Abstract

Although corporate greenwashing is a widespread phenomenon, few studies have investigated its effects on consumers. In these studies, consumers were exposed to organizations that boldly lied about their green behaviors. Most greenwashing practices in real life, however, do not involve complete lies. This article describes a randomized 3 × 2 experimental study in the cruise industry investigating the effects of various degrees of greenwashing. Six experimental conditions were created based on behavioral-claim greenwashing (an organization telling the truth vs. its telling lies or half-lies) and motive greenwashing (an organization acting on its own initiative vs. its taking credit for following legal obligations). Dependent variables were three corporate reputation constructs: environmental performance, product and service quality, and financial performance. Compared to true green behavior, lies and half-lies had similar negative effects on reputation. Taking credit for following legal obligations had no main effect. Only in the case of true green behavior did undeservedly taking credit affect reputation negatively. Overall, the findings suggest that only true green behavior will have the desired positive effects on reputation.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2020-01-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651919874105
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 60 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  2. 10.1080/17524032.2014.932817
  3. 10.1177/0092070300282006
  4. 10.1080/17524032.2012.724022
  5. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
  6. 10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9
  7. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.052
  8. 10.1080/0267257X.1993.9964250
  9. 10.1017/CBO9781139541213
  10. 10.1177/2329488414525469
  11. 10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9
  12. 10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0
  13. 10.1007/s11135-013-9898-1
  14. 10.1108/08876041311330717
  15. 10.1177/1350508413478310
  16. 10.1007/s10551-015-2782-2
  17. 10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
  18. 10.1002/csr.1327
  19. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
  20. 10.1007/s10551-014-2122-y
  21. 10.1080/01292986.2014.885537
  22. 10.1515/9781503620766
  23. 10.1057/bm.2000.10
  24. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.06.003
  25. 10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4
  26. 10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1
  27. 10.1080/09640568.2012.743882
  28. 10.1287/orsc.2014.0949
  29. 10.1007/s10551-013-1808-x
  30. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003
  31. 10.1375/jhtm.18.1.107
  32. 10.1023/A:1022962719299
  33. 10.1504/IJGENVI.2013.057323
  34. 10.1007/s10551-011-0824-y
  35. 10.1177/002194369903600101
  36. 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
  37. 10.1177/1086026615575332
  38. 10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059352
  39. 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
  40. 10.1080/10696679.1998.11501795
  41. 10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3
  42. 10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2
  43. 10.1080/02650487.2014.996116
  44. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  45. 10.1007/s10490-014-9376-x
  46. 10.1177/0007650305278120
  47. 10.1007/s10551-014-2097-8
  48. 10.1177/2329488414525439
  49. 10.1002/bse.1912
  50. 10.1177/2329488417747597
  51. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.002
  52. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
  53. 10.1017/S183336720000290X
  54. 10.1177/0047287514528287
  55. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.10.002
  56. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.01.007
  57. 10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4
  58. 10.1177/0021943610389752
  59. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1
  60. 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.023
CrossRef global citation count: 169 View in citation network →