EYE ON RESEARCH: Do Consumers Understand What Different Green Claims Actually Mean? An Experimental Approach in Italy

This article, based on a study authored by Roberta Iovino , Francesco Testa and myself, has been recently published on the Journal of Advertising. Our study extends the literature on consumers’ responses to green claims and their intentions to buy green products. We used an experimental approach based on three complementary studies. The first compares the effects of two claims regarding different levels of a company’s environmental commitment. The second examines whether consumers can recognize exaggerated claims. The third analyzes consumers’ perceptions of a company’s environmental commitment

and intentions to buy the advertised product when an institutional methodology is used to substantiate the message. Surveys were administered online in January 2020 to samples of the Italian population aged 18 to 75. Our study contributes to the literature on green claims in several ways.

First, we applied the “attribution theory” to green claims. This theory has already been successfully used to explain the perception of CSR initiatives and the effects on corporate reputation. In the case of green marketing, the consumer-perceiver is in front of an environmental claim, attributing the degree of environmental commitment that stands behind it and making purchasing choices. Our study shows that there is a strong relationship between the attribution of a company’s environmental commitment and consumers’ intentions to buy the advertised product.

Second, the literature has suggested that consumers are confused about green claims. Despite consumers’ increasing interest in climate change and the propensity of consumers to buy products that report related information, in our study we found that empirically consumers do not perceive the difference, in terms of the company’s commitment, between a simple offsetting action and a more committed emissions reduction. This finding suggests there is confusion in the consumer’s mind about the meaning of different environmental claims, which may be a disadvantage for companies that engage in more significant pro-environmental actions and for the smooth functioning of the green market.

In fact, the ability of consumers to distinguish between claims and to perceive the lesser or greater commitment that lies behind them is very important to guide the market toward the greenest options. It is about not just choosing between green and non-green products but also being able to recognize different “shades” of green.

Third, our work shows that consumers can be deceived by misleading green claims that convey an exaggerated message. In particular, we found that an exaggerated message such as zero impact generated a stronger consumer response both in terms of the company’s perceived environmental commitment and intentions to buy. Presenting a product as carbon neutral or having zero impact can give the misleading impression that a product does not generate any greenhouse gas emissions at all. Moreover, an exaggerated message related to zero impact may present a sort of emotional appeal.

Emotional green ads are more powerful than functional ones, even though they are likely to be subject to greenwashing as they are not based on objective data. Exaggerated claims, as well as unfounded emotional appeals, can generate in consumers the false belief their consumption is greener when it is not. This is also the case when unspoiled natural scenarios are depicted in ads. In fact, unspoiled natural scenarios are a misleading graphical representation of the “zero impact” on nature.

Fourth, regarding the use of an institutional methodology in signaling to consumers the credibility and genuineness of green claims, we unexpectedly found no differences in consumer responses among the conditions. Perceptions of a company’s commitment and intentions to buy the advertised product were high regardless of the presence or absence of an institutional methodology as data source. Regarding our study, although the two conditions differed in terms of the presence/absence of a reference to an institutional methodology, both were quite detailed messages and the amount of information probably gave the impression that they were corroborated. Previous investigations have found that environmental ads containing more specific claims are more effective than those containing vague claims. In the future, we could verify consumer reactions to the PEF methodology with more concise messages.

Finally, our study suggests highly educated consumers are likely to be deceived by exaggerated claims. This latter evidence is consistent with previous studies that suggest even consumers with high expertise in environmental topics are not entirely able to recognize greenwashing in ads !

Future educational campaigns could thus focus on increasing consumer knowledge on the specific meanings of different green claims. This knowledge could help consumers recognize ads that imply a greater effort made by the company toward protecting the environment; critically identify exaggerated claims; and search for and recognize signals of credibility, rewarding those claims that are substantiated with verifiable data and sound methodologies. This knowledge is very important to really empower consumers to recognize greener products on the market, thus enabling them to make well-informed choices.

 THe full text of the article can be requested on my Researchgate webpage, at the following link: