When Green Marketing Backfires: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Greenwashing, Trust, and Consumer Behavior

In the modern marketplace, companies frequently promise that their products are kind to the planet. They use terms like "eco-friendly" or "sustainable" to signal that they care about the environment, hoping to win over shoppers who want to make responsible choices. However, a shadow has grown over these promises: the practice of greenwashing. This occurs when a business exaggerates or distorts its environmental claims to look greener than it truly is, often for profit or reputation. For years, researchers have known that when consumers realize they are being misled, their trust in the brand crumbles. They feel confused, skeptical, and sometimes even betrayed. But a puzzling question has lingered in the scientific community: if people feel so strongly that a company is lying, why don't they always stop buying that company's products? Sometimes, the anger leads to boycotts; other times, the same consumer continues to shop there, seemingly unaffected. Understanding why this disconnect happens is crucial, because it determines whether green marketing actually helps the environment or simply backfires.

To untangle this mystery, a team of researchers from the Indonesia University of Education conducted a massive review of existing scientific studies. They did not run a single new experiment but instead gathered and analyzed 47 high-quality studies published between 2015 and 2026. These studies involved thousands of participants from various countries, mostly in Asia and Europe, and covered industries ranging from fashion and food to cars and cosmetics. The researchers looked for patterns in how people reacted when they encountered greenwashing. They wanted to know exactly what happens inside a consumer's mind, how that internal reaction translates into action, and what factors might stop or speed up that process. By combining the findings of these 47 studies with a broader map of 806 related research records, they built a clearer picture of the entire landscape.

The review confirmed what many suspected: greenwashing is deeply damaging to a brand's relationship with its customers. When consumers perceive a claim as misleading, it consistently triggers a wave of negative feelings. It makes them skeptical of the brand's honesty, increases their sense of risk, and creates confusion about what is actually true. In many cases, it also sparks a feeling of betrayal, as if the company has violated a promise of good faith. This emotional and mental damage is robust and consistent across almost every study examined. The brand's image, its value, and its authenticity all take a hit. However, the link between this internal damage and the final act of buying or not buying a product is far more complicated than a simple cause-and-effect chain.

The researchers found that the path from "I think they are lying" to "I will not buy this" is rarely a straight line. In fact, in the studies that measured the direct link between greenwashing and the intention to purchase, the negative effect was often missing or weak. Instead, the damage travels through a series of psychological stepping stones. The most common path involves greenwashing first making a consumer skeptical. That skepticism then lowers their trust in the brand, and only then does it reduce their desire to buy. This means that if a brand has a strong foundation of trust or loyalty, it can sometimes buffer the blow. A loyal customer might hear a misleading claim, feel a twinge of doubt, but still buy the product because their overall relationship with the brand is strong. Conversely, if a consumer is already highly involved with the product category or feels the product offers great value, the negative impact of greenwashing can be amplified, pushing them to reject the brand more quickly.

The study also revealed that not all negative reactions look the same. The researchers proposed that greenwashing triggers two distinct routes of response. One route is cognitive, meaning it is based on thinking and evaluation. When a consumer feels a claim is vague or unproven, they might simply stop thinking about the brand or switch to a competitor. This is a passive form of disengagement. The other route is affective, driven by emotion and moral outrage. When a consumer feels genuinely betrayed or deceived, the reaction is much more active. This route leads to retaliation, such as spreading negative word of mouth, complaining publicly, or actively boycotting the brand. The confusion in previous research likely stemmed from looking at only one of these paths. Some studies measured whether people would buy the product (the passive route), while others measured whether people would complain (the active route). Both are real consequences, but they happen for different reasons and at different speeds.

Another critical finding was that the way researchers measure "greenwashing" matters immensely. In the studies reviewed, the concept was defined in many different ways. Some researchers asked people if they felt deceived, while others measured if people were simply aware of a green claim, and still others looked at whether people recognized a claim as false. The review found that these different definitions lead to different results. For instance, simply being aware that a brand makes green claims can sometimes make a consumer more interested in the product, even if they are skeptical. But if that same consumer feels the claim is a deliberate lie, their interest plummets. Because the studies used such different definitions, comparing their results was like trying to compare apples and oranges. To fix this, the authors proposed a new, unified way to measure greenwashing that looks at five specific aspects: whether the claim is false, whether it is vague, whether it lacks proof, whether it hides bad news while showing good news, and whether it focuses on trivial details to distract from real problems.

Despite these insights, the review highlighted a significant gap in our knowledge. While we know a great deal about how greenwashing hurts trust and how it might change buying habits, we know very little about how to fix it. Only seven of the 47 studies looked at trust repair—how a brand can recover after being caught greenwashing. The few studies that did exist suggested that the timing and type of apology or correction matter, but the evidence is too thin to draw firm conclusions. Similarly, most of the research relied on asking people what they would do, rather than watching what they actually do in a store. This means we are still learning how these feelings translate into real-world spending. The researchers also noted that most studies focused on young consumers in emerging markets, so we do not yet know if these patterns hold true for older generations or in different cultures.

Ultimately, this comprehensive review tells a story of complexity rather than a simple warning. Green marketing does not fail because consumers are indifferent; it fails because the path from a lie to a lost sale is winding and filled with psychological detours. A brand can survive a greenwashing accusation if it has built enough trust to absorb the shock, or if the consumer's reaction stays in the realm of passive doubt. But if the deception triggers a deep sense of betrayal, the result can be active and damaging retaliation. The study concludes that for green marketing to succeed, companies must focus on credibility and transparency rather than just making claims. They must understand that the consumer's mind is not a simple switch that flips from "buy" to "don't buy," but a complex system where trust, skepticism, and emotion interact in ways that can either protect the brand or destroy it. The path forward for science is to move beyond asking if greenwashing is bad, and start asking exactly how it breaks the bond between a company and its customers, and how that bond can be mended.