Shades of green deception—An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations

Janz, Franziska; Jordanow, Slawka; Heidenreich, Sven; Schäfer, Juliane Article — Published Version Shades of green deception—An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations Creativity and Innovation Management Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Janz, Franziska; Jordanow, Slawka; Heidenreich, Sven; Schäfer, Juliane (2024) : Shades of green deception—An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations, Creativity and Innovation Management, ISSN 1467-8691, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 34, Iss. 2, pp. 312-332, https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12639 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323899 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Shades of green deception—An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations Franziska Janz | Slawka Jordanow | Sven Heidenreich | Juliane Schäfer Chair of Technology and Innovation Management, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Correspondence Sven Heidenreich, Chair of Technology and Innovation Management, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany. Email: [email protected] The urgency to launch sustainable innovations rapidly in competitive markets increases the risk of greenwashing, as companies may overstate their products' environmental benefits. This article sheds light on the potential repercussions of deceptive sustainability claims within the realm of product innovations. Using four scenario-based experiments, this study reveals that exposure of greenwashing damages brand perception, a critical factor in the diffusion of innovations, even more than if products lacked green attributes at all. Findings from mediation analyses reveal that these reactions stem from negative disconfirmations, arising from a perceived discrepancy between expected sustainability and quality beliefs and the product's failure to meet these expectations. Moreover, this research deepens our understanding of greenwashing by providing the first empirical evidence that the intensity and focus of greenwashing activities on core components of product innovations significantly exacerbate the adverse effects. Overall, our study not only replicates findings on the detrimental effects of greenwashing in product innovation contexts but also advances the theoretical understanding by identifying the psychological processes behind these effects and their variations with greenwashing intensity and focus. In doing so, results advocate for a shift from a one-dimensional, uniformly perspective to a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between greenwashing intensity and focus on consumer responses. From a practical perspective, the results underscore the risks of greenwashing in sustainable innovation contexts and emphasize the crucial role of transparency and authenticity in sustainability claims. KEYWORDS brand perception, corporate communication, green deception, green marketing, greenwashing, sustainable innovation (Manuscript ID CIM-23-0413.R1). Received: 14 September 2023 Revised: 18 July 2024 Accepted: 6 September 2024 DOI: 10.1111/caim.12639 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2024 The Author(s). Creativity and Innovation Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 312 Creat Innov Manag. 2025;34:312–332. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caim 1|INTRODUCTION Although environmental marketing has already been used for several decades, incorporating environmentally friendly attributes as a key selling point is currently emerging as an essential strategy for numerous companies (Claudy et al., 2016;Xue&Swan,2023). This strategy is a response to evolving consumer needs, with an increasing number of consumers changing their behaviour to adopt sustainable consumption practices (Caruana & Crane, 2008;Jainetal.,2021). Companies are realigning their marketing strategies to the growing awareness of environmental friendliness (Prakash, 2002; Sigurdsson & Candi, 2020), leading to an increase in the introduction of innovative sustainable products alongside their conventional counterparts (Olsen et al., 2014) as the shift towards sustainable innovations harbours the potential to enhance companies' competitiveness (Hermundsdottir & Aspelund, 2021). These product innovations are often branded as ‘natural’,‘environmentally friendly’,‘ecological’or ‘green’(Baum, 2012; Shahrin et al., 2017). However, this development also revealed a darker side, showing that some companies are capitalizing on consumers' environmental concerns without truly committing to environmentally friendly practices (Pimonenko et al., 2020). This approach is now known as ‘greenwashing’, defined as the ‘act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service’(TerraChoice, 2007,p.1). Although prior research has investigated negative effects of greenwashing awareness among consumers (Chen & Chang, 2013;De Jong et al., 2018), the specific impact on consumer behaviour towards innovative sustainable products remain largely unexplored. This is surprising given the urgency for companies to innovate sustainably, potentially increasing greenwashing practices. The allure of presenting innovations as ‘green’or ‘sustainable’without fully meeting these claims can be particularly tempting in highly competitive and innovative markets where sustainability credentials can influence consumer choice. Furthermore, consumers often perceive sustainable innovations as risky (Wiedmann et al., 2011), leading to caution towards sustainability claims in innovation contexts. Consequently, disillusionment caused by greenwashing may intensify its adverse effects for innovative sustainable products. Moreover, greenwashing significantly affects brand perception (Akturan, 2018; Bladt et al., 2023; Szabo & Webster, 2021), crucial for innovation acceptance and diffusion (Brexendorf et al., 2015). In this unique context, our study aims to shed light on how greenwashing impacts consumers' brand perception of sustainable innovations when exposed, compared to scenarios without sustainable claims. Furthermore, understanding the underlying psychological mechanisms of consumer reactions to greenwashing-induced brand perception deteriorations is essential. Whilst initial efforts to decipher these mechanisms have been made (Santos et al., 2023; Sun & Shi, 2022; Xiao et al., 2022), research remains limited. To explain these potential deteriorations, the expectation disconfirmation theory (EDT, Aji & Sutikno, 2015; Chen et al., 2019;Haetal.,2022) might provide a theoretical anchor, highlighting the gap between expectations and reality. In the case of greenwashing of sustainable innovations, this issue might be particularly relevant to the sustainability promise, where consumers may feel deceived because of the non-existence of the proclaimed sustainable value. In order to close this research gap, this study aims to investigate the psychological mechanisms driving the deterioration of brand perception due to greenwashing using EDT as theoretical anchor. Additionally, current literature predominantly adopted a onedimensional perspective on greenwashing, often overlooking varying intensities of greenwashing claims (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011;Yang et al., 2020). Whilst recent studies have differentiated between types of green claims (De Jong et al., 2020), or communication levels (Torelli et al., 2020), they lack insight into varying greenwashing intensities, especially for sustainable innovations. This gap is critical because consumers frequently favour green innovations based on their values and social norms (Ozaki, 2011). Hence, the level of greenwashing can impact consumers' brand perception, depending on the extent to which the actual perceived sustainable value fulfils the promised sustainable values. Responding to this research gap, this study aims to address this gap by investigating how different greenwashing levels affect consumers brand perceptions in sustainable innovations contexts. Beyond the severity of greenwashing, the specific product components targeted by greenwashing claims could also play a crucial role in the context of sustainable innovations. In this regard, prior research suggests that innovative products can be divided into different components (Goldenberg et al., 1999)—core components and peripheral components (Gatignon et al., 2002). Core components are the essential parts of an innovation that often define the key functionalities and performance of the new product (e.g. electric drive technology in electric vehicles). Conversely, peripheral components represent the parts of an innovation that are less central to its main functionality (e.g. the bodywork of electric vehicles) (Gatignon et al., 2002; Ma et al., 2015). Moving research efforts to this granular view of the product components is in line with the previous debate on the need for a more differentiated approach to analysing greenwashing effects. Applying this distinction to sustainable innovations suggests that the negative impact of greenwashing could be more pronounced when it comes to misleading claims about core components, because of their central role in the sustainable value proposition of the product. Given the lack of empirical evidence on the severity of greenwashing the core and peripheral components, this work is dedicated to empirically investigating these assumptions. To address the shortcomings discussed above, this article presents four studies, utilizing scenario-based experiments, to understand the effects of greenwashing of sustainable innovations on brand perceptions, guided by the following research questions: 1. How does revealed greenwashing of innovations affect consumers' brand perceptions? 2. What psychological mechanisms are triggered in consumers upon recognizing greenwashing practices in innovation contexts? 3. How do variations in the severity of greenwashing practices affect consumer reactions to greenwashed sustainable innovations? 4. How do variations in the focus of greenwashing practices affect consumer reactions to greenwashed sustainable innovations? JANZ ET AL.313 Study 1 is dedicated to answer the first research question by analysing how greenwashing of sustainable innovations influences consumers' brand perception. Study 2 aims to delve deeper into the findings of Study 1, employing mediators theoretically anchored in expectancy disconfirmation theory to elucidate the psychological mechanisms behind the observed effects, and thus addresses research question two. Finally, Study 3 examines the influence of different levels of greenwashing of sustainable innovations on consumers brand perception, whereas Study 4 investigates the differential effects of greenwashing across different product components on brand perception. Thus, Studies 3 and 4 aim to respond to the third and fourth research questions. The findings from our four experiments contribute to our current understanding of consumers reactions to greenwashing practices, especially in the field of innovations. First, confirming and complementing previous research on greenwashing of conventional products (Akturan, 2018; Santos et al., 2024), we were able to replicate the negative effects of greenwashing on brand perception in the context of innovations. This emphasis on innovation is critically important, considering that to maintain long-term competitiveness, companies are compelled to either introduce new sustainable products or adapt existing offerings in a sustainable manner (Przychodzen & Przychodzen, 2018). Second, our study investigates the psychological mechanisms involved when exposed to greenwashing practices, demonstrating how unmet sustainability expectations lead to a decline in consumers' brand evaluations. Hence, we broaden the scope of the still underexplored research field focussing on the explanation of consumer-side psychological processes in greenwashing scenarios. Third, this work empirically differentiates between types of greenwashing, in terms of level and focus, addressing calls for nuanced investigation into its varieties (e.g. Bladt et al., 2023; De Jong et al., 2020). From a managerial perspective, our findings highlight the importance for managers to recognize the risks associated with (revealed) greenwashing, as such practices can hinder the diffusion of innovations by negatively affecting consumers brand perception. The article is structured as follows: First, we outline the theoretical background and derive our hypotheses. This is followed by the presentation of our four empirical studies. The article concludes with a discussion of the results, theoretical and managerial contributions, and avenues for future research. 2|CONSUMER REACTIONS TO GREENWASHING OF INNOVATIONS: AN EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION THEORY APPROACH 2.1 |State of research on greenwashing and consumer behaviour Greenwashing can be defined as ‘selective disclosure of positive information about a company's environmental or social performance, without full disclosure of negative information on these dimensions, so as to create an overly positive corporate image’(Lyon & Maxwell, 2011, p. 9). Greenwashing therefore refers to deceptive, disingenuous, ambiguous or misleading statements about the sustainability of a company or product (Yang et al., 2020). This phenomenon is becoming increasingly prevalent, as evidenced by the European Commission finding that 42% of green claims made online across various industries were potentially misleading (European Commission, 2021). Consequently, a major effort of current research is to investigate the effects of greenwashing on consumer perceptions and behaviour (e.g. Braga et al., 2019; Hung & Chang, 2024; Szabo & Webster, 2021). As long as the green claims are not actually questioned or exposed as false, companies can indeed profit from this behaviour (Schmuck et al., 2018). Notably, even if not substantiated by real evidence of green corporate practices, green images and labels can significantly enhance purchase intentions (Spack et al., 2012). Furthermore, companies that proactively communicate involvement regarding environmental protection seem to generate a more positive reputation than those that completely neglect environmental concerns (De Jong et al., 2018). These results indicate that initially, it seems easy to influence consumers with green information and suggest sustainability of new products without providing proof. Conversely, past cases like the Volkswagen emissions scandal have demonstrated that exposing misleading claims can result in significant profit losses, decreased investment and severe reputational damage (Forbes, 2015; Pimonenko et al., 2020). Therefore, it raises the question of what negative consequences may result when consumers become aware of greenwashing practices. In this area, consumeroriented research has already identified a variety of negative associations: whilst perceived greenwashing increases consumer scepticism (Aji & Sutikno, 2015; Akturan & Nuray, 2019), worsens product perceptions (Braga et al., 2019), reduces purchase intentions (Zhang et al., 2018; Apaolaza et al., 2023; Ahmad & Zhang, 2020) and decreases satisfaction (Martínez et al., 2020). As a result, the focus of research is now primarily shifting to negative effects on consumers' brand perceptions (Akturan, 2018; Chen et al., 2016; Szabo & Webster, 2021). More specifically, a growing body of research shows that exposed greenwashing activities can have negative spillover effects on consumers' perceptions of the participating brand, resulting in lower brand attitudes, brand love and loyalty (Chen et al., 2020; Hameed et al., 2021) as well as negative brand evaluations (Neureiter & Matthes, 2022; Nyilasy et al., 2014). These negative effects can be so far-reaching that a brand's greenwashing behaviour negatively influences consumers' intention to buy green products from other brands within the same industry (Wang et al., 2020). Overall, brand perception thus emerges as a vulnerable asset in the context of greenwashing, primarily because of its fragility. It hinges on consumers' beliefs, making it susceptible to significant and sudden shifts when consumers encounter new information (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000). Whilst initial findings show that greenwashing has negative effects on brand perceptions, current research indicates that further investigation into this relationship is needed (Santos et al., 2023). The significant impact of deteriorating brand perceptions becomes increasingly apparent when attention shifts from 314 JANZ ET AL. conventional products to innovative ones. Positive brand perceptions are instrumental in facilitating the introduction and adoption of innovations (Brexendorf et al., 2015). Therefore, as more companies aim to establish themselves as green innovators (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010), conducting thorough research into the potential impacts on brand perception of unsubstantiated green claims seems essential. However, research on the effects of greenwashing in the context of new product introductions is limited. Prior research in related areas has focussed on validating the negative effects of greenwashing on consumer brand perception based on traditional products (Santos et al., 2024; Szabo & Webster, 2021), leaving theoretical rationales and empirical validation of these effects in innovation contexts relatively scarce. Because brand perceptions during the introduction of innovations are crucial for success (Brexendorf et al., 2015), understanding the core impact of greenwashing on brand perception is essential. Therefore, our primary aim is to replicate and confirm the previously identified negative effects of greenwashing on consumer brand perception, specifically in the context of new product launches. Furthermore, this study seeks to investigate these impacts through a theoretical framework rooted in expectancy disconfirmation theory, aiming to illuminate the psychological mechanisms behind these adverse effects. Additionally, it will address particular characteristics of greenwashing in product innovations, including variations in intensity and type. 2.2 |Consumer responses to greenwashing of innovations Whilst prior studies in the context of greenwashing and consumer responses drew upon attribution theory (Nyilasy et al., 2014), cognitive dissonance (De Jong et al., 2018), and the affectreason-involvement model (Schmuck et al., 2018) as theoretical anchors, an emerging trend highlights the relevance of expectationdisconfirmation theory (EDT) (Aji & Sutikno, 2015; Chen et al., 2019,2014). The EDT suggests that consumers reactions depend on the difference between their perceived performance of a product and their prior expectations (Oliver, 1997). More detailed, expectations and perceived outcomes can coincide in different ways. Negative disconfirmation occurs when performance is lower than expected, confirmation occurs when performance matches expectations, and positive disconfirmation arises when performance exceeds expectations. Both confirmation and positive disconfirmation result in satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation causes consumer dissatisfaction, affecting both perceived product performance and perceived brand performance (Oliver, 1976; Swan & Trawick, 1981). Indeed, negative disconfirmations resulting from products failing to meet marketer claims have been found to generate negative perceptions of various products within that brand (Darke et al., 2010). Correspondingly, research on product-harm crises already demonstrated that the interplay of expectations and disconfirmation can explain shifts in consumer brand perceptions (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000). In the context of greenwashing, these effects can be expected primarily because of the heightened expectations arising from the use of green marketing (Horie et al., 2005). When customers form an opinion of a brand, they consider both performance-related aspects and the social responsibility of the respective company (Marín et al., 2016), as well as an ecological perspective (Kinnear & Taylor, 1973). In principle, belief in a brand's environmental performance can support attitudes to that brand (Montoro-Rios et al., 2006). Accordingly, it can be assumed that misleading information at an environmental level counteracts these effects and worsens consumers' brand perceptions. Apart from reduced trust in the brand (Akturan, 2018), greenwashing damages consumers' overall brand equity and, consequently, can even lead to brand avoidance (Xiao et al., 2022). Although extensive empirical evidence exists on the negative impact of greenwashing on consumer brand perceptions of conventional products (Santos et al., 2023), there is a lack of theoretical and empirical exploration regarding its effects in product innovation contexts. However, considering the characteristics of innovations, we anticipate similar effect patterns for several reasons. First, product innovations often carry higher expectations from consumers regarding their sustainability claims (Aibar-Guzmán & SomohanoRodríguez, 2021; Dangelico & Pujari, 2010). Innovations, by their nature, are seen as advancements not only in technology but also in ethical and environmental standards (Singh et al., 2023). Furthermore, the introduction of innovations often comes with a premium price (Nejad & Estelami, 2012), justified by the added value of sustainability or technological advancements. Consumers willing to pay this premium expect their purchase to positively contribute to environmental sustainability (Dangelico et al., 2022). Failing to meet these expectations because of greenwashing can result in disappointment and sense of betrayal which can be more pronounced compared to conventional products, where expectations might not be as high or focussed on sustainability aspects. Second, the novelty associated with product innovations means that consumers have less prior experience and fewer benchmarks to judge the product's (sustainability) claims (Wells et al., 2010). Thus, consumers often rely heavily on the information provided by companies to understand and evaluate these products. This reliance makes accurate and honest communication even more critical in the context of innovations. When greenwashing is later revealed, the damage to brand perception can be severe, as the trust that was more blindly placed is harder to rebuild. In conclusion, we hypothesize: H1. When consumers become aware of revealed greenwashing, this has a negative impact on their brand perception compared to a non-greenwashed sustainable innovation. Whilst an increasing number of companies are leveraging green positioning to gain competitive advantages (Dangelico, 2016;Hu et al., 2023), there is also a rising incidence of greenwashing being exposed (European Commission, 2021; Sun & Zhang, 2019). Given JANZ ET AL.315 the significant negative consequences associated with greenwashing, understanding whether these repercussions outweigh the benefits of refraining from misleading green marketing is crucial. However, current greenwashing research lacks a clear comparison of potential consequences between deceptive marketing practices and products marketed without green attributes (e.g. Chen et al., 2020; Hameed et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2022). To date, only the results of Nyilasy et al. (2014) indicate that it may be more beneficial for some companies to advertise products without any green claims, rather than risk overstated green claims being exposed and facing negative consequences from a greenwashing scandal. Carried out in the field of advertising in chemical industry, the study suggests that attitudes towards a brand depend on the interaction between the type of advertising messages and the environmental performance of a company. More detailed, the results show that brand perceptions tend to be more favourable for companies that do not disclose their environmental performance and only advertise the brand in general than for companies that engage in greenwashing (Nyilasy et al., 2014). An empirical examination of the transferability of this finding to innovation contexts is still pending. Hence, drawing on these initial results, we hypothesize that: H2. When consumers become aware of revealed greenwashing, this has a negative impact on their brand perception compared to an innovation without green claims. 2.3 |The mediating role of belief disconfirmation Beyond the aforementioned hypotheses regarding negative effects of greenwashing, current research is still largely lacking studies uncovering the psychological mechanisms behind these consumer reactions. As laid out before, through the use of green marketing, consumers have heightened expectations of the respective products: they expect global environmental friendliness, health and safety (Horie et al., 2005). These heightened expectations could have serious consequences, particularly in the context of greenwashing, and impact consumer satisfaction (Chen et al., 2019). As indicated by the EDT, unfulfilled expectations perceived by consumers can lead to negative reactions (Oliver, 1976; Swan & Trawick, 1981). Applying the EDT to the context of greenwashing indicates that consumers may experience negative disconfirmation if their sustainability-related beliefs are not met, potentially resulting in dissatisfaction and adverse responses. In addition to heightened sustainability beliefs, a company's social responsibility profile can foster consumer belief that the brand is able to deliver functional benefits (Du et al., 2007). Therefore, besides environmental beliefs, greenwashing can also influence general product perceptions and especially quality beliefs of consumers (Szabo & Webster, 2021). Whilst in the existing greenwashing literature, EDT is repeatedly used rather parenthetically as a basis for explanation, there is a lack of empirical investigations to determine its applicability in terms of psychological mediators rooted in this theoretical framework (Aji & Sutikno, 2015; Chen et al., 2014,2019; Ha et al., 2022). To fill this gap and in line with the previous discussion that greenwashing may affect both environmental and quality beliefs, we hypothesize that: H3. When consumers become aware of revealed greenwashing, disconfirmation of (a) sustainability beliefs and (b) quality beliefs mediate the negative effect of greenwashing on brand perception. H3a. Awareness of revealed greenwashing leads to negative disconfirmation of sustainability beliefs, which in turn negatively affects brand perception. H3b. Awareness of revealed greenwashing leads to negative disconfirmation of quality beliefs, which in turn negatively affects brand perception. 2.4 |The moderating role of greenwashing intensity Whilst the existing literature is characterized by defining greenwashing in terms of sustainability promises not being fulfilled to a certain extent (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2019), there is a growing interest in a more precise differentiation of distinct forms of greenwashing (De Jong et al., 2020; Lyon & Montgomery, 2015). Traditionally, research has focussed on claim greenwashing, involving misleading textual claims about environmental benefits (Bladt et al., 2023; De Jong et al., 2018), and executional greenwashing, which uses nature-related elements like green imagery (Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). More recent research highlights further differentiation through various specific objectives and communication strategies, including corporateor firm-level, strategic-level, dark-level (involving illegal activities), and product-level greenwashing (De Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Torelli et al., 2020). Whilst the established differentiation between productand corporate-level greenwashing shows that greenwashing is particularly serious at the product level (Torelli et al., 2020), potential differences within this category remain largely unexplored. De Jong et al. (2020) made an initial contribution by including more ambiguous types of greenwashing in their investigation, whereas previous studies primarily examined outright corporate lies. In particular, three different degrees of severity were examined: truth, half-lies and lies. The empirical results showed similar values of reputational damage among the organizations that told only half-lies and those guilty of full greenwashing. Thus, these results suggest that consumers care more about the deception itself than the extent to which the organizational claims and behaviour are inconsistent (De Jong et al., 2020). Conversely, Schmuck et al. (2018) and Bladt et al. (2023) found that vague claims did not increase perceived greenwashing, whereas false claims did, which in turn negatively affected consumers' 316 JANZ ET AL. attitudes towards the brands. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived deception by consumers were associated with lower credibility of the organization, less positive attitudes towards the advertisement and brand, and reduced intentions to use the advertised product (Newell et al., 1998). The differentiation between various levels of greenwashing severity—ranging from vague claims to outright lies—highlights the nuanced ways in which consumers can be misled. In the context of product innovations, where new features and benefits are often highlighted as part of the sustainability narrative, the severity of false claims becomes critical. Minor discrepancies from actual sustainability may lead consumers to fill in the gaps with their own optimistic interpretations (Atkinson & Kim, 2014), whereas outright lies can lead to a complete breakdown in trust when the truth comes to light (Bladt et al., 2023). In line with this, initial studies in innovation management suggest that higher levels of ‘green product innovation’greenwashing correspond to lower customer satisfaction (Ioannou et al., 2022). This initial finding is also in line with EDT, suggesting that lower levels of greenwashing (minor deviation between claim and fulfilment) should lead to reduced discrepancies between expectations and subsequent beliefs (Anderson, 1973). Consequently, negative disconfirmation should be lower than in the case of high-level greenwashing (major deviation between claim and fulfilment), and consumer reactions may be less negative. In conclusion, different consequences for consumer reactions could be assumed depending on the degree of severity of greenwashing of innovations. We therefore hypothesize that: H4. When consumers become aware of revealed greenwashing at a high level, this has a greater negative effect on their brand perception than greenwashing at a low level. 2.5 |The moderating role of greenwashing focus Given the distinction between core and peripheral components of innovative products, as outlined by Goldenberg et al. (1999) and further elaborated by Gatignon et al. (2002) and Ma et al. (2015), it is crucial to consider how greenwashing claims targeting these different components may influence consumer perceptions and responses. Core components, integral to the product's functionality and sustainable value proposition, are particularly vulnerable to greenwashing. Misleading claims targeting these fundamental aspects directly contradict the expected sustainability, potentially leading to pronounced negative reactions from consumers and undermining trust in the brand's overall sustainability. In contrast, peripheral components, whilst contributing to the product's appeal, do not define its primary sustainable function. Thus, greenwashing claims about these aspects might not elicit as strong a negative response, given their less central role in the product's sustainability. This nuanced distinction in product components underscores the importance of a differentiated approach in assessing the effects of greenwashing. It suggests that the impact can vary significantly depending on whether the misleading claims concern core or peripheral components. This proposition is in line with research by Gershoff and Frels (2015) showing that the centrality of sustainable attributes significantly influences consumer evaluations of product sustainability. This implies that misleading claims about core components are likely to result in more severe negative reactions because of their perceived centrality in the product's innovation and sustainability narrative. To further explore the differential effects of greenwashing based on the targeted product innovation component, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5. When consumers become aware of revealed greenwashing of the core innovation, this has a greater negative effect on their brand perception than greenwashing of a peripheral component. 3|STUDY 1 3.1 |Methodological procedures 3.1.1 | Overall research design Study 1 was designed as a scenario-based experiment to empirically assess the influence of greenwashing on consumers' brand perceptions. To effectively assess the impact of greenwashing in comparison to both non-greenwashed sustainable innovations (H1) and innovations without any green claims (H2), our study design incorporated a between-subjects factor with three distinct treatment groups: sustainable, non-sustainable and revealed greenwashing. This approach allowed us to isolate and compare the effects of greenwashing against both a baseline sustainable innovation and a product marketed without sustainability claims. The research was conducted in the context of the automotive industry, based on a newspaper report about the introduction of an innovative electric car (‘MetaTEC’). The automobile industry serves as a suitable context for studying sustainable innovations because consumers are generally aware of the environmental impacts of automobility (Peattie et al., 2009). In addition, simple changes to the environmental impact of a vehicle can be incorporated by replacing the relevant components. The newspaper report was chosen as a third party for the introduction of the car, with information about exposing greenwashing sourced from an independent institute. The report therefore can serve as a reliable accuser, providing evidence of intentional and substantive application of greenwashing practices (Seele & Gatti, 2017). 3.1.2 | Manipulation The manipulation encompassed three scenarios with varying levels of information about the environmental friendliness of the car. The nonsustainable scenario contained a fact-based message about the JANZ ET AL.317 introduction of an innovative electric automobile. In the sustainable and the greenwashing scenarios, the message was expanded to the promise to reduce resource consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials for production by 50%, and thus to represent a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. Previous research has identified the use of sustainability-related messages as a common tool of greenwashing (Baum, 2012; Chen & Chang, 2013; Orazi & Chan, 2020). Thus, sustainability was further manipulated using green annotations: whilst in the non-sustainable scenario the engine and battery were called ‘PowerTEC’and ‘AkkuTEC’, they were labelled ‘GreenTEC’and ‘BioTEC’in the sustainable and greenwashing scenarios. In the revealed greenwashing scenario, participants received a second newspaper message entitled ‘MetaTEC scandal’. This alerted the participants to the fact that the car's rare earth metal savings were not being achieved as stated. Indeed, the resource consumption in the production of the car was similar to that of existing electric automobiles. Detailed scenario descriptions can be found in Appendix A. 3.1.3 | Participants To ensure the highest standards of ethical conduct, we meticulously adhered to the ‘Research Ethics Principles and Review Procedures in the Social and Economic Sciences’(RatSWD [Rat für Sozialund Wirtschaftsdaten], 2017). This comprehensive framework guided us in maintaining scientific integrity, ensuring the protection of our participants through strict anonymity and confidentiality measures, and securing informed and voluntary consent from all participants involved in all of our studies. For Study 1, a self-administered online questionnaire was used, and the participants were recruited through a German market research institute. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three scenarios. The questionnaire contained attention check questions to uncover inattentive participants (Abbey & Meloy, 2017). In total, two participants failed to answer the attention check questions correctly, leading to the exclusion from the final sample. As a result, n=152 people ranging from age 18 to 73 were recruited; for details, see Table 1. 3.1.4 | Measurement Brand perception was measured once using four 7-point semantic difference scales according to Dawar and Pillutla (2000) (after the introduction of the car, in the non-greenwashing scenarios; after the presentation of the newspaper report, in the revealed greenwashing scenario). The participants were asked to indicate their overarching brand perception based on the following attributes: poor/good, negative /positive, not at all reliable/very reliable and not at all trustworthy/very trustworthy. For the purpose of reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha was calculated. The internal consistency turned out to be excellent for brand perception, giving a Cronbach's alpha > .90, clearly surpassing the threshold of .70 (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). 3.1.5 | Pretest A pretest (n=204) was conducted that included all scenarios of the following four main studies to check whether the manipulations worked as intended. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the six scenarios (see Table 2). To check the effectiveness of the manipulations, we assessed perceived product sustainability, credibility and innovativeness using established Likert scales (1 =strongly disagree,7=strongly agree). The scales were adapted from Lee (2020) and Gershoff and Frels (2015) for sustainability, MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) for credibility, and Lee and O'Connor (2003) and Moreau et al. (2001) for innovativeness, all with Cronbach's alpha >.84 (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). Table 1shows that the manipulations were successful. The ratings of sustainability differed significantly between scenario 1 (i.- e. non-sust) and the rest of the scenarios (i.e. 2-6), F(1,202) =8.81, p< .01, indicating scenarios promoting sustainability were perceived as more sustainable than the non-sustainable one. The newspaper message exposing greenwashing led participants to rate those scenarios (i.e. 2, 3, 4) as significantly less credible compared to the scenarios without the scandal (i.e. 1, 5, 6), F(1,202) =153.95, p< .001. The electric car ‘MetaTEC’was rated as innovative across all groups, with an average score of 5.24. TABLE 1 Descriptive analyses of samples. Gender Education Income Male Female Vocational training Graduate degree High-school diploma Secondary school certificate < 35.000 € Study 1 60.5% (36,5 years) 38.8% (34.5 years) 14.5% 35.5% 35.5% 7.2% 57.2% Study 2 55.9% (35.1 years) 44.1% (32.7 years) 9.8% 35.3% 37.3% 11.8% 46.1% Study 3 47.5% (34.4 years) 51.0% (34.9 years) 19.3% 37.1% 32.7% 7.4% 55.0% Study 4 49.3% (36.5 years) 49.3% (34.2 years) 20.2% 26.6% 40.9% 8.9% 53.2% 318 JANZ ET AL. Additionally, we used four 7-point Likert scale items to check the realism of the scenarios (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002) and one item (‘This product is totally new to me’) to ensure the participants were unfamiliar with the product (Heidenreich et al., 2016). Both checks were successful, with high average scores for realism (5.44) and familiarity (6.28). 3.2 |Results Because relatively large groups with similar sample sizes were generated (n Sustainable =49; n Non-Sustainable =52; n RevealedGW =51), analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be used as a robust method for analysis (Blanca Mena et al., 2017). Thus, differences in consumer reactions were examined by conducting a one-way ANOVA with the group condition used as a between-subjects factor. Levene's test was used to check the model assumption of variance homogeneity, which could be confirmed (p=.341). In summary, the results empirically support H1 and H2, as depicted in Figure 1. They reveal statistically significant differences in brand perceptions across scenarios, F (2, 149) =36.72, p< .001, highlighting greenwashing's negative impact on brand perception. Tukey post-hoc analysis indicated significantly lower brand perception in the revealed greenwashing scenario compared to both the sustainable innovation without a greenwashing scandal (1.93, 95% CI[2.54, 1.33]) and the non-sustainable innovation (1.83, 95% CI[2.43, 1.23]). Revealed greenwashing leads to significantly poorer brand perception (M RevealedGW =3.19, SD =1.48) than when consumers believe in the product's sustainability (M Sustainable =5.12, SD =1.18), confirming H1. Moreover, brand perception in the revealed greenwashing group is notably worse compared to the non-sustainable scenario, where no sustainable aspects were communicated (M Non-Sustainable =5.02, SD =1.14). Thus, revealing greenwashing results in more negative brand perception than for products marketed without explicitly advertised green attributes, supporting H2. 4|STUDY 2 4.1 |Methodological procedures 4.1.1 | Overall research design Study 2 aims to examine the effect of revealed greenwashing on consumers sustainability (H3a) and quality beliefs (H3b). Additionally, we aim to demonstrate that disconfirmations of these beliefs mediate the relationship between revealed greenwashing and consumers brand perceptions (H3). Therefore, Study 2 was designed as a scenariobased experiment with greenwashing as a between-subjects factor with two treatment groups (confirmed sustainability vs. revealed greenwashing). The research context mirrors Study 1, set in the automotive industry and utilizing the introduction of an innovative electric car ‘MetaTEC’. 4.1.2 | Manipulation The manipulations followed the first study's format. The participants were introduced to the innovative electric car ‘MetaTEC’, promoted as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility, with a promise of reducing resource consumption by 50%. To capture the potential differences in outcomes if green objectives are fulfilled TABLE 2 Pretest: results of experimental manipulations. Scenario manipulations Sustainability Credibility Innovativeness Mean SD f‐value Mean SD f‐value Mean SD f‐value 1. Non‐sust (N= 33) 4.38 1.32 8,81*Pre 5.17 1.37 153.949 ** 5.07 1.17 1.00 2. GW (N= 35) 5.30 1.04 Post 2.79 1.21 5.39 0.85 3. Low‐level GW (N= 31) 5.24 0.99 Post 3.33 1.32 5.40 1.02 4. High‐level GW (N= 38) 5.35 1.26 Post 2.90 1.66 5.37 1.13 5. MinorC GW (N= 35) 5.06 1.07 Pre 5.54 1.15 5.22 0.99 6. CoreInno GW (N= 32) 4.93 1.25 Pre 5.35 1.42 4.95 1.08 * Significant at p <.01. ** Significant at p <.001. 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Sustainable Non-Sustainable Revealed GW Brand perception Between Subject Factor FIGURE 1 Mean comparison of brand perception in sustainable, non-sustainable and greenwashing scenarios. JANZ ET AL.319 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. [Correction added on 31 March 2025, after first online publication: Projekt DEAL funding statement has been added.] DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ORCID Sven Heidenreich https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2278-0610 REFERENCES Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management,53,63–70. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jom.2017.06.001 Ahmad, W., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Green purchase intention: Effects of electronic service quality and customer green psychology. Journal of Cleaner Production,267, 122053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122053 Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Somohano-Rodríguez, F. M. (2021). Do consumers value environmental innovation in product? Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010033 Aji, H. M., & Sutikno, B. (2015). The extended consequence of greenwashing: Perceived consumer skepticism. International Journal of Business and Information,10(4), 433–468. Akturan, U. (2018). How does greenwashing affect green branding equity and purchase intention? An empirical research. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,36(7), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2017-0339 Akturan, U., & Nuray, T. (2019). How do firms' actions impact green skepticism? The effects of green brand associations, green brand equity, and greenwashing. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics,6(4), 204–211. Anderson, R. E. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research,10(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224377301000106 Apaolaza, V., Policarpo, M. C., Hartmann, P., Paredes, M. R., & D'Souza, C. (2023). Sustainable clothing: Why conspicuous consumption and greenwashing matter. Business Strategy and the Environment,32(6), 3766–3782. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3335 Atkinson, L., & Kim, Y. (2014). “I drink it anyway and I know I shouldn't”: Understanding green consumers' positive evaluations of normviolating non-green products and misleading green advertising. Environmental Communication,9(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17524032.2014.932817 Atkinson, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising,43(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00913367.2013.834803 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Baum, L. M. (2012). It's not easy being green …or is it? A content analysis of environmental claims in magazine advertisements from the United States and United Kingdom. Environmental Communication, 6(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.724022 Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics,144, 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9 Bladt, D., van Capelleveen, G., & Yazan, D. M. (2023). The influence of greenwashing practices on brand attitude: A multidimensional consumer analysis in Germany. Business Strategy and the Environment. Blanca Mena, M. J., Alarcón Postigo, R., Arnau Gras, J., Bono Cabré, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema,29(4), 552–557. Braga, S., Martínez, M. P., Correa, C. M., Moura-Leite, R. C., & Da Silva, D. (2019). Greenwashing effect, attitudes, and beliefs in green consumption. RAUSP Management Journal,54, 226–241. https://doi.org/10. 1108/RAUSP-08-2018-0070 Brexendorf, T. O., Bayus, B., & Keller, K. L. (2015). Understanding the interplay between brand and innovation management: Findings and future research directions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0445-6 Caruana, R., & Crane, A. (2008). Constructing consumer responsibility: Exploring the role of corporate communications. Organization Studies, 29(12), 1495–1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607096387 Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,81(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo. 2011.08.009 Chen, H., Bernard, S., & Rahman, I. (2019). Greenwashing in hotels: A structural model of trust and behavioral intentions. Journal of Cleaner Production,206,326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.168 Chen, Y.-S., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). Towards green trust: The influences of green perceived quality, green perceived risk, and green satisfaction. Management Decision,51(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251741311291319 Chen, Y. S., Huang, A. F., Wang, T. Y., & Chen, Y. R. (2020). Greenwash and green purchase behaviour: The mediation of green brand image and green brand loyalty. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,31(1–2), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018. 1426450 Chen, Y.-S., Lin, C.-L., & Chang, C.-H. (2014). The influence of greenwash on green word-of-mouth (green WOM): The mediation effects of green perceived quality and green satisfaction. Quality & Quantity, 48(5), 2411–2425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9898-1 Chen, Y.-S., Tien, W.-P., Lee, Y.-I., & Tsai, M.-L. (2016). Greenwash and green brand equity. In 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1797–1803). IEEE. Cherry, M. A. (2012). Chevron, greenwashing, and the myth of green oil companies. Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment,3,133–154. Claudy, M. C., Peterson, M., & Pagell, M. (2016). The roles of sustainability orientation and market knowledge competence in new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management,33,72–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12343 Corkindale, D., & Belder, M. (2009). Corporate brand reputation and the adoption of innovations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420910972765 Cos¸kun, A., Vocino, A., & Polonsky, M. (2017). Mediating effect of environmental orientation on pro-environmental purchase intentions in a lowinvolvement product situation. Australasian Marketing Journal,25(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.008 Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302303001 Dangelico, R. M. (2016). Green product innovation: Where we are and where we are going. Business Strategy and the Environment,25(8), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1886 Dangelico, R. M., Alvino, L., & Fraccascia, L. (2022). Investigating the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention for sustainable fashion products: Evidence from a large survey of Italian consumers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,185, 122010. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.techfore.2022.122010 326 JANZ ET AL. Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,95, 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-010-0434-0 Dangelico, R. M., & Vocalelli, D. (2017). “Green marketing”: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production,165, 1263–1279. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.184 Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,38, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-0090168-7 Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research,37(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr. 37.2.215.18729 De Brentani, U., Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Salomo, S. (2010). Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management,27(2), 143–160. De Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. D. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe,32(1), 19. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12302-020-0300-3 De Jong, M. D. T., Harkink, K. M., & Barth, S. (2018). Making green stuff? Effects of corporate greenwashing on consumers. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1050651917729863 De Jong, M. D. T., Huluba, G., & Beldad, A. D. (2020). Different shades of greenwashing: consumers' reactions to environmental lies, half-lies, and organizations taking credit for following legal obligations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,34(1), 38–76. https://doi. org/10.1177/1050651919874105 De Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,65,76–86. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035 Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review,54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/ cmr.2011.54.1.64 Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing,24(3), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001 European Commission. (2021). Results of the EU-wide screening on misleading ‘green’claims. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/ commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_269 Forbes. (2015). The domino effect of Volkswagen's emissions scandal. Trefis Team. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/28/ the-domino-effect-of-volkswagens-emissions-scandal/ Gatignon, H., Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., & Anderson, P. (2002). A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science,48(9), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174 Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of Marketing,79(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13. 0303 Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education, Ohio. Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research,36(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224379903600205 Ha, M. T., Ngan, V. T. K., & 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, 31(4), 904–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12462 Hameed, I., Hyder, Z., Imran, M., & Shafiq, K. (2021). Greenwash and green purchase behavior: An environmentally sustainable perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability,23,1–22. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10668-020-01202-1 Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Heidenreich, S., Freisinger, E., & Landau, C. (2022). The dark side of business model innovation: An empirical investigation into the evolvement of customer resistance and the effectiveness of potential countermeasures. Journal of Product Innovation Management,39(6), 824–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12627 Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T., & Handrich, M. (2016). Satisfied and unwilling: Exploring cognitive and situational resistance to innovations. Journal of Business Research,69(7), 2440–2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.01.014 Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed cocreated services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,43(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0387-4 Hermundsdottir, F., & Aspelund, A. (2021). Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production,280, 124715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124715 Horie, N., Iwamoto, T., & Okamoto, S. (2005). A study on consumer's conceptual image for an environmentally conscious product. In 2005 4th international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing (pp. 850–854). IEEE. Hu, Y., Jin, S., Ni, J., Peng, K., & Zhang, L. (2023). Strategic or substantive green innovation: How do non-green firms respond to green credit policy? Economic Modelling,126, 106451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. econmod.2023.106451 Hung, C. Z., & Chang, T. W. (2024). Have I purchased the right product? Consumer behavior under corporate greenwash behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,23(3), 1102–1113. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb. 2263 Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G., & Papagiannakis, G. (2022). The impact of perceived greenwashing on customer satisfaction and the contingent role of capability reputation. Journal of Business Ethics,1–15. Jain, S., Sansom, J., Pope, R., Hagenbeek, O., Legerstee, T., Wiemer, F., Kastbjerg, C., & Shogren, B. (2021). Global sustainability study 2021. Simon Kucher & Partners. Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1973). The effect of ecological concern on brand perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research,10(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377301000210 Kolcava, D. (2023). Greenwashing and public demand for government regulation. Journal of Public Policy,43(1), 179–198. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0143814X22000277 Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics,43(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022962719299 Lee, Y., & O'Connor, G. C. (2003). The impact of communication strategy on launching new products: The moderating role of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management,20(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.t01-1-201002 Lee, Y.-C. (2020). Communicating sustainable development: Effects of stakeholder-centric perceived sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,27(4), 1540–1551. https://doi. org/10.1002/csr.1900 JANZ ET AL.327 Liu, Y., Li, W., Wang, L., & Meng, Q. (2023). Why greenwashing occurs and what happens afterwards? A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,30,1– 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30571-z Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010. 00282.x Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, W. A. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment,28(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1086026615575332 Ma, Z., Gill, T., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Core versus peripheral innovations: The effect of innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products. Journal of Marketing Research,52(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10. 1509/jmr.13.0337 MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing,53(2), 48–65. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224298905300204 Marín, L., Cuestas, P. J., & Sergio, R. (2016). Determinants of consumer attributions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,138, 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4 Martínez, M. P., Cremasco, C. P., Gabriel Filho, L. R. A., Junior, S. S. B., Bednaski, A. V., Quevedo-Silva, F., …Padgett, R. C. M. L. (2020). Fuzzy inference system to study the behavior of the green consumer facing the perception of greenwashing. Journal of Cleaner Production,242, 116064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.060 Montoro-Rios, F. J., Martínez, T. L., Moreno, F. F., & Soriano, P. C. (2006). Improving attitudes toward brands with environmental associations: An experimental approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing,23(19), 26– 33. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610641136 Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research,38(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr. 38.1.14.18836 Nagar, K. (2015). Modeling the effects of green advertising on brand image: Investigating the moderating effects of product involvement using structural equation. Journal of Global Marketing,28(3–5), 152– 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2015.1114692 Nejad, M. G., & Estelami, H. (2012). Pricing financial services innovations. Journal of Financial Services Marketing,17, 120–134. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/fsm.2012.12 Neureiter, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). Comparing the effects of greenwashing claims in environmental airline advertising: Perceived greenwashing, brand evaluation, and flight shame. International Journal of Advertising, 1–27. Newell, S. J., Goldsmith, R. E., & Banzhaf, E. J. (1998). The effect of misleading environmental claims on consumer perceptions of advertisements. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice,6(2), 48–60. https://doi. org/10.1080/10696679.1998.11501795 Nguyen, T. T. H., Yang, Z., Nguyen, N., Johnson, L. W., & Cao, T. K. (2019). Greenwash and green purchase intention: The mediating role of green skepticism. Sustainability,11(9), 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11092653 Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics,125, 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-0131944-3 Oliver, R. L. (1976). Hedonic reactions to the disconfirmation of product performance expectations: Some moderating conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology,61(2), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.61.2.246 Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Irwin-McGraw-Hill Education. Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims and message frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing,78(5), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13. 0387 Orazi, D. C., & Chan, E. Y. (2020). They did not walk the green talk!: How information specificity influences consumer evaluations of disconfirmed environmental claims. Journal of Business Ethics,163(1), 107– 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4028-6 Ozaki, R. (2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: What makes consumers sign up to green electricity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.650 Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics,102(1), 15–28. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2 Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Russell, C. A. (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’.International Journal of Advertising,34(1), 107–134. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116 Peattie, K., Peattie, S., & Ponting, C. (2009). Climate change: A social and commercial marketing communications challenge. EuroMed Journal of Business,4(3), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/145021909 10992693 Pimonenko, T., Bilan, Y., Horák, J., Starchenko, L., & Gajda, W. (2020). Green brand of companies and greenwashing under sustainable development goals. Sustainability,12(4), 1679. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12041679 Prakash, A. (2002). Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment,11(5), 285–297. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.338 Przychodzen, W., & Przychodzen, J. (2018). Sustainable innovations in the corporate sector—The empirical evidence from IBEX 35 firms. Journal of Cleaner Production,172, 3557–3566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.05.087 RatSWD [Rat für Sozialund Wirtschaftsdaten]. (2017). Forschungsethische Grundsätze und Prüfverfahren in den Sozialund Wirtschaftswissenschaften. RatSWD Output,9(5). Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2023). A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its relationship to stakeholders: State of art and future research agenda. Management Review Quarterly,1–25. Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2024). The greenwashing effects on corporate reputation and brand hate, through environmental performance and green perceived risk. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,16(3), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-052022-0216 Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2018). Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect–reason–involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652 Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment,26(2), 239–252. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.1912 Shahrin, R., Quoquab, F., Jamil, R., Mahadi, N., Mohammad, J., Salam, Z., & Hussin, N. (2017). Green “eco-label”or “greenwashing”? Building awareness about environmental claims of marketers. Advanced Science Letters,23(4), 3205–3208. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7713 Sigurdsson, K., & Candi, M. (2020). Saying and doing: Social responsibility declared and applied. Creativity and Innovation Management,29(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12340 Singh, P. K., Khatake, P., Gori, Y., Parmar, A., Shivakumar, P., Anandhi, R. J., & Kareem, S. H. (2023). Harmonizing innovation: The path to sustainable design and production. In E3S web of conferences (Vol. 453) (01025). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/ 202345301025 328 JANZ ET AL. Spack, J. A., Board, V. E., Crighton, L. M., Kostka, P. M., & Ivory, J. D. (2012). It's easy being green: The effects of argument and imagery on consumer responses to green product packaging. Environmental Communication: a Journal of Nature and Culture,6(4), 441–458. https://doi. org/10.1080/17524032.2012.706231 Sun, Y., & Shi, B. (2022). Impact of greenwashing perception on consumers' green purchasing intentions: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability,14(19), 12119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141912119 Sun, Z., & Zhang, W. (2019). Do government regulations prevent greenwashing? An evolutionary game analysis of heterogeneous enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production,231, 1489–1502. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.335 Swan, J. E., & Trawick, I. F. (1981). Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail service. Journal of Retailing,57(3), 49–67. Szabo, S., & Webster, J. (2021). Perceived greenwashing: The effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics,171(4), 719–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551020-04461-0 Tavakoli, H. (2012). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Rahnama press. TerraChoice. (2007). Sins of Greenwashing.https://www.ul.com/insights/ sins-greenwashing Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Lazzini, A. (2020). Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(2), 407–421. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.2373 Tuffour, P., Chen, G., Agyapong, R. A., Abdallah, A., & Opoku-Mensah, E. (2023). To what extent does organizational learning influence the stakeholder pressure–green procurement nexus? Evidence from Ghana. Creativity and Innovation Management,32(3), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12566 Wang, H., Ma, B., & Bai, R. (2020). The spillover effect of greenwashing behaviours: An experimental approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,38(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-01-2019-0006 Wells, J. D., Campbell, D. E., Valacich, J. S., & Featherman, M. (2010). The effect of perceived novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: A risk/reward perspective. Decision Sciences,41(4), 813– 843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00292.x Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M., & Seegebarth, B. (2011). Adoption barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector. Journal of Business Research,64(11), 1201–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.023 Xiao, Z., Wang, Y., & Guo, D. (2022). Will greenwashing result in brand avoidance? A moderated mediation model. Sustainability,14(12), 7204. Xue, J., & Swan, K. S. (2023). Green exploration and exploitation: Capabilities, product advantage, and policy considerations. Creativity and Innovation Management,32(3), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim. 12530 Yang, Z., Nguyen, T. T. H., Nguyen, H. N., Nguyen, T. T. N., & Cao, T. T. (2020). Greenwashing behaviours: Causes, taxonomy and consequences based on a systematic literature review. Journal of Business Economics and Management,21(5), 1486–1507. https://doi.org/10. 3846/jbem.2020.13225 Zhang, D. (2022). Do heterogenous subsides work differently on environmental innovation? A mechanism exploration approach. Energy Economics,114, 106233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106233 Zhang, D. (2023). Can environmental monitoring power transition curb corporate greenwashing behavior? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,212, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023. 05.034 Zhang, L., Li, D., Cao, C., & 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,187, 740–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.03.201 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Franziska Janz is a Research Assistant and doctoral student in Technology and Innovation Management at Saarland University in Saarbruecken, Germany. With a background in Business Administration, her research centres on innovation management for sustainability, with a particular focus on business model and product innovations within the circular economy. Slawka Jordanow is a postdoctoral researcher in Technology and Innovation Management at Saarland University in Saarbruecken, Germany. She earned her doctorate from Saarland University. Her research primarily focusses on customer co-creation, innovation, digitalization and sustainability. Sven Heidenreich is professor of technology and innovation management at Saarland University in Saarbruecken, Germany. He received his doctorate from EBS Business School. The main focus of his research is on resistance to innovations, digitalization, customer co-creation and sustainability. He has published on these topics in such journals as Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Business Research or Electronic Markets. Juliane Schäfer is a Research Assistant and doctoral student in Technology and Innovation Management at Saarland University in Saarbruecken, Germany. With academic backgrounds in both Psychology and Business Administration, her research focusses on design and innovation, particularly exploring the intersection between psychological factors and innovation processes. How to cite this article: Janz, F., Jordanow, S., Heidenreich, S., & Schäfer, J. (2025). Shades of green deception—An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management,34(2), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12639 JANZ ET AL.329 APPENDIX A The specifications of the MetaTEC electric car are consistent across all studies. Please insert(*) at the appropriate place. * The detailed specifications of the METAtec electric vehicle are provided below: Motorization: Electric motor with asynchronous machine. Range: 1100 km. Autonomous driving: Yes (autopilot assistance system). Engine power: 480 to 550 hp. Acceleration 0–100 km/h: 3.5 to 4.5 s. Top speed: 230 to 250 km/h. Dimensions: 4801 mm L 1945 mm W 1478 mm H. Vehicle weight: 2150 to 2250 kg. Scenario description Studies 1 and 2 Non-Sustainable Innovation (Study 1): Innovative METAtec electric vehicle: The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called PowerTEC. In addition, a new type of lithium-ion battery called AkkuTEC will be installed as a power storage unit. *. Sustainable Innovation (Study 1), Revealed Greenwashing (Study 1 and Study 2, 1/2) and Confirmed Sustainability (Study 2, 1/2): Innovative and sustainable electric vehicle METAtec: The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. According to the manufacturer, METAtec represents a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called GreenTEC. Components made of composite materials, such as carbon fibrereinforced plastics, are to be used in this drive system. In an effort to preserve scarce resources, the engineers intend to avoid using depleting raw materials like rare earth metals. Additionally, a cobalt-free battery called BioTEC is employed, containing fewer conflict materials. Overall, this reduces the consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials by 50%. *. Confirmed Sustainability (Study 2, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper. Study on METAtec The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. As revealed by an independent study conducted by the MAFIN Institute, the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC does indeed save depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium, as claimed by the manufacturer. Similarly, the news about savings in conflict minerals in the used cobalt-free lithium-ion battery named BioTEC has been confirmed. It has been disclosed that the new lithium-ion battery significantly saves cobalt. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is indeed reduced by 50%, as claimed by the manufacturer. Revealed Greenwashing (Study 1 and Study 2, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: METAtec scandal The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. However, it has now been revealed that, despite the savings in depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium through the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC, there is an increase in the demand for other rare earth metals like terbium, praseodymium and dysprosium. The report on the saving of conflict raw materials in the cobaltfree lithium-ion battery called BioTEC is equally misleading. As it turns out, the new lithium-ion battery saves a significant amount of cobalt, but at the same time increases the demand for other conflict raw materials such as nickel. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall resource consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is not reduced by 50% as claimed by the manufacturer. Instead, when considering all the consumed rare earth metals and conflict minerals, it averages similarly high as in existing electric vehicles. Scenario description Study 3 Confirmed Sustainability Low Level (Study 3, 1/2), Revealed Greenwashing Low Level (Study 3, 1/2): Innovative and sustainable electric vehicle METAtec The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. According to the manufacturer, METAtec represents a respectable step towards sustainable electromobility. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called GreenTEC. Components made of composite materials, such as carbon fibrereinforced plastics, are to be used in this drive system. In an effort to preserve scarce resources, the engineers intend to avoid using depleting raw materials like rare earth metals. Additionally, a cobalt-free battery called BioTEC is employed, containing fewer conflict materials. Overall, this will reduce the consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials by 50%.*. Confirmed Sustainability Low Level (Study 3, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: Study on METAtec The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a respectable step towards sustainable electromobility. As revealed by an independent study conducted by the MAFIN Institute, the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC does indeed save depleting resources such as yttrium and 330 JANZ ET AL. neodymium, as claimed by the manufacturer. Similarly, the news about savings in conflict minerals in the used cobalt-free lithium-ion battery named BioTEC has been confirmed. It has been disclosed that the new lithium-ion battery significantly saves cobalt. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is indeed reduced by 50%, as stated by the manufacturer. Revealed Greenwashing Low Level (Study 3, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: METAtec scandal The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a respectable step towards sustainable electromobility. However, it has now been revealed that, despite the savings in depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium through the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC, there is an increase in the demand for other rare earth metals like terbium, praseodymium and dysprosium. The report on the saving of conflict raw materials in the cobalt-free lithium-ion battery called BioTEC is equally misleading. As it turns out, the new lithium-ion battery saves a significant amount of cobalt but at the same time increases the demand for other conflict raw materials such as nickel. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall resource consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is not reduced by 50% as claimed by the manufacturer. Instead, when considering all the consumed rare earth metals and conflict minerals, the average reduction is only 40%. Confirmed Sustainability High Level (Study 3, 1/2), Revealed Greenwashing High Level (Study 3, 1/2): Innovative and sustainable electric vehicle METAtec The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. According to the manufacturer, METAtec represents a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called GreenTEC. Components made of composite materials, such as carbon fibrereinforced plastics, are to be used in this drive system In an effort to preserve scarce resources, the engineers intend to avoid using depleting raw materials like rare earth metals. Additionally, a cobalt-free battery called BioTEC is employed, containing fewer conflict materials. Overall, this will reduce the consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials by 85%.*. Confirmed Sustainability High Level (Study 3, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: Study on METAtec The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. As revealed by an independent study conducted by the MAFIN Institute, the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC does indeed save depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium, as claimed by the manufacturer. Similarly, the news about savings in conflict minerals in the used cobalt-free lithium-ion battery named BioTEC has been confirmed. It has been disclosed that the new lithium-ion battery significantly saves cobalt. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is indeed reduced by 85%, as stated by the manufacturer. Revealed Greenwashing High Level (Study 3, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: METAtec scandal The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. However, it has now been revealed that, despite the savings in depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium through the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC, there is an increase in the demand for other rare earth metals like terbium, praseodymium and dysprosium. The report on the saving of conflict raw materials in the cobalt-free lithium-ion battery called BioTEC is equally misleading. As it turns out, the new lithium-ion battery saves a significant amount of cobalt but at the same time increases the demand for other conflict raw materials such as nickel. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall resource consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is not reduced by 85% as claimed by the manufacturer. Instead, when considering all the consumed rare earth metals and conflict minerals, the average reduction is only 10%. Scenario description Study 4 Confirmed Sustainability Component (Study 4, 1/2), Revealed Greenwashing Component (Study 4, 1/2): Innovative and sustainable electric vehicle METAtec The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. According to the manufacturer, METAtec represents a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called PowerTEC. In addition, a new type of lithium-ion battery called AkkuTEC is installed as a power storage unit. In the production of the body, components made of composite materials, such as carbon fibre-reinforced plastics, are to be used. In an effort to preserve scarce resources, the engineers intend to avoid using depleting raw materials in body construction. Likewise, the need for conflict raw materials is to be significantly reduced through modifications in body construction. Overall, this will reduce the consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in body construction by 50%.*. JANZ ET AL.331 Confirmed Sustainability Component (Study 4, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: Study on METAtec The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. As revealed by an independent study conducted by the MAFIN Institute, the modifications made to the body construction indeed save depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium, as claimed by the manufacturer. Similarly, the news about savings in conflict minerals in the body construction has been confirmed. It has been disclosed that the modifications in body construction significantly save cobalt. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the body construction of the METAtec electric vehicle is indeed reduced by 50%, as stated by the manufacturer. Revealed Greenwashing Component (Study 4, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: METAtec scandal The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. However, it has now been revealed that, despite the savings in depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium through the modifications made to the body construction, there is an increase in the demand for other rare earth metals like terbium, praseodymium and dysprosium. The report on the saving of conflict raw materials in the body construction is equally misleading. As it turns out, the modifications to the body construction save a significant amount of cobalt but at the same time increases the demand for other conflict raw materials such as nickel. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the body construction of the METAtec electric vehicle is not reduced by 50% as claimed by the manufacturer. Instead, when considering all the consumed rare earth metals and conflict minerals in body construction, it averages similarly high as in existing electric vehicles. Confirmed Sustainability Core Innovation (Study 4, 1/2), Revealed Greenwashing Core Innovation (Study 4, 1/2): Innovative and sustainable electric vehicle METAtec The car manufacturer META is developing an innovative electric vehicle METAtec with a planned market launch in 2022. According to the manufacturer, METAtec represents a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. The propulsion system features an innovative electric drive using an asynchronous machine called GreenTEC. Components made from composite materials, such as carbon fibrereinforced plastics, will be used in this drive system. In an effort to preserve scarce resources, the engineers intend to avoid using depleting raw materials like rare earth metals. Additionally, a cobalt-free battery called BioTEC is employed, containing fewer conflict materials. Overall, this reduces the consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials by 50%.*. Confirmed Sustainability Core Innovation (Study 4, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: Study on METAtec The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. As revealed by an independent study conducted by the MAFIN Institute, the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC does indeed save depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium, as claimed by the manufacturer. Similarly, the news about savings in conflict minerals in the used cobalt-free lithium-ion battery named BioTEC has been confirmed. It has been disclosed that the new lithium-ion battery significantly saves cobalt. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is indeed reduced by 50%, as claimed by the manufacturer. Revealed Greenwashing Core Innovation (Study 4, 2/2): After hearing about the new electric vehicle, you discover a report in the newspaper: METAtec scandal The electric vehicle METAtec, developed by the automotive manufacturer META, was promoted by the company as a revolutionary step towards sustainable electromobility. However, it has now been revealed that, despite the savings in depleting resources such as yttrium and neodymium through the electric drive with an asynchronous machine named GreenTEC, there is an increase in the demand for other rare earth metals like terbium, praseodymium and dysprosium. The report on the saving of conflict raw materials in the cobaltfree lithium-ion battery called BioTEC is equally misleading. As it turns out, the new lithium-ion battery saves a significant amount of cobalt but at the same time increases the demand for other conflict raw materials such as nickel. According to a study by the independent institute MAFIN, the overall resource consumption of rare earth metals and conflict raw materials in the production of the METAtec electric vehicle is not reduced by 50% as claimed by the manufacturer. Instead, when considering all the consumed rare earth metals and conflict minerals, it averages similarly high as in existing electric vehicles. 332 JANZ ET AL.