (2016), “A blueprint for sustainability marketing: defining its conceptual boundaries for progress”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 232-249, doi: 10.1177/1470593115609796.

Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017), “Green brand benefits and their influence on brand loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 425-440, doi: 10.1108/MIP-09-2016-0174.

Liu, C., Zhang, Y. and Zhang, J. (2020), “The impact of self-congruity and virtual interactivity on online celebrity brand equity and fans’ purchase intention”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 783-801, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-11-2018-2106.

Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Lasarov, W. and Buhs, A. (2019), “Ethical products = less strong: how explicit and implicit reliance on the lay theory affects consumption behaviors”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 158 No. 3, pp. 659-677, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3669-1.

Majeed, S. and Kim, W.G. (2023), “A reflection of greenwashing practices in the hospitality industry: a scoping review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1125-1146, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0495.

Matthews, A.L. and Luebke, S.S.F. (2023), “Sympathy or shock: how transgression diagnosticity impacts consumer perceptions and intentions regarding person-brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1399-1411, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-10-2022-4179.

Mazzoli, V., Donvito, R. and Zarantonello, L. (2024), “Brand transgressions in advertising related to diversity, equity and inclusion: implications for consumer–brand relationships”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 516-532, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-02-2023-4352.

Meise, J.N., Rudolph, T., Kenning, P. and Phillips, D.M. (2014), “Feed them facts: value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 510-519, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.03.013.

Muhammad, L. (2020), “Mediating role of customer forgiveness between perceived justice and satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52, p. 101886, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101886.

Neureiter, A. and Matthes, J. (2023), “Comparing the effects of greenwashing claims in environmental airline advertising: perceived greenwashing, brand evaluation, and flight shame”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 461-487, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2022.2076510.

Nnindini, I.S. and Dankwah, J.B. (2024), “Describing brown as green: an examination of the relationship between greenwashing and consumer negative emotive outcomes”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 2367781, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2367781.

Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H. and Paladino, A. (2014), “Perceived greenwashing: the interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 693-707, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3.

Omar, N.A., Nazri, M.A., Ali, M.H. and Alam, S.S. (2021), “The panic buying behavior of consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic: examining the influences of uncertainty, perceptions of severity, perceptions of scarcity, and anxiety”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 62, p. 102600, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102600.

Omar, N.A., Nazri, M.A., Zainol, Z., Ali, M.H. and Alam, S.S. (2019), “Perceived severity of Halal violation: CSR and consumer boycott”, The South East Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 183-200, doi: 10.21002/seam.v13i2.11348.

Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F. and Russell, C.A. (2015), “Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 107-134, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2014.996116.

Park, J.K. and John, D.R. (2018), “Developing brand relationships after a brand transgression: the role of implicit theories of relationships”, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 175-187, doi: 10.1086/697081.

Perepelkin, J. and Zhang, D.D. (2014), “Quality alone is not enough to be trustworthy: the mediating role of sincerity perception”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 226-242, doi: 10.1108/IJPHM-02-2013-0006.

Pizzetti, M., Gatti, L. and Seele, P. (2021), “Firms talk, suppliers walk: analyzing the locus of greenwashing in the blame game and introducing ‘vicarious greenwashing’”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 170 No. 1, pp. 21-38, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2.

Qayyum, A., Jamil, R.A. and Sehar, A. (2023), “Impact of green marketing, greenwashing and green confusion on green brand equity”, Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 286-305, doi: 10.1108/SJME-03-2022-0032.

Radu, A., Surachartkumtonkun, J., Weaven, S. and Thaichon, P. (2020), “Examining antecedents of reconciliation following service failure and recovery”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 417-433, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2018.1518920.

Radu, A.G., Arli, D., Surachartkumtonkun, J., Weaven, S. and Wright, O. (2019), “Empathy and apology: the effectiveness of recovery strategies”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 358-371, doi: 10.1108/MIP-03-2018-0080.

Rai, D. and Lin, C.W.W. (2019), “The influence of implicit self-theories on consumer financial decision making”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, pp. 316-325, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.016.

Rasouli, N., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Rahmani, A.K., Momayez, A. and Torabi, M.A. (2022), “Effects of customer forgiveness on brand betrayal and brand hate in restaurant service failures: does apology letter matter?”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 662-687, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2022.2043800.

Reck, R., Castagna, A.C., Shuqair, S. and Pinto, D.C. (2022), “The transparency paradox: when transparency cues help or backfire for brands?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 372, p. 133381, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133381.

Rotte, K., Chandrashekaran, M., Tax, S.S. and Grewal, R. (2006), “Forgiven but not forgotten: covert uncertainty in overt responses and the paradox of defection-despite-trust”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 283-294, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1603_10.

Roulet, T.J. and Touboul, S. (2015), “The intentions with which the road is paved: attitudes to liberalism as determinants of greenwashing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 305-320, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2097-8.

Sajid, M., Zakkariya, K.A., Suki, N.M. and Islam, J.U. (2024), “When going green goes wrong: the effects of greenwashing on brand avoidance and negative word-of-mouth”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 78, p. 103773, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103773.

Schmidt, L., Bornschein, R. and Maier, E. (2020), “The effect of privacy choice in cookie notices on consumers’ perceived fairness of frequent price changes”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1263-1276, doi: 10.1002/mar.21356.

Schmuck, D., Matthes, J. and Naderer, B. (2018), “Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect–reason–involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 127-145, doi: 10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652.

Seele, P. and Gatti, L. (2017), “Greenwashing revisited: in search of a typology and accusation‐based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 239-252, doi: 10.1002/bse.1912.

Seth, U. and Soch, H. (2024), “Coping mechanism beyond brand forgiveness: do individual personality traits matter among online shoppers?”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 633-653, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-03-2023-4386.

Sticca, F. and Perren, S. (2013), “Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 739-750, doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3.

Szabo, S. and Webster, J. (2021), “Perceived greenwashing: the effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 171 No. 4, pp. 719-739, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0.

Tan, S.Z., Bandyopadhyay, A. and Septianto, F. (2023), “Relationship (breakup) reminders drive online advertising effectiveness”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1043-1262, doi: 10.1002/mar.21796.

Tsarenko, Y. and Tojib, D. (2015), “Consumers’ forgiveness after brand transgression: the effect of the firm’s corporate social responsibility and response”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31 Nos 17/18, pp. 1851-1877, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1069373.

Tsarenko, Y., Strizhakova, Y. and Otnes, C.C. (2019), “Reclaiming the future: understanding customer forgiveness of service transgressions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 139-155, doi: 10.1177/1094670518802060.

Vassilikopoulou, A., Lepetsos, A. and Siomkos, G. (2018), “Crises through the consumer lens: the role of trust, blame and risk”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 502-511, doi: 10.1108/JCM-02-2016-1721.

Wang, H., Ma, B. and Bai, R. (2020b), “The spillover effect of greenwashing behaviours: an experimental approach”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 283-295, doi: 10.1108/MIP-01-2019-0006.

Wang, D., Walker, T. and Barabanov, S. (2020a), “A psychological approach to regaining consumer trust after greenwashing: the case of Chinese green consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 593-603, doi: 10.1108/JCM-06-2019-3257.

Wei, C., Liu, M.W. and Keh, H.T. (2020), “The road to consumer forgiveness is paved with money or apology? The roles of empathy and power in service recovery”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 321-334, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.061.

Weinberg, L. (2018), “Burberry receives backlash for burning $38 million of unsold products”, available at: www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/style/burberry-receives-backlash-burning-38-million-unsold-products-1129922/

Weiner, B. (1985), “An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion”, Psychological Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, p. 548, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.061.

Weiner, B. (2000), “Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 382-387, doi: 10.1086/317592.

Wen, X. and Atakan, S.S. (2023), “Are crowdsourcing announcements signals of customer orientation? A comparison of consumer responses to product-versus communication-related campaigns”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1407-1441, doi: 10.1108/EJM-12-2020-0910.

Wettstein, F. (2012), “Corporate responsibility in the collective age: toward a conception of collaborative responsibility”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 155-184, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2012.00403.x.

Worthington, Jr., E.L. (2005), “More questions about forgiveness: research agenda for 2005–2015”, in Worthington Jr., E.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Forgiveness, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 557574.

Yadav, A. (2024), “When personalities collide: examining the impact of consumer and brand personalities’ interplay on brand hate development”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 460-476, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-01-2023-4307.

Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S.K., Mangla, S.K. and Rai, D.P. (2020), “A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of industry 4.0 and circular economy: an automotive case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 254, p. 120112, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120112.

Yang, Y. and Hu, J. (2021), “Self-diminishing effects of awe on consumer forgiveness in service encounters”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 60, p. 102491, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102491.

Yuan, D., Cui, G. and Lai, L. (2016), “Sorry seems to be the hardest word: consumer reactions to self-attributions by firms apologizing for a brand crisis”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 281-291, doi: 10.1108/JCM-02-2015-1306.

Yuan, D., Lin, Z., Filieri, R., Liu, R. and Zheng, M. (2020), “Managing the product-harm crisis in the digital era: the role of consumer online brand community engagement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 115, pp. 38-47, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.044.

Zhang, G., Wang, L. and Meng, H. (2023a), “Environmental knowledge level and consumer behavior regarding green fashion: a moderated mediation model”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 977-992, doi: 10.1108/APJML-07-2023-0637.

Zhang, L., Li, D., Cao, C. and Huang, S. (2018), “The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: the mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 187, pp. 740-750, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201.

Zhang, J., Zhu, Y., Wu, J. and Yu-Buck, G.F. (2023b), “A natural apology is sincere: understanding chatbots’ performance in symbolic recovery”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 108, p. 103387, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103387.

Corresponding author

Vina Paramitha is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: vinaparamitha26@gmail.com

About the authors

Vina Paramitha is a Researcher of Sunway Business School at Sunway University. Her research interests encompass brand management, consumer behavior and sustainability marketing. She has presented at international conferences such as the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC).

Ser Zian Tan is a Program Leader and Senior Lecturer of Sunway Business School at Sunway University. She holds a PhD from Monash University. Her research areas lie at the intersection of consumer behavior and marketing practice such as advertising, consumer−brand relationship and sustainable consumption. Her work has been published in Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, Psychology & Marketing and Young Consumers. She has also presented at international conferences such as AMA and ANZMAC.

Weng Marc Lim is a Distinguished Professor and the Dean of Sunway Business School at Sunway University, an ASU-Cintana Alliance Global Partner Affiliate Faculty at Arizona State University and an Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University of Technology’s home campus in Melbourne, Australia, and international branch campus in Sarawak, Malaysia, where he served as Dean and Head of School. He is the Editor in Chief of Global Business and Organizational Excellence; Deputy Editor of Journal of Global Marketing; Associate Editor of Journal of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Behaviour and Journal of Strategic Marketing; and Regional Editor of The Service Industries Journal. He has authored more than 100 manuscripts in journals ranked “A*” and “A” such as Australasian Marketing Journal, European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Consumer Marketing, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Marketing Theory, Marketing Intelligence & Planning and Psychology & Marketing, among others. He has also led high-level discussions at the AppliedHE, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), Association of MBAs (AMBA), Business Graduates Association (BGA), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Principles of Responsible Management Education (UNPRME), and World Economic Forum (WEF). Contact: @limwengmarc on Instagram and Twitter (X), LinkedIn or his personal homepage at www.wengmarc.com

Related articles