Speaking of sustainability... The triple bottom line in firm- and user-generated content

Blits, Jonah; Yegoryan, Narine; Mandler, Timo; Burmester, Alexa B. Article Speaking of sustainability... The triple bottom line in firmand user-generated content Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (SBUR) Provided in Cooperation with: Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e.V. Suggested Citation: Blits, Jonah; Yegoryan, Narine; Mandler, Timo; Burmester, Alexa B. (2025) : Speaking of sustainability... The triple bottom line in firmand user-generated content, Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (SBUR), ISSN 2366-6153, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 77, Iss. 3, pp. 557-584, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-025-00215-8 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/331936 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. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-025-00215-8 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 Speaking of Sustainability... The Triple Bottom Line in Firmand User-Generated Content Jonah Blits · Narine Yegoryan · Timo Mandler · Alexa B. Burmester Received: 30 September 2024 / Accepted: 30 May 2025 / Published online: 25 July 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract Sustainability has become a critical concern of many societies worldwide. The need for a more sustainable mode of producing and consuming goods and services while balancing related environmental, social, and economic consequences (i.e., the triple bottom line) is evident. Although research offers insights into many aspects of this necessary transformation, little is known about the extent to which firms and consumers stress environmental, social, and economic sustainability in their communication. This research addresses these questions by conceptualizing the interplay between sustainability-related firm-generated and user-generated content as a signaling phenomenon. In addition, the authors develop a custom dictionary that enables researchers and practitioners to identify and analyze sustainability-related textual data. An illustrative application based on major data sources (corporate websites, Amazon, and YouTube) indicates significant divergence in how firms and consumers communicate about sustainability. Building on this first conceptual and empirical foray into sustainability-related firm-generated and user-generated content, this research outlines open research questions and potential use cases for the provided analytical tool. Jonah Blits · Alexa B. Burmester Kühne Logistics University, Großer Grasbrook 17, 20457 Hamburg, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Jonah Blits E-Mail: [email protected] Narine Yegoryan Institute of Marketing, Humboldt University Berlin, Spandauer Str. 1, 10178 Berlin, Germany E-Mail: narine.yegor[email protected] Timo Mandler Department of Marketing, TBS Business School, 20 Boulevard Lascrosses, 31000 Toulouse, France E-Mail: [email protected] K 558 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 Keywords Sustainability · Triple bottom line · Firm-generated content · Usergenerated content · Dictionary · Text analysis · Amazon · YouTube 1 Introduction Sustainability—defined as the production and consumption of “goods and services that meet basic needs and quality of life without jeopardizing the needs of future generations” (OECD 2002, p. 16)—has become a critical concern of many societies worldwide. Severe environmental, social, and economic ramifications of the current modus operandi of the global economy are evident. Mass production and consumption significantly contribute to global carbon emissions, accelerating climate change (Ivanova et al. 2016); eroding trust in institutions, such as governmental bodies, challenges efforts to uphold public support of important social causes (OECD 2017); and digitalization and the emergence of the gig economy are transforming many industries, threatening both firms’ long-term viability and citizens’ economic participation (World Economic Forum 2023). Many governments, firms, and consumers have recognized the signs of the times and have put sustainability on their agendas, business plans, and shopping lists (UNFCCC 2015; European Commission 2021; Nielsen 2024). The propagation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and the increased scrutiny from financial analysts underscores the intensified collective efforts to transform current business practices (European Union 2022; Morgan Stanley 2024;PwC2021; United Nations 2025). As a result, firms have stronger incentives than ever to adopt sustainable business practices that balance the environmental, social, and economic consequences of their operations (Lloret 2016), a notion encapsulated by the term “triple bottom line” (Elkington 1999). The transformation toward sustainability has become increasingly visible in the marketplace, with a growing number of brands promoting their sustainability efforts and positioning their products as desirable and sustainable choices. A prominent example is Unilever, which has made substantial strategic adjustments to integrate sustainability into its core business operations. Its ‘Sustainable Living Plan’ aims to reduce its environmental impact while generating social benefits (Unilever 2021). Similarly, Patagonia has long been recognized as a leader in sustainability, advocating responsible supply chains, circular economy principles, and environmental activism (McKinsey and Company 2023). To promote their sustainability efforts, firms rely on firm-generated content (FGC), i.e., firm-initiated marketing communication disseminated through official communication channels (Kumar et al. 2016; Lacka et al. 2022). However, consumers also form their attitudes toward brands and products based on information and opinions shared by other consumers online, i.e., through user-generated content (UGC) (Tirunillai and Tellis 2012;Tangetal.2014). Despite the central role of communication in informing consumers and influencing their purchase behavior (Hoyer and MacInnis 2007), insights into how firms and consumers discuss sustainability are scarce. Current literature primarily focuses K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 559 on investor-facing channels, such as corporate reports (e.g., Bingler et al. 2022, Maibaum et al. 2024, Vaupel et al. 2023). Studies focusing on UGC remain scarce and fragmented. For example, Dunn and Harness (2019) examine how consumers perceive sustainability-related UGC; Han et al. (2018) and Leung (2009) investigate what consumer attributes drive content creation and dissemination; and ElgaaiedGambier and Mandler (2021) explore sustainability-related memes as expressions of eco-anxiety and a related coping mechanism. We contribute to the nascent literature at the intersection of sustainability and FGC/UGC in two major ways. First, we propose a conceptual model of the interplay between sustainability-related FGC and UGC. Adopting a signaling theory perspective (Erdem and Swait 1998,2004), we describe how firms and consumers engage in a continuous exchange of signals and emphasize the interactive nature of sustainability-related FGC and UGC. Building on this conceptualization, we outline a set of open research questions. Second, we develop a custom dictionary that enables researchers and practitioners to identify and analyze corporate communication and consumer narratives about environmental, social, and economic sustainability.1 We demonstrate the dictionary’s usefulness through an illustrative application based on data from corporate websites, a leading online marketplace (Amazon), and a major social media platform (YouTube). The results reveal a major divergence in how firms and consumers communicate about sustainability. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section discusses our conceptual model, followed by related research questions. Then, we present the development and application of the custom dictionary, including first insights. We conclude by discussing the implications of this work, including an overview of potential use cases. 2 Sustainability-Related FGC and UGC as a Signaling Phenomenon The conceptual framework that guides our investigation is grounded in signaling theory (Erdem and Swait 1998,2004). Signaling theory, rooted in information economics, posits that markets are characterized by imperfect and asymmetric information (Spence 1974). Consequently, consumers look for signals that convey indirect information about specific market offerings (Erdem and Swait 2004). For example, high prices, strong advertising, wide geographical reach, and generous warranties may signal superior quality (Boulding and Kirmani 1993; Kihlstrom and Riordan 1984; Mandler et al. 2021; Spence 1974). The process of identifying and interpreting these signals is a key part of the customer journey, as consumers engage with different sources of information at different decision-making stages, particularly as they progress from initial awareness to deeper evaluation (Tueanrat et al. 2021). In this context, FGC and UGC serve as important signals that inform potential customers about the sustainability attributes of a brand and its products. On the one hand, firms might actively signal their stance on sustainability in their consumer1We provide our dictionary, collected FGC and UGC data, and the R code for its deployment in a public GitHub repository: https://github.com/nyegoryan/replication-speaking-of-sustainability. K 560 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 facing communication (e.g., on their official websites) to strengthen corresponding brand associations and/or highlight specific sustainable features when presenting their products to consumers (e.g., on online marketplaces like Amazon). On the other hand, firms may act opportunistically by portraying themselves as sustainable without actually operating sustainably. Signaling theory provides a useful lens for understanding both phenomena (Connelly et al. 2011). It helps explain how companies communicate their sustainability efforts, particularly in light of the inherent risk of misleading signals (e.g., “greenwashing”). As Connelly et al. (2011) point out, signals can be either authentic—i.e., accurately reflecting a firm’s genuine actions—or opportunistic—i.e., intended to mislead consumers for competitive advantage. In the context of sustainability, this distinction is crucial: Authentic signals represent real efforts toward sustainable practices (e.g., third-party certifications, transparent reporting); whereas opportunistic signals involve false sustainability claims for marketing purposes (e.g., vague or unverifiable environmental claims, selective disclosure of positive impacts while concealing harmful practices). In terms of UGC, consumers also rely on signals from other consumers, such as product reviews from peers (e.g., Amazon customers) or experts (e.g., influencers on YouTube) (Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006). Consumers tend to perceive such userprovided information as more credible than corporate signals (Cheong and Morrison 2008; Dunn and Harness 2019), despite the prevalence of fake reviews (He et al. 2022). It is also well established that online reviews have a significant impact on measures of firm performance (e.g., Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;Vanaand Lambrecht 2021). This aligns with findings from customer journey research, which emphasize that evaluating claims is not a one-time event but a process requiring multiple interactions across different touchpoints (Tueanrat et al. 2021). Consumers may initially rely on FGC for broad sustainability positioning but often seek verification through UGC before making purchase decisions. In summary, the cost of signaling plays a key role in determining authenticity for both, firms and consumers. When the cost of sending a signal is low (e.g., vague sustainability claims that are difficult to verify for consumers), the risk of misleading signals increases. Thus, firms often adopt labels, certificates, and detailed product descriptions to reinforce the credibility of their sustainability messaging. However, even these signals vary in terms of credence—some aspects can be validated by consumers (e.g., ingredient lists), while others remain unverifiable, requiring consumers to trust the firm or external certifiers. Consequently, from the consumer’s perspective, evaluating signals comes at a cost, particularly in terms of time and effort. Assessing the credibility of a claim requires research, comparison, and a deeper understanding of sustainability standards. Just like firms use costly signals to enhance their reputation, consumers engage in effortful evaluations as a way of signaling their own informed decision-making. In both cases, the cost associated with signaling serves to enhance the sender’s perceived authenticity—whether it is the firm demonstrating its commitment to sustainability or the consumer demonstrating conscious consumption. Figure 1depicts our conceptual model, showing the interactive signaling process between firms and consumers in the context of sustainability-related FGC and UGC. It emphasizes the dynamic feedback loop between firms and consumers, showing K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 561 Fig. 1 Sustainability-related FGC and UGC as a signaling phenomenon. Note: * Signals can also be targeted toward other stakeholders, such as investors and regulators how both parties alternately act as signalers and receivers, thereby creating a continuous flow of information that influences perceptions and decisions. This perspective guides our following investigation of sustainability-related FGC and UGC. At the heart of the model lies the concept of the signal—the primary mechanism through which sustainability-related information is communicated. Signals are encoded and sent by firms and consumers and then received and decoded by their respective audiences. The effectiveness of this process depends not only on the nature of the signal itself but also on certain characteristics of the firm and consumer involved. By considering both firm-generated and user-generated signals, our framework highlights the dynamic exchange of sustainability-related information between firms and consumers, emphasizing the importance of credibility, observability, and interpretation in the signaling process. 2.1 Firm-Generated Content as a Signal 2.1.1 Firms Send Signals to Consumers The sustainability-related signals firms send to consumers can take different forms based on their characteristics, shaping how they are perceived and interpreted by consumers. First, signals may be mandatory or voluntary, depending on whether they are driven by regulatory requirements or by a firm’s commitment to sustainability beyond legal obligations (Rao and Ursu 2025). Mandatory signals arise from K 562 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 governmental regulations or industry standards that require a firm to disclose certain environmental or social impact metrics (Balasubramanian and Cole 2002;Christensen et al. 2021). Examples include legally required carbon emissions reporting, compliance with labor laws, and adherence to minimum sustainability certifications (Christensen et al. 2021). In contrast, voluntary signals—such as publishing detailed sustainability reports following agreed standards (Friske et al. 2022), introducing carbon-neutral product lines (Stokes and Turri 2013), or participating in independent certification programs (Darnall et al. 2018; Christensen et al. 2021; Rao and Ursu 2025)—are often seen as indicators of a firm’s genuine dedication to sustainability (Brown et al. 2009;Friskeetal.2022). Second, firm-generated signals can be authentic or deceptive, influencing consumer trust and brand reputation. Authentic signals align with a firm’s actual sustainability practices, backed by verifiable data and transparent communication (Berrone et al. 2017; Christensen et al. 2021). Companies that genuinely integrate sustainability into their core business strategies—such as using responsibly sourced materials, reducing waste across supply chains, or actively engaging in social responsibility initiatives—are more likely to be perceived as credible (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004). Conversely, deceptive signals involve exaggerating, misrepresenting, or selectively disclosing sustainabilityrelated information (Delmas and Burbano 2011; Berrone et al. 2017). When consumers detect deception, it can severely damage trust (e.g., Chen and Chang 2013), leading to skepticism toward not only the specific claim but also the firm’s brand image as a whole (e.g., Parguel et al. 2011). Third, firm signals vary in focus, being either productor brand-related (Boulding and Kirmani 1993). Product-related signals provide sustainability information at the level of individual products or services, such as the use of organic ingredients, carbon footprint labels, biodegradable packaging, and fair-trade certifications (Parguel et al. 2011; Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). These signals help consumers make informed choices by offering tangible, product-specific sustainability attributes (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014). In contrast, brand-related signals communicate a firm’s general commitment to sustainability (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004). These can include public pledges to achieve net-zero emissions, investments in renewable energy, or companywide policies on ethical labor practices. Together, these signal characteristics define how firms communicate their sustainability efforts, how consumers interpret them, and ultimately, how firms shape their credibility in the sustainability landscape. Consumers Observe and Interpret These Signals Apart from the characteristics of the signal itself, firm-specific factors can also influence the efficacy of the signaling process. First, brand strength may affect how consumers interpret signals. Established brands with a strong market presence are more likely to have their sustainability messages taken seriously, as their reputation serves as an implicit endorsement of credibility (Erdem and Swait 1998,2004). Second, a firm’s sustainability history affects how its signals are received. Signals from firms with a longstanding commitment to sustainability are more likely to be perceived as genuine, wheras those from firms with a weaker track record may face consumer skepticism. K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 563 Finally, the observability and interpretation of signals likely depend on two consumer-specific characteristics. First, consumers with a strong sustainability orientation are more likely to actively seek and prioritize sustainability-related information (White et al. 2019). Second, consumers’ information-seeking behavior plays a role in how they validate and compare signals before making purchasing decisions (Bartschat et al. 2022;Tueanratetal.2021). Because expertise is positively related to information processing diligence (Alba and Hutchinson 1987), we expect those who engage deeply with the topic of sustainability to be more capable of differentiating between credible and non-credible firm-generated signals. 2.2 User-Generated Content as a Signal Consumers Send Signals to Other Consumers and Firms Consumers also act as signalers. They send sustainability-related signals, such as product reviews, to other consumersaswellastofirms(GoldsmithandHorowitz2006; Siering et al. 2018). These consumer-generated signals vary in observability and information richness, two critical characteristics influencing their effectiveness (Connelly et al. 2011). Observability refers to the extent to which other consumers and firms can detect and assess a given signal. Highly observable signals, such as publicly shared product reviews, can reach a broader audience and generate a stronger impact, compared to signals that are less publicly visible (Connelly et al. 2011). Information richness determines how much detail, context, and substantiating evidence a consumer-generated signal contains. Richer signals, such as in-depth product reviews that analyze and compare specific sustainability claims, provide valuable insights that help other consumers and firms make informed decisions (Filieri 2014; Siering et al. 2018). Conversely, vague or ambiguous signals, such as one-line reviews that simply state “eco-friendly” without supporting details, offer limited interpretability and may be less persuasive (Siering et al. 2018). Consequently, high observability and information richness make consumer-generated signals particularly impactful. When UGC is widely visible and well-substantiated, it becomes more difficult for firms to ignore, as other consumers may rely on it in their decision-making. Hence, firms must carefully monitor and respond to these signals. Other Consumers and Firms Observe and Interpret These Signals The quality and credibility of consumer-generated signals depend on two factors. First, consumers with a deeper understanding of sustainability practices can generate highquality signals that inform others about genuine and misleading claims. Their contributions shape how other consumers and firms interpret sustainability-related information (Jiménez and Mendoza 2013; Thomas et al. 2019). Second, a verified purchase history strengthens the credibility of consumer-generated signals. Reviews and feedback from verified buyers tend to be trusted more by fellow consumers and firms seeking authentic insights (He et al. 2020). Both firms and other consumers observe and interpret these consumer-generated signals. Especially firms rely on their internal capabilities to detect, process, and respond to such signals. Two firm-specific factors effectively influence their ability K 564 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 to engage with UGC. First, firms with a strong sustainability orientation are more likely to pay attention to relevant consumer-generated signals and integrate this information into their strategies (Eccles et al. 2014). Second, firms with advanced data analytics capabilities can monitor and analyze UGC more effectively, helping them improve sustainability-related strategies and tactics (Kunz et al. 2016). For example, if a firm detects a growing number of consumers questioning the authenticity of its sustainability claims, it can adjust its messaging, increase transparency, or align the underlying sustainability practices with consumer expectations. 2.3 Next Steps in Sustainability-Related UGC and FGC Research Our conceptual model underscores the theoretical relevance of sustainability-related communication between firms and consumers. While certain aspects, such as participating in independent certification programs (Darnall et al. 2018), are well understood in terms of their effects, many questions remain empirically underexplored. Table 1provides an overview of open research questions that build upon the prior conceptualization. The topics address the main effects of sustainabilityrelated FGC and UGC on a range of outcomes of interest, as well as the attributes that may moderate their impact. Additionally, measuring and comparing the two are important fields for empirical research. For example, future research could explore the impact of different triple bottom line dimensions of FGC on the relevance of sustainability in UGC and how firms can convey their messages more effectively. To this end, studies could compare online communication patterns of products marketed as sustainable versus those that do not determine what communication content and style help managers to influence consumer perceptions and behaviors. We also lack an understanding of the extent to which the detected sustainability-related communication in UGC reflects consumers’ sincere interest in sustainability. Do they really care about sustainability? And does their online chatter translate into actual (sustainable) purchase behavior? Establishing the (non-)existence of a connection between UGC, personal relevance, and actual consumption would be an important and insightful extension of this research. Finally, the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how people search for information, including brandand product-related information. It would be valuable to investigate whether AI-generated summaries of reviews accurately reflect sustainability-related information and to what extent consumers rely on this new feature. Addressing these open empirical research questions will enhance our understanding of the dynamics between FGC and UGC and their roles in shaping corporate communication and consumer behavior regarding sustainability. However, such research requires adequate tools to identify sustainability-related content. Various methods for the analysis of UGC exist (see Baier et al. 2025 in this issue for a review) and some have been applied to the context of sustainability, such as topic modeling for the detection and categorization of sustainability-related communication (Székely and vom Brocke 2017; Maibaum et al. 2024), transformerbased models for the analysis of sustainability discourse in corporate contexts (e.g., ClimateBERT; Bingler et al. 2022), and Large Language Models (LLMs) for perK Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 571 convince consumers to purchase (relative to economic aspects, such as durability, product quality, and repairability). In UGC, economic sustainability dominates: It accounts for 77.35% of sustainability-related keywords in Amazon reviews and 45.45% in YouTube reviews. Environmental sustainability is least discussed (8.55% in Amazon reviews and 15.91% in YouTube reviews), indicating a clear contrast with firm-generated content. Social sustainability ranks second (13.25% in Amazon reviews and 38.64% in YouTube reviews). However, this result should be interpreted with caution, as the limited focus of end consumers’ communication on environmental sustainability does not necessarily imply a lack of concern. Amazon reviews also contain more frequent and varied sustainability-related terms (234 total mentions at 0.33% of content) compared to YouTube (44 mentions at 0.14% of content; see Table 3). Overall, 30 distinct sustainability-related terms appear in Amazon reviews (e.g., “long-lasting”, “durab*”, “reliab*”, “toxic”) versus 17 in YouTube reviews (e.g., “long-lasting”, “toxic”, “safety”). Notably, product category differences persist. While economic sustainability generally dominates in Amazon reviews, multi-purpose cleaners prompt a more balanced discussion across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. In YouTube reviews for these products, environmental and social sustainability dominate, likely reflecting the marketing of multi-purpose cleaners as eco-friendly and safe for consumers—factors that heighten the perceived importance of these dimensions (see Appendix B, Fig. B1). As a robustness check, we also applied GPT models—particularly GPT-4—for zero-shot classification, exploiting their capability to classify text without labeled training data. While labeled datasets exist for corporate reports, they remain scarce for UGC (e.g., customer reviews and social media posts). Although the zero-shot classifier identified more sustainability signals overall, the patterns matched our dictionary-based results (see Appendix B, Table B1). 3.4 Discussion and Limitations This illustrative application showcases how text analysis can be employed to examine sustainability discourse in both FGC and UGC. Using data from corporate websites, Amazon product descriptions, influencer YouTube reviews, and consumer reviews on Amazon, we shed initial light on how environmental, social, and economic sustainability—the triple bottom line dimensions—are communicated across these channels. All dimensions of the triple bottom line are present across channels, underscoring the risk of overlooking key sustainability facets by focusing on a narrower view of sustainability, e.g., exclusively on the environmental aspect. We also observe inconsistencies in FGC: Firms may not adopt a fully integrated sustainability approach and instead adjust their emphasis across different channels. Finally, both firms and consumers appear to prioritize concrete economic and communal (social) benefits over more abstract environmental considerations in purchase-related contexts, as reflected in product descriptions and reviews. K 572 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 Several limitations warrant caution. First, we analyzed a small set of product categories and products, which limits generalizability. Second, like any dictionarybased approach, our method faces the challenge of ensuring complete coverage of relevant keywords. Because we aimed for versatility, we kept our dictionary at a broad level of abstraction. Future research might extend it with context-specific keywords (e.g., ingredients tied to sustainability). Third, dictionary-based methods also involve the risk of not fully accounting for novel or evolving terminology. Thus, our findings are likely conservative. Finally, GPT models for zero-shot classification show promise; however, they still function as “black boxes,” limiting transparency. Without prelabeled data from consumer-facing channels, it is not possible to fully validate this approach. Moreover, zero-shot performance depends on the underlying model’s training, which may introduce bias or inaccuracies if particular topics or demographics are underrepresented in the training data. 4 Managerial Implications Our findings provide first valuable insights into how sustainability is communicated across different channels, highlighting notable differences between FGC and UGC. The empirical application further demonstrates how our specialized dictionary can uncover such differences, enabling firms to better track and understand their sustainability narrative. Table 4presents practical use cases, providing a clear roadmap for firms to effectively incorporate both FGC and UGC sources to inform critical aspects of sustainability management—from tracking consumer perceptions and detecting sustainability credence to forecasting market trends and managing brand reputation. By systematically comparing these two types of data, businesses can identify discrepancies between their sustainability claims (FGC) and consumer feedback (UGC)—potential gaps in credibility that highlight where communication strategies may need refinement. In addition, firms can assess the effectiveness of their sustainability initiatives and enhance transparency. Managers can also harness UGC to identify salient sustainability themes, such as locally sourced goods or zero-waste practices, and align these insights with the firm’s broader sustainability agenda to create more impactful messaging for their target audience. Overall, an integrated framework that combines insights from FGC and UGC equips firms to make data-driven decisions that foster trust and deepen stakeholder engagement. By leveraging these complementary types of data, firms can refine their marketing communication, better align their sustainability efforts with consumer values, and strengthen their position as responsible brands. Embracing both FGC and UGC as complementary content in a structured, analytical manner ultimately provides firms with a pathway to greater authenticity, accountability, and strategic foresight in the evolving sustainability landscape. K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 573 Table 4 FGC and UGC use cases for corporate sustainability insights Categories FGC UGC Consumer perception & brand reputation Compare UGC sentiment with FGC (e.g., sustainability claims on websites or in product descriptions) to detect and address misinformation or inconsistencies before they damage brand credibility. Analyze brand-specific consumer sentiment in UGC to assess public perception of the firm’s sustainability efforts. Sustainability product credibility Compare product-specific UGC with firm-generated sustainability information to assess alignment with stakeholder expectations and identify and address potential gaps, ambiguities, or overstatement. Analyze sustainability-related, product-specific UGC to assess real-world credibility of sustainability statements (discrepancies between a firm’s sustainability claims and customer experiences). Product evaluation & improvement Analyze and compare firms’ product descriptions and sustainability information with UGC to ensure accuracy and identify opportunities for product improvement. Analyze UGC to extract productspecific feedback (e.g., durability, recyclability) based on real-world consumer experience. Marketing communication strategy Compare these insights with a firm’s current sustainability strategies to craft more targeted messages that resonate more effectively with consumers. Analyze UGC to identify sustainability aspects that matter most to consumers (e.g., cruelty-free, locally made, or zero-waste). Market trend monitoring Align emerging sustainability trends with the firm’s product portfolio to guide strategic adjustments and drive innovation. Analyze UGC to identify evolving consumer preferences for sustainable products (e.g., plant-based diets, or zero-waste packaging). 5Conclusion This paper examines how firms and consumers communicate about sustainability by investigating the interplay between FGC and UGC, adopting a triple bottom line perspective. We propose and illustrate a conceptual model grounded in signaling theory, showing how firms and consumers alternately function as both senders and receivers of sustainability-related information. Building on this model, we outline a comprehensive set of open research questions (see Table 1) that emphasize the need for further empirical exploration of how sustainability-oriented FGC and UGC are conveyed and interpreted in modern marketplaces. To support such inquiries, we introduce a specialized dictionary that captures the triple bottom line across various contexts, and allows researchers and practitioners to systematically identify and analyze sustainability signals in both FGC and UGC. Our illustrative application, based on data from corporate websites, Amazon, and YouTube, provides initial insights into notable differences in how firms and consumers address sustainability. It also highlights the importance of adopting a broad, triple bottom line perspective, as narrower definitions risk overlooking essential sustainability themes. In particular, the economic dimension of sustainability—found to be the most prominent topic in UGC in our illustrative application—should not be dismissed, as doing so may result in underestimating consumer interest. K 574 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 With our dictionary and a summary of practical use cases, firms are better equipped to make data-driven decisions and refine their sustainability strategies and communication. Researchers can likewise tailor or expand the dictionary for specialized investigations, from product-level inquiries to broader industry-wide analyses of sustainability communication. Overall, our findings demonstrate the importance of continued research into the framing, interpretation, and impact of sustainability messages across diverse communication channels. A deeper understanding of these processes can help organizations more closely align their practices with stakeholder values and empower consumers to make informed choices. The proposed conceptual model, the specialized dictionary, and related empirical insights aim to foster more data-driven research on sustainability communication and promote increased transparency and alignment among firms, consumers, and other stakeholders. K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 575 6 Appendix 6.1 Appendix A Table A1 Dictionary Keyword Alternative spelling Environmental Dimension Bio degradab* (bio-degradab*, biodegradab*) Carbon emission* (carbon-emission*, carbonemission*) Carbon footprint (carbon-footprint, carbonfootprint) Carbon re* (carbon-re*, carbonre*) Carbon zero (carbon-zero, carbonzero) Chemical free (chemical-free, chemicalfree) Climate – co2 – Disassembl* – Disposab* – Easy to dispose (easy-to-dispose, easytodispose) Eco conscious* (eco-conscious*, ecoconscious*) Eco friendly* (eco-friendly*, ecofriendly*) Electricity consumption (electricity-consumption, electricityconsumption) Electricty use* (electricty-use*, electrictyuse*) Emission* – Energy consumption (energy-consumption, energyconsumption) Energy efficien* (energy-efficien*, energyefficien*) Energy saving* (energy-saving*, energysaving*) Energy use* (energy-use*, energyuse*) Environment protecting (environment-protecting, environmentprotecting) Environmental* – Excessive packag* (excessive-packag*, excessivepackag*) Fewer chemicals (fewer-chemicals, fewerchemicals) Fewer waste (fewer-waste, fewerwaste) Ghg – Green product* (green-product*, greenproduct*) Greenhouse gas* (greenhouse-gas*, greenhousegas*) Less chemical* (less-chemical*, lesschemical*) Less waste (less-waste, lesswaste) Low waste (low-waste, lowwaste) Minimal packag* (minimal-packag*, minimalpackag*) Multi-use – Plastic packag* (plastic-packag*, plasticpackag*) Power consumption (power-consumption, powerconsumption) Re-purposable – Recyclab* – Recyclable packag* (recyclable-packag*, recyclablepackag*) K 576 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 Table A1 (Continued) Keyword Alternative spelling Recycle* – Recycled material* (recycled-material*, recycledmaterial*) Recycled packag* (recycled-packag*, recycledpackag*) Refurb* – Renewable energ* (renewable-energ*, renewableenerg*) Repurposable – Resource efficien* (resource-efficien*, resourceefficien*) Reusab* – Keyword (Alternative spelling) Reuse – Saves energy (saves-energy, savesenergy) Second hand (second-hand, secondhand) Single use (single-use, singleuse) Throwaway – Waste reduc* (waste-reduc*, wastereduc*) Zero carbon (zero-carbon, zerocarbon) Zero waste (zero-waste, zerowaste) Social Dimension *ethic* – *harmful chemical* (*harmful-chemical*, *harmfulchemical*) *hazard* – *toxic* – Accessib* – Ergonomic* – Health* – Non profit (non-profit, nonprofit) Safe to operate (safe-to-operate, safetooperate) Safe to use (safe-to-use, safetouse) Safety – Well being (well-being, wellbeing) Economic Dimension Built to last (built-to-last, builttolast) Durab* – Energy cost* (energy-cost*, energycost*) Good value (good-value, goodvalue) High-quality – Life-span (lifespan) Long lasting (long-lasting, longlasting) Low-quality – Maintain* – Maintenance – Maintenance cost* (maintenance-cost*, maintenancecost*) Modular* – K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 577 Table A1 (Continued) Keyword Alternative spelling Price transparency (price-transparency, pricetransparency) Reliab* – Repair* – Upgradeab* – Value for money (value-for-money, valueformoney) Global Dimension Sustainab* – The asterisk (*) is a truncation symbol to capture multiple word variations 6.2 Appendix B In the following appendix, we present additional findings from our illustrative application (Section 3.3) and from the robustness check using zero-shot classification. Fig. B1 compares the relative frequency of each sustainability dimension with respect to the total number of tokens in text across different product categories. In this figure, the black bar indicates the overall measure (aggregated across all sustainability dimensions), while the colored boxes represent dimension-specific measures. Fig. B2 displays a word cloud of the most frequent dictionary keywords drawn from four content sources—FGC (corporate websites and Amazon product descriptions) and UGC (influencer YouTube videos and Amazon consumer reviews). The four sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, economic, and global) are distinguished by color. Only keywords appearing more than three times are included, and their size corresponds to their absolute frequency across product categories. As a robustness check, we used GPT-4 in a zero-shot classification setting. Specifically, we prompted GPT-4 three separate times—once each for environmental, social, and economic sustainability—by supplying the definition of the relevant sustainability dimension (see Section 3.1). For efficiency, each of the three prompts was run on a batch of 20 sentences. Table B1 presents the comparative results between the zero-shot classifier and our dictionary-based approach. In this table, we report the relative frequency of identified sustainability-related signals for each dimension with respect to (i) all meaningful tokens in the text (excluding stop words, punctuation, etc.) and (ii) all identified sustainability-related signals. For consistency, we recalculated the second measure in our dictionary-based approach to exclude the global dimension, since it was not included in the zero-shot classification. 6.2.1 Prompt You are a text classifier classifying firmand user-generated content in being related or unrelated to environmental sustainability for a research paper, based on Triple Bottom Line (TBL) definition of sustainability. Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. K 578 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 Note: Relative frequencies are computed by dividing the total number of sustainability keywords by number of tokens in text for a specific product category and source. Fig. B1 Relative frequency of sustainability dimension in each product category. Note: Relative frequencies are computed by dividing the total number of sustainability keywords by number of tokens in text for a specific product category and source [For environmental sustainability prompt] Environmental Sustainability refers to the responsible use of resources in products and services by minimizing material and energy consumption, reducing waste and emissions, and prioritizing recyclability and eco-friendly practices. Identify whether environmental sustainability is mentioned in each sentence in a: [For social sustainability prompt] Social Sustainability refers to products and services’ alignment with ethical consumption principles that promote a fair and inclusive society, such as respecting human rights, promoting well-being, and enhancing product accessibility and safety. Identify whether social sustainability is mentioned in each sentence in a: K Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 579 Fig. B2 Frequency of unique terms in FGC and UGC across different channels Table B1 Comparison of zero-shot and dictionary-based approaches Dictionary-based Zero-shot Rel. freq. wrt all tokens Rel. freq. within keywords Rel. freq. wrt all tokens Rel. freq. within keywords FGC: Website Environmental 2.56% 76.16% 3.69% 44.85% Social 0.63% 18.90% 2.70% 32.77% Economic 0.17% 4.93% 1.84% 22.37% Total 3.36% 100.00% 8.23% 100.00% FGC: Amazon Environmental 0.20% 24.05% 0.72% 28.16% Social 0.31% 37.97% 0.65% 25.31% Economic 0.31% 37.97% 1.20% 46.53% Total 0.82% 100.00% 2.57% 100.00% UGC: YouTube Environmental 0.02% 15.91% 0,09% 7.45% Social 0.05% 38.64% 0,14% 12.23% Economic 0.06% 45.45% 0,95% 80.32% Total 0.13% 100.00% 1,18% 100.00% UGC: Amazon Environmental 0.03% 8.62% 0,18% 6.07% Social 0.04% 13.36% 0,18% 6.12% Economic 0.25% 78.02% 2,60% 87.80% Total 0.32% 100.00% 2,96% 100.00% K 580 Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (2025) 77:557–584 [For economic sustainability prompt] Economic Sustainability refers to the economic long-term value that products and services offer through their durability, efficiency, ease of maintenance, repairability, and affordability. Identify whether economic sustainability is mentioned in each sentence in a: a) positive way, b) negative way, c) neither (if unrelated to). Format your response as follows: 1. [a, b, or c], 2. [a, b, or c], etc. Classify each of the following sentences according to the given instructions: 1. [sentence] 2. [sentence] ... 20. [sentence] Supplementary Information The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-02500215-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Funding Funding statement No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Availability of data and material The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study, the developed dictionary, and the R code used for analysis are available in a public GitHub repository: https:// github.com/nyegoryan/replication-speaking-of-sustainability, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Conflict of interest J. Blits, N. Yegoryan, T. Mandler and A.B. Burmester declare that they have no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4. 0/. References Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4):411–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/209080. Atkinson, Lucy, and Sonny Rosenthal. 2014. Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising 43:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834803. Baier, Daniel, Reinhold Decker, and Yana Asenova. 2025. Collecting and analyzing user-generated content for decision support in marketing management: an overview of methods and use cases. Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-025-00208-7. Baier, Philipp, Marc Berninger, and Florian Kiesel. 2020. Environmental, social and governance reporting in annual reports: a textual analysis. Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments 29:93–118. https:// doi.org/10.1111/fmii.12132. Balasubramanian, Siva K., and Catherine Cole. 2002. Consumers’ search and use of nutrition information: the challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. Journal of Marketing 66(3):112–127. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.112.18502. Bartschat, Maria, Gerrit Cziehso, and Thorsten Hennig-Thurau. 2022. Searching for word of mouth in the digital age: determinants of consumers’ uses of face-to-face information, Internet opinion sites, and K