Consumer Judgment on the Practice of Greenwashing: Scale Development and Validation

Andreoli, Tais Pasquotto; Costa, Esdras da Silva; Prearo, Leandro Campi

doi:10.15728/bbr.2022.19.5.3.en

Tais Pasquotto Andreoli

Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9173-9294

Esdras da Silva Costa

Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9120-8741

Leandro Campi Prearo

Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul, São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6039-1280

tais.andreoli@unifesp.br

esdras-dasilva@bol.com.br

leandro.prearo@uscs.edu.br

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors attest that there is no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Additionally, we inform that the contributions of each author: the first author was responsible for the idealization, planning and execution of the article, working on the writing as a whole; the second author mainly headed the confirmatory factor analysis, with the realization of the structural equation modeling; the third author worked more as a supervisor, especially supervising the use of statistical techniques.

Dimensions	Terrachoice (2010TerraChoice. (2010). The sins of greenwashing. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://faculty.wwu.edu/dunnc3/rprnts.TheSinsofGreenwashing2010.pdf http://faculty.wwu.edu/dunnc3/rprnts.The... )	Futerra (2009Futerra. (2009). Understanding and Preventing Greenwashig: A Business Guide. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding%20_Preventing_Greenwash.pdf http://www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding... )	Greenwashing Index (2016Greenwashing Index. (2016). About greenwashing. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing http://greenwashingindex.com/about-green... )
Ambiguity	3. Imprecision (poor or broad definition gives room for interpretation).	1. Soft language (words or terms without clear meaning). 3. Suggestive figures: use of green images that unjustifiably indicate a certain green impact. 7. Jargon (information that is difficult to understand or check). Induction to error with words.	1. Misleading with words. 3. Vague or highly unlikely green claim.
Limited environmental benefit	1. Hidden trade-off (specific green attributes at the expense of other important negative environmental issues). 5. Lesser of two hells (distraction with smaller true claims).	2. Green products versus dirty organizations (green actions practiced by organizations that do not have a green practice). 4. Irrelevant claims (specific green attributes when everything else in organizational practice is not green). 5. Best in class (relative green superiority when the rest is not green). 6. Just not credible (attempt to green products that are harmful).	1. Misleading with words. 3. Vague or rather unlikely green claim. 4. Exaggeration in promotion 5. Withholding or masking important information.
Irrelevant information	4. Irrelevance (information that is not important or does not contribute to the environmental issue).	4. Irrelevant claims (specific green attributes when everything else in organizational practice is not green).	1. Misleading with words
Lack of proof	2. Lack of proof: lack of support for environmental claims (information not easily accessible or lack of reliable certification).	9. Lack of proof: lack of support for environmental claims (information not easily accessible or lack of reliable certification).	1. Misleading with words 3. Vague or rather unlikely green claim. 4. Exaggeration in promotion.
False labels/pictures	6. Displaying false labels (words or pictures that give the impression of third-party endorsement that does not exist).	3. Suggestive pictures: use of unjustified green images. 8. Imaginary friends: labels that give the impression of having a third-party endorsement, but it is something produced by the organization itself.	2. Misleading with visual and/or graphic appeals.
False Information	7. Lying (false claims).	10. Blatant lying (made-up claims or fabricated data).	1. Misleading with words. 3. A. Vague or rather improbable green claim. 4. Exaggeration in promotion. 5. Depriving or masking information.

Greenwashing	Assertives
Ambiguity	P1-It is fairly easy for consumers to correctly interpret the environmental appeals used by organizations. P2-The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice clearly demonstrate their environmental impact. P3-The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice is always easily understood by consumers.
Limited environmental benefit	P4-Environmental claims guarantee that products make a positive contribution to the preservation of the environment, regardless of the impacts generated in their process. P5-The environmental benefits are completely assured when the product carries a green label.
Irrelevant information	P6-Organizations never intend to confuse consumers with irrelevant information.
Lack of proof	P7-Organizations always make available the proof about the environmental appeals adopted to consumers. P8-Consumers are always able to understand the truth about the information contained in environmental claims.
False labels / pictures	P9- The labels, seals, and green figures adopted in the products are a guarantee that the organization is concerned about the environment.
False information	P10-The arguments highlighted in the environmental appeals used by organizations are true. P11-Practically no organization conveys untruthful information about its environmental practices. P12-There is no reason for consumers to doubt the environmental appeals used by organizations. P13-Any and all green appeals used by organizations are truthful.

Assertives		C	MC
P1	It is fairly easy for consumers to correctly interpret the environmental appeals used by organizations.	,466	,682
P2	The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice clearly demonstrate their environmental impact.	,570	,755
P3	The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice is always easily understood by consumers.	,519	,720
P4	The environmental appeals ensure that the products contribute positively to the preservation of the environment, regardless of the impacts generated in their process.	,475	,689
P5	The environmental benefits are completely assured when the product carries a green label.	,579	,761
P6	Organizations never intend to confuse consumers with irrelevant information.	,607	,779
P7	Organizations always make proof of environmental claims available to consumers.	,568	,754
P8	Consumers are always able to understand the truth about the information contained in environmental claims.	,514	,717
P9	The labels, seals and green figures adopted in the products are the guarantee that the organization is concerned about the environment.	,542	,736
P10	The arguments highlighted in the environmental appeals used by the organizations are true.	,514	,717
P11	Practically no organization conveys untruthful information about its environmental practices.	,616	,785
P12	There is no reason for consumers to doubt the environmental appeals made by organizations.	,598	,773
P13	Any and all green appeals used by organizations are truthful.	,644	,803

			Estimate
P1	<---	Greenwahing	,713
P2	<---	Greenwahing	,755
P3	<---	Greenwahing	,693
P4	<---	Greenwahing	,693
P5	<---	Greenwahing	,805
P6	<---	Greenwahing	,718
P7	<---	Greenwahing	,757
P8	<---	Greenwahing	,737
P9	<---	Greenwahing	,821
P10	<---	Greenwahing	,792
P11	<---	Greenwahing	,795
P12	<---	Greenwahing	,751
P13	<---	Greenwahing	,657

Index	Analyses
Index	Initial	Final	Reference Value
Qui-Standard Square	1,58	1,07	>5 - poor fit ]2;5] - poor fit ]1;2] - good fit ~ - very good fit
CFI - Comparative Fit Index	,970	,997	[0,9; 0,95[ - good fit ≥ 0,95 - very good fit
NFI - Normed Fit Index	,923	,953
GFI - Goodness of Fit Index	,906	,942
AGFI - Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index	,869	,911
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index	,964	,996
RMSEA - Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation	0,61	,021	≤ 0,05 - very good fit
SRMR	0,074	0,057	0,08 ≤ - required fit

P1	It is fairly easy for consumers to correctly interpret the environmental appeals used by organizations.
P2	The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice clearly demonstrate their environmental impact.
P3	The information conveyed by organizations about their green practice is always easily understood by consumers.
P4	The environmental appeals ensure that the products contribute positively to the preservation of the environment, regardless of the impacts generated in their process.
P5	The environmental benefits are completely assured when the product has a green seal.
P6	Organizations never intend to confuse consumers with irrelevant information.
P7	Organizations always make proof of environmental claims available to consumers.
P8	Consumers are always able to understand the truth about the information contained in environmental claims.
P9	The labels, seals and green figures adopted in the products are the guarantee that the organization is concerned about the environment.
P10	The arguments highlighted in the environmental appeals used by the organizations are true.
P11	Practically no organization conveys untruthful information about its environmental practices.
P12	There is no reason for consumers to doubt the environmental appeals made by organizations.
P13	Any and all green appeals used by organizations are truthful.

[1] tais.andreoli@unifesp.br

Brasil

Brasil

Consumer Judgment on the Practice of Greenwashing: Scale Development and Validation

ABSTRACT