Vale o-Gil, Jesus; Suá ez-Pe ales, Inés; Fe ón-Vílchez, Ve a
A icle
Would you da e a lia ? The impac o g eenwashing on
B2B ela ionships unde he manage ial us iew
BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e ly
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Asociación Cien í ica de Economía y Di ección de Emp esas (ACEDE), Mad id
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Vale o-Gil, Jesus; Suá ez-Pe ales, Inés; Fe ón-Vílchez, Ve a (2025) : Would you
da e a lia ? The impac o g eenwashing on B2B ela ionships unde he manage ial us iew, BRQ
Business Resea ch Qua e ly, ISSN 2340-9444, Sage Publishing, London, Vol. 28, Iss. 3, pp. 731-749,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444241250360
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/327094
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444241250360
Business Resea ch Qua e ly
2025, Vol. 28(3) 731 –749
© The Au ho (s) 2024
A icle euse guidelines:
sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions
DOI: 10.1177/23409444241250360
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/b q
C ea i e Commons Non Comme cial CC BY-NC: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion-NonComme cial 4.0 License (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which pe mi s non-comme cial use,
ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and
Open Access page (h ps://uk.sagepub.com/abou us/openaccess.h m).
In oduc ion
As ecen ly shown by he Co po a e Clima e Responsibili y
Moni o (Day e al., 2023), g eenwashing is a common
business p ac ice in he clima e s a egies o he 24 majo
companies wo ldwide. G eenwashing is unde s ood as a
symbolic s a egy o co po a e selec i e communica ion
whe eby companies disclose posi i e en i onmen al
e o s while hiding nega i e ones o c ea e a misleadingly
good imp ession o o e all en i onmen al pe o mance
(Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Va ied well-known co po a e
scandals in he las decade illus a e his beha io . Fo
ins ance, in July 2021, Syn he ics Anonymous’ epo
(Changing Ma ke s Founda ion, 2021) showed how nea ly
60% en i onmen al claims made by he 50 la ges ashion
b ands, such as H&M, Hugo Boss, o P ima k, we e
“unsubs an ia ed o misleading” o consume s and a e
clea illus a ions o g eenwashing.
The nega i e consequences o hese p ac ices ha e
o ced o ganiza ions and ins i u ions o igh agains hem.
The new Eu opean law p oposal on g een claims is an
example o how ins i u ions a e igh ing agains g een-
washing (Eu opean Commission, 2023). This no ma i e
o ces o ganiza ions o op o c edible and us wo hy
labels and claims. Fu he mo e, in he academic a ena,
schola s ha e a gued ha “g eenwashing is mo e i ulen
han e e . A p o usion o en i onmen al, social, and go -
e nance and ne ze o commi men s a e becoming augh
Would you da e a lia ? The impac
o g eenwashing on B2B ela ionships
unde he manage ial us iew
Jesus Vale o-Gil1,2, Inés Suá ez-Pe ales1,3
and Ve a Fe ón-Vílchez4
Abs ac
G eenwashing can be pe cei ed as dishones beha io ha can h ea en us in business deals due o he cu en end
o an in ensi e sc u iny o sus ainabili y- ela ed messages om o ganiza ions. D awing on he li e a u e conce ning
manage ial us , ou s udy analyzes how pe cei ed g eenwashing nega i ely a ec s business- o-business ela ionships,
ocusing on wo aspec s: (1) whe he manage s’ pe cep ion o g eenwashing is in luenced by unce ain y in he business
decision-making p ocess and (2) whe he indi idual manage cha ac e is ics play a signi ican ole in modula ing his
in luence. We used an expe imen al design in ol ing 125 Spanish manage s o con i m he impo ance o unce ain
scena ios unde he nega i e in luence o g eenwashing on business decision-making p ocess. The indings also con i m
ha his nega i e in luence is in ensi ied by manage s’ cha ac e is ics in e ms o isk a e sion and he impo ance hey
place on co po a e epu a ion. The s udy makes se e al con ibu ions o academia and p ac i ione s by ad ancing he
unde s anding o g eenwashing in he con ex o business- o-business ela ionships.
JEL CLASSIFICATION: M100; M140; M210
Keywo ds
G eenwashing, manage s, co po a e epu a ion, isk a e sion, us , unce ain y
1Depa men o Managemen , Uni e si y o Za agoza, Za agoza, Spain
2ENERGAIA Ins i u e, Uni e si y o Za agoza, Za agoza, Spain
3 Ins i u e on Employmen , Digi al Socie y and Sus ainabili y, Za agoza,
Spain
4Depa men o Business Managemen II, Uni e si y o G anada,
G anada, Spain
Co esponding au ho :
Ve a Fe ón-Vílchez, Depa men o Business Managemen II, Facul y o
Economics and Business, Uni e si y o G anada, Campus Ca uja S/N,
18071 G anada, Spain.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
1250360BRQ0010.1177/23409444241250360BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e lyVale o-Gil e al.
esea ch-a icle2024
Regula Pape
732 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
wi h ques ionable and misleading claims” (Mon gome y e
al., 2023, p. 1) and mo e esea ch is needed, as “ his opic
emains in i s in ancy” (Pizze i e al., 2021, p. 21).
The e o e, g eenwashing is a opical issue, which is in he
spo ligh o p ac i ione s, ins i u ions, and academics.
Un il now, schola s ha e mainly analyzed g eenwash-
ing’s nega i e e ec s in h ee di e en domains (Ma quis
e al., 2016). Fi s , he e is conside able e idence abou he
nega i e e ec s o g eenwashing as a ma ke ing s a egy
(in business- o-consume con ex ) on inal consume s’
pe cep ions and ai h (e.g., Guo e al., 2018; Jahdi &
Acikdilli, 2009; Szabo & Webs e , 2021; Wu e al., 2020).
Second, schola s ha e also ocused on he in e nal e ec s
o co po a e-le el g eenwashing (Bowen, 2014; Lyon &
Mon gome y, 2015), de ec ing some mechanisms ha gen-
e a e a loss o con idence among employees (Walke &
Wan, 2012) and in es o s (Pain e -Mo land, 2006; Pizze i
e al., 2021; Yu e al., 2020). Thi d, wi h sca ce e idence,
ad e se and ex e nal e ec s o co po a e-le el g eenwash-
ing on business- o-business (B2B) ela ionships, including
hose wi h supplie s, clien s, s a egic alliances, and pa -
ne ships, ha e been iden i ied. S udies o his hi d ca e-
go y ha e shown ha g eenwashing could be ejec ed by
B2B pa ne s due o hei lack o social desi abili y
(Fe ón-Vílchez e al., 2021; To elli e al., 2020), he epu-
a ion loss o g eenwashe s (Be one e al., 2017; Boi al e
al., 2017), and he in ec ion isk o main ain ela ionships
wi h g eenwashe s (Yang e al., 2020).
E en hough hese s udies ha e ad ised companies
agains he use o g eenwashing, i con inues o be a com-
mon p ac ice (Day e al., 2023). Indeed, a g owing amoun
o con o e sies a e su ounding g eenwashing, such as
co po a e epu a ion p oblems as a consequence o col-
labo a ing wi h suspicious g eenwashe s (Yang e al.,
2020), di icul ies in de ec ing g eenwashing (Gossel e
al., 2019) and, in gene al, he need o elimina ing he
mechanisms ha de e io a e us among di e en s ake-
holde s (Pain e -Mo land, 2006; Pizze i e al., 2021;
Walke & Wan, 2012; Yu e al., 2020). These calls on he
nega i e consequences o he g eenwashing highligh ha
i is a phenomenon ha equi es u he esea ch, espe-
cially because g eenwashing ep esen s an undesi able
ou come ha has usual adop ion.
The consequences o g eenwashing is a opic ha is
al eady a an ad anced le el o s udy in he academic li -
e a u e. Howe e , despi e much e idence abou g een-
washing’s ad e se e ec s in p io li e a u e, less is known
abou i s o igin, pa icula ly conce ning manage s’ B2B
decision-making (Fe ón-Vílchez e al., 2021; To elli e
al., 2020). Now i is essen ial o analyze in dep h he ea-
sons o he exis ence o his phenomenon on manage ial
decision-making. We conside ha us is one o he al-
ues ha g eenwashing and manage ial decision-making
ha e in common. Thus, ou s udy’s no el y is ha i
a emp s o answe he ollowing esea ch ques ion: Wha
ac o s in luence manage s’ lack o us in a business pa -
ne pe o ming g eenwashing?
A his poin , i is impo an o no e ha ou s udy is
ocused on co po a e-le el g eenwashing, as he analysis
o consequences o g eenwashing in B2B ela ionships
could di e om hose in B2C ma ke s, a ending o he
main di e ences be ween decision-make s in bo h en i-
onmen s. Fo example, a consume will s op buying a
p oduc i he manu ac u ing company is ound o be lying
abou i s en i onmen al cha ac e is ics. A he same ime, a
manage migh main ain a business ela ionship wi h a
g eenwashe pa ne o he sake o p o i . Thus, he
s udy’s main objec i e is o shed ligh on he mechanisms
ha could explain how pe cei ed g eenwashing a ec s
manage s’ decision-making ela ed o s a ing o main ain-
ing B2B ela ionships.
D awing upon manage ial us li e a u e, in pa icula
on he app oaches o he s a egic cogni ion heo y and
he expec a ion con i ma ion heo y, we del e in o he
knowledge o co po a e g eenwashing by s udying some
ac o s a ec ing manage s’ pe cep ion o his phenome-
non ha in luence he esul s o B2B ela ionships.
G eenwashing is in e ela ed o us , as us is damaged
when a decep i e beha io is unco e ed (Chen e al.,
2019; Chen & Chang, 2013). Thus, manage ial us
could be especially a ec ed by he disappoin men gene -
a ed by g eenwashing.
In de ail, we explo e he e ec s o unce ain y and h ee
indi idual ac o s ela ed o manage ial us in B2B ela-
ions such as manage s’ p opensi y o us , isk a e sion,
and he impo ance o co po a e epu a ion. We selec
hese ac o s due o hei special ela ion o manage ial
us models, which explain he acili a o s o isk- aking,
con idence, and eliabili y in decision-making (Maye e
al., 1995). In pa icula , we analyze hese e ec s using an
expe imen al design in ol ing 125 Spanish manage s
om medium and la ge companies.
We con ibu e new insigh s o he cu en deba e on
g eenwashing in di e en ways. F om a heo e ical pe -
spec i e, we explo e he ac o s unde g eenwashing
ad e se e ec s in B2B si ua ions, aking no el y ad an-
age o he manage ial us heo e ical app oach. Thus, we
ex end he cu en knowledge on g eenwashing down o
he le el o manage s and hei indi idual cha ac e is ics
(Aguinis & Gla as, 2012). This con ibu ion is pa icula ly
ele an o p ac i ione s as i sheds ligh on he unex-
plo ed impac o g eenwashing on in insic B2B ai s
based on us and he unde lying ac o s unde hese
e ec s. Also, i u ges policymake s abou he need o
e ec i e egula o y measu es in his ega d.
F om a me hodological iew, we de elop an expe imen-
al design in ol ing 125 Spanish manage s, esponding o
he call o addi ional empi ical e idence in co po a e sus-
ainabili y li e a u e, using his echnique, which is popula
in many disciplines, bu no equen ly in managemen
Vale o-Gil e al. 733
(Delmas & A agon-Co ea, 2016). Expe imen wi h eal
manage s’ esponses is one o he mos sui able me hods o
es manage ial pe cep ions and decisions in he highly
complex en i onmen o g eenwashing, which would gua -
an ee he causali y o he ela ionships s udied (Fe ón-
Vílchez e al., 2021; Pizze i e al., 2021; To elli e al.,
2020). In addi ion, his app oach enables us o ocus on
B2B ela ionships by analyzing manage s’ pe cep ions who
c ea e, manage, and ake back hese ela ions based on hei
own beha io .
We ha e s uc u ed his wo k in o i e sec ions. Fi s ,
we p esen a heo e ical e iew on g eenwashing unde he
manage ial us iew. Second, we discuss how unce -
ain y, isk a e sion, he p opensi y o us , and he impo -
ance o epu a ion impac he manage ’s willingness o
deal wi h a g eenwashe . Thi d, ou empi ical app oach is
p esen ed. Fou h, esul s a e explained and, inally, we
p esen a discussion o ou indings and hei implica ions
a guing p io esea ch.
Theo e ical backg ound
In hei heo e ical e iew o he means, d i e s, ac o s,
and end o g eenwashing, Lyon and Mon gome y (2015, p.
226) concluded ha “g eenwashing is used o co e any
communica ion ha misleads people in o adop ing o e ly
posi i e belie s abou an o ganiza ion’s en i onmen al pe -
o mance, p ac ices, o p oduc s.” When one subjec in en-
ionally misleads ano he , us be ween hem de e io a es
o may e en disappea . As ou ocus is o analyze how
g eenwashing in luences manage ial decision-making, we
heo e ically ame he concep o g eenwashing as an ac
o (in e pe sonal) us in business ela ionships.
T us has been ecu en ly analyzed by s udies on con-
sume beha io (Chen & Chang, 2013), o ganiza ion he-
o y (Maye e al., 1995), and business ela ionships (Shah
& Swamina han, 2008; Te wiesch e al., 2005).
G eenwashing ac i i ies igge he indi idual mechanisms
o con usion, skep icism, and pe cei ed isk (Aji &
Su ikno, 2015; Chen & Chang, 2013), concep s ha a e
p esen in business and in e pe sonal ela ionships and ha
could be ay us (Chen & Chang, 2013; Chen e al.,
2019).
The o ganiza ional us model o Maye e al. (1995)
indica es no only he impo ance o he us o cha ac e -
is ics (e.g., p opensi y o us ) bu also he ole o isk and
con ex whe e he ac o us akes place. O he s udies
ha e shown ha us is an essen ial ac o o co po a e
coope a ion (Shah & Swamina han, 2008; Te wiesch e al.,
2005). Fo ins ance, Shah and Swamina han (2008)
hypo hesized ha us is he mos c ucial ac o in luenc-
ing pa ne selec ion in s a egic alliances. This ma u e
hinking leads us o he analysis o g eenwashing unde he
manage ial us pe spec i e, conside ing us and g een-
washing a he indi idual le el (Aguinis & Gla as, 2012),
ha is, h ough manage ial pe cep ions.
In managemen li e a u e, se e al heo e ical ames a e
based on how manage ial pe cep ions in luence s a egic
choices (Na ayanan e al., 2011). On he one hand, s a e-
gic cogni ion heo y analyzes how decision-making is ca -
ied ou in a managemen p ocess. Cogni i e s uc u es a e
especially ele an du ing he decision-making p ocess as
hey conside how manage s il e in o ma ion, analyze
al e na i es, and in e p e s a egic p oblems du ing he
decision-making p ocess (Bundy e al., 2013; No heim-
Hansen, 2015). The e o e, he in o ma ion pe cei ed in he
decision-making p ocess, as well as he us exis ing
be ween he pa ies in ol ed, plays a e y ele an ole in
his heo e ical app oach. I is because o he abo e a gu-
men s ha s a egic cogni ion heo y is an app op ia e
amewo k wi h which o analyze g eenwashing a he
indi idual le el, because g eenwashing la gely depends on
he eyes o he beholde , ha is, a i m canno be a g een-
washe i i is no conside ed o pe cei ed as such by a
hi d pa y (Seele & Ga i, 2017). Fo his eason, g een-
washing depends mainly on how i is pe cei ed, ha is, on
cogni i e s uc u es.
On he o he hand, he expec a ion con i ma ion heo y
(Oli e , 1980) a gues ha i he ou comes o some expe i-
ences do no coincide wi h he ini ial expec a ions (e.g.,
because he pe o mance was lowe han expec ed), a
deg ee o dissa is ac ion eme ges. Kim (2019) p o ed his
heo y on consume s’ esponse o g eenwashing, which
could be ex apola ed o o he s akeholde s in a business
ela ionship en i onmen , such as comme cial pa ne s,
supplie s, o e en public ins i u ions. An icipa ing his si -
ua ion o a B2B ela ionship, i a pa u ns ou o be a
g eenwashe , he e will be an inc ease in dissa is ac ion
because ini ial expec a ions a e no con i med inc easing
he likelihood ha he ela ionship will b eak down.
We conside ha hese wo heo e ical pe spec i es a e
in ima ely ela ed o manage ial us because he expec a-
ion o he esul s o a business ela ionship be ween a
company and i s s akeholde is de e mined by manage ial
pe cep ion o us . Manage s end o assess and in e p e
he in o ma ion a ailable o hem o decision-making,
based on which hey gene a e en i onmen al expec a ions
ela ed o a business ela ionship (Siano e al., 2017), and
hese expec a ions end o be a ec ed by hei le el o us
in he hi d pa y. In he nex sec ion, we explain se e al
ac o s ha could signi ican ly in luence he le el o us
in a B2B ela ionship, p ecisely he deg ee o ce ain y
abou he achie emen o bene i s, he p opensi y o us ,
he isk a e sion le el, and he impo ance ha manage s
place on epu a ion.
Hypo heses de elopmen
G eenwashing and unce ain y
Unce ain y in a business ela ionship is he lack o com-
ple e knowledge ega ding he ou comes o esul s o a
734 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
pa icula ac ion o decision (Gige enze & B igh on,
2009; Si kin & Pablo, 1992), such as economic gains, e i-
ciency imp o emen , new p oduc o se ice de elopmen ,
ma ke expansion, esou ce sha ing, and knowledge ans-
e . In his ega d, business ela ionships a e inhe en ly
unce ain, as hey in ol e mul iple ex e nal ac o s, such
as ma ke condi ions, economic policies, and echnologi-
cal changes, among o he s, ha can impac hese ela ion-
ship’s ou comes (Ganesan, 1994).
Resea ch has shown ha us can acili a e isk- aking
by educing unce ain y and inc easing con idence in he
eliabili y and compe ence o o he s (Maye e al., 1995;
Mish a, 1996). Based on ou heo e ical concep o g een-
washing as an ac o (in e pe sonal) us in business ela-
ionships, being in a scena io o unce ain y, wi h unce ain
economic esul s, could a ec he comme cial ela ion-
ship, us in he common business, and pe cep ion o a
manage owa d his o he comme cial pa ne in case he
la e ca ies ou g eenwashing.
Sha ma e al. (2007) showed ha a i m’s en i onmen al
s a egy could help dec ease he e ec o unce ain y in
s a egic decision-making, he eby inc easing he use o
implici ela ionships be ween pa ies. In his ega d, some
schola s, such as Fe ón-Vílchez e al. (2021), ha e shown
ha manage ial decision-making could be in luenced by
he disclosu e o he en i onmen al s a egy o he o he
pa y in a business ela ionship, especially when g een-
washing exis s. When a manage pe cei es ha one s ake-
holde is a g eenwashe , i a ec s he decision on whe he
o es ablish (o no ) business ela ionships wi h ha s ake-
holde . In his way, i g eenwashing is con i med o exis ,
he eby iola ing he us , he ela ionship can esul in
nega i e ou comes such as a dec ease in he willingness o
engage in u u e ansac ions (Moo man e al., 1993). In
his sense, we a gue ha pe cei ing g eenwashing has a
nega i e impac on us and willingness o engage in u u e
ansac ions may be educed. Thus, we hypo hesize:
Hypo hesis 1 (H1). Pe cei ed g eenwashing has a nega-
i e e ec on a manage ’s willingness o deal wi h a
g eenwashe .
As men ioned ea lie , us is a key ac o in business
ela ionships in scena ios o unce ain y, ha is, in si ua-
ions in which he economic esul s depend on a iables
ou o con ol o he in ol ed pa ies (Doney & Cannon,
1997). Howe e , he ole o us will no be as ele an in
business ela ionships wi h a scena io o ce ain y
(B amme e al., 2012), ha is, in which he economic
esul s a e gua an eed.
Occasionally, he e may be business ela ionships
whe e he esul s o his collabo a ion may be gua an eed
o highly p edic able. This may be as a esul o a p e ious
collabo a i e ela ionship, such as a long his o y o elia-
ble esul s, o due o con ac ual clauses o ag eemen s,
such as anchise ag eemen s o long- e m sales. I he e
a e ce ain y esul s as he men ioned ones, he impac o
he iola ion o us may be less signi ican (B amme e
al., 2012). Tha is, in he so-called ce ain esul scena ios,
he impac o he b each o us due o he pe cep ion o
g eenwashing will be less han in he scena ios wi h unce -
ain esul s. In his case, he pa ies may be mo e willing o
con inue he B2B ela ionship, e en i hey a e no en i ely
su e abou he o he pa y’s hones y in en i onmen al
e ms.
Schola s ha e shown e idence in his ega d. Fo exam-
ple, Liao e al. (2017) ound ha when a supplie engaged
in oppo unis ic beha io , such as dishones y, bu s ill
deli e ed high-quali y p oduc s, he le el o us be ween
he buye and supplie was s ill posi i ely ela ed o he
buye ’s sa is ac ion and willingness o con inue he B2B
ela ionship. The e o e, i can be a gued ha while us is
c ucial in unce ain si ua ions, i may no be as impo an
when dealing wi h known esul s. Thus, we hypo hesize:
Hypo hesis 2 (H2). The manage ’s willingness o deal
wi h a g eenwashe is less a ec ed by pe cei ed g een-
washing in he scena io o ce ain y han in scena io o
unce ain y.
G eenwashing and manage ial us
Maye e al.’s (1995) us model showed se e al ac o s
ha ha e a signi ican in luence on he o ganiza ional us
ela ionship and ha a e connec ed o he no ion o g een-
washing, speci ically he us o ’s p opensi y o us and
pe cei ed isk in business con ex s. We conside ha , in
addi ion o hese wo ac o s, a hi d ac o is needed o
complemen he us -based causes ha a ec , a he indi-
idual le el, business ela ionships when one o he pa ies
in ol ed in he ela ionship engages in g eenwashing
ac i i ies. This ac o is he impo ance a manage a ib-
u es o co po a e epu a ion.
A i m’s epu a ion is c i ical in building us wi h
di e en s akeholde s, and nega i e in o ma ion abou i s
epu a ion can signi ican ly educe s akeholde s’ us
(Kim, 2019; No heim-Hansen, 2015). As g eenwashing
can be seen as an a emp o mislead abou a i m’s en i-
onmen al p ac ices (Seele & Ga i, 2017), i can po en-
ially damage a i m’s epu a ion i unco e ed/ ound/
disco e ed. As hese h ee ac o s a e impo an , we p o-
ide below explana ions o hei in luence on us in B2B
ela ionships indi idually.
G eenwashing and p opensi y o us . T us is no a one-
sided cha ac e is ic: bo h pa ies in a business ela ionship
mus be willing o us each o he (Gula i, 1995). Thus, i
is impo an o analyze he p opensi y o us o indi idu-
als in ol ed in a business ela ionship, ha is, he ex en o
which an indi idual is mo e o less us ing. Ro e (1967,
Vale o-Gil e al. 735
p. 651) de ined in e pe sonal us as “an expec ancy held
by an indi idual o a g oup ha he wo d, p omise, e bal
o w i en s a emen o ano he indi idual o g oup can be
elied upon.” Fu he mo e, Maye and Da is (1999, p.
124) a gued ha “a us o will be willing o be ulne able
o ano he pa y based bo h on he us o ’s p opensi y o
us o he people in gene al, and on he us o ’s pe cep-
ion ha he pa icula us ee is us wo hy.”
We ex apola ed his a ionale o he con ex o g een-
washing, in e p e ing ha he mo e suscep ible he man-
age is o us , he mo e he nega i e e ec s o
g eenwashing on he willingness o deal wi h a g een-
washe . Decision-make s wi h a high p opensi y o us
could eel mo e chea ed and damaged when hey pe cei e
he exis ence o g eenwashing in hei coun e pa s. In his
sense, s udies based on consume s’ us on In e ne se -
ice p o ide s ha e shown ha us has signi ican
impac s on decision-make s’ epu chase decision (e.g.,
Kim e al., 2009; Rahi e al., 2021; Videlaine & Sca ingella,
2019). Fo ins ance, Rahi e al. (2021) ound ha , o e ain
cus ome s, in o ma ion echnology-based se ice p o id-
e s should conside ha us boos s use in en ion owa d
con inued use o online banking se ices. These ideas in
he e-comme ce con ex could be easily ans e ed o
en i onmen al managemen issues as, in bo h cases, deci-
sion-make s (i.e., consume s o manage s) ha e o us
olun a y ools (i.e., online apps o en i onmen al ini ia-
i es) ha p oduce in angible esul s (i.e., i ual se ices
o en i onmen al pe o mance).
In addi ion, i is essen ial o conside ha he deg ee o
unce ain y in decision-making de e mines he deg ee o
us ’s necessi y (Zand, 1972). In si ua ions o high unce -
ain y, indi iduals’ p opensi y o us can a ec he le el
o us de eloped in a ela ionship and he subsequen ou -
comes (Doney & Cannon, 1997). Howe e , when ou -
comes a e ce ain/assu ed, he impo ance o us may
dec ease and o he ac o s such as social no ms, legi i-
macy, o compliance wi h legal equi emen s may play a
mo e signi ican ole (Maye e al., 1995). Thus, while
us is c ucial in unce ain si ua ions, i may no be as
impo an when dealing wi h assu ed ou comes. Thus, we
hypo hesize:
Hypo hesis 3 (H3). The nega i e e ec o pe cei ed
g eenwashing on a manage ’s willingness o deal wi h
a g eenwashe is s onge in he p esence o g ea e
le els o p opensi y o us and only in he unce ain y
scena io.
G eenwashing and isk a e sion. Risk a e sion, de ined as
he opposi e o he willingness o ake isks (Cable &
Judge, 1994; Judge e al., 1999), is associa ed wi h a deci-
sion-make ’s secu i y (Judge e al., 1999), which can be
subs i u ed h ough us ela ionships (Schoo man e al.,
2007). Resea ch has shown ha indi iduals wi h high
le els o isk a e sion may be less willing o engage in
isky business en u es. Fo ins ance, Fellne and Macie-
jo sky (2007) epo ed a nega i e ela ion be ween isk
a e sion and ma ke ac i i y— he highe he deg ee o isk
a e sion, he lowe he ma ke ac i i y in e ms o con-
cluding ades. Sha ma and Ta p (2018) demons a ed ha
isk a e sion p edic s lowe e enue g ow h and posi i ely
co ela es wi h i ms adop ing sa e y measu es.
Risk a e sion is also c ucial in accep ing o ejec ing
business collabo a ions (Azzone e al., 1997). Fo exam-
ple, S ad le and Lin (2017) a gued ha in unce ain sce-
na ios i ms managed by isk-a e se indi iduals a e less
willing o s a collabo a ing p ojec s han i ms managed
by isk lo e s. In he case o g eenwashing, Fe ón-Vílchez
e al. (2021) conclude ha manage s’ s a egic esponse o
g eenwashe s is o ejec possible collabo a ions wi h hem
since he pe cei ed isk o his ype o pa ne s is highe . In
his sense, isk a e sion is ansla ed in o a lowe disposi-
ion o ca y ou comme cial ela ions wi h hese pa ne s
since he lack o us is no bu e ing he e ec o lowe
le els o secu i y o hese collabo a ions, gi en he unce -
ain y in ol ed (Judge e al., 1999; Schoo man e al.,
2007).
Howe e , i is essen ial o ema k ha isk a e sion is
conside ed ele an in si ua ions whe e ou comes a e
unce ain (Kogu & Kula ilaka, 1994). Indi iduals who a e
mo e isk a e se end o be mo e cau ious in hei business
dealings and may equi e g ea e le els o eassu ance
be o e commi ing o a pa ne ship (Makadok, 2001),
which is no equi ed i ou comes a e ce ain. O e all, he
deg ee o us needed o balance ou isk a e sion e ec s
may depend on he le el o unce ain y, leading o a g ea e
need o us in si ua ions wi h highe le els o unce ain y
(Lewicki & Bunke , 1996). The e o e, in B2B ela ion-
ships unde ce ain scena ios, isk a e sion may no be a
key ac o in decision-making, and in consequence, us is
no called o ac . Thus,
Hypo hesis 4 (H4). The nega i e e ec o pe cei ed
g eenwashing on a manage ’s willingness o deal wi h a
g eenwashe is s onge in he p esence o g ea e le els
o isk a e sion and only in he unce ain y scena io.
G eenwashing and epu a ion. Co po a e epu a ion is
de ined as “a pe cep ual ep esen a ion o a company’s
pas ac ions and u u e p ospec s ha desc ibe he i m’s
appeal o all o i s key cons i uen s” (Fomb un, 1996, p.
165). No heim-Hansen (2015, p. 814), who explo ed how
en i onmen al epu a ion could in luence us in o ming
s a egic alliances, concep ualized en i onmen al epu a-
ion as “ he le el o en i onmen al c edibili y a ibu ed o
a i m by i s s akeholde s.” Kim (2019) ound ha , o
consume s, mo e us in a i m’s co po a e social espon-
sibili y commi men leads o a mo e posi i e pe cei ed
epu a ion.
736 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
In explo ing he impo ance o co po a e epu a ion,
Keh and Xie (2009) showed ha , in he p esence o mis-
akes o scandals, i ms wi h posi i e co po a e epu a ion
su e mo e han hose wi h poo epu a ion owing o he
e ec om discon i ma ion (i.e., expec a ions we e highe
han he ac ual esul s). Rela ed o co po a e scandals,
g eenwashing can be conside ed a epu a ion-damaging
e en , exposing companies o signi ican epu a ional isk
(Coombs & Holladay, 2015; Ga ze , 2015; Siano e al.,
2017). Thus, an indi idual who highly alues co po a e
epu a ion will be less willing o es ablish business ela-
ionships wi h a g eenwashe because, i he g eenwashe
is disco e ed (Seele & Ga i, 2017), he decision-make
migh eel ha his o he i m would, in one way o ano he ,
be ain ed o implica ed (Yang e al., 2020). The e o e, due
o a g eenwashing scandal, he co po a e image o di e -
en business pa ne s could be ad e sely a ec ed, and his
would nega i ely a ec he co po a e epu a ion. This si u-
a ion is closely ela ed o he con agion e ec (Siano e al.,
2017; Ska meas & Leonidou, 2013). “The con agion e ec
o being linked o a g eenwashe could be in e p e ed as a
nega i e mo i a ion by manage s, because i could ha m
he ela ed i m’s epu a ion” (Fe ón-Vílchez e al., 2021,
p. 863).
I is wo h men ioning ha he impo ance o epu a ion
is only ele an in unce ain y scena ios because he po en-
ial o nega i e ou comes exis s (Rindo a & Fomb un,
1999). In unce ain scena ios, a company’s good epu a-
ion se es as a signal o hei us wo hiness and eliabil-
i y, p o iding a le el o assu ance o manage s in hei
decision-making p ocess and educing asymme ic in o -
ma ion (Fomb un & Shanley, 1990). In si ua ions wi h ce -
ain y, he impo ance o epu a ion may diminish, as
p edic able esul s elimina e he isks associa ed wi h he
business ela ionship esul s. Thus, when unce ain y
exis s, manage s who place a high alue on epu a ion may
decide no o engage wi h a g eenwashing i m. Hence, we
hypo hesize:
Hypo hesis 5 (H5). The nega i e e ec o pe cei ed
g eenwashing on he willingness o deal wi h a g een-
washe is s onge in he p esence o g ea e le els o
impo ance o epu a ion and only in he unce ain y
scena io.
Figu e 1 summa izes ou heo e ical model p esen ed in
his sec ion.
Me hods
Expe imen al design and p ocedu e
We designed a be ween-subjec s ield expe imen wi h ou
expe imen al g oups o es ou hypo heses. Gi en ou ocus
on manage ial pe cep ions and beha io s, his me hodology
o e s i e u able bene i s and posi i e implica ions o his
analysis (Delmas & A agon-Co ea, 2016). We used
Qual icsTM o expe imen managemen and pa icipan s’
in ol emen . We in o med he pa icipan s ha we had
esea ch in e es in hei pe sonal eac ions when hey a e
aced wi h ce ain in o ma ion abou a i m. They we e also
in o med ha hey would be equi ed o answe some ques-
ions. The expe imen al design in ol ed comple ing ou
s eps. Fi s , we collec ed da a h ough an ini ial ques ion-
nai e om pa icipan s on con ounding a iables and he
in o ma ion needed o measu e hei p opensi y o us , isk
a e sion, and epu a ion a i udes as ecommended by p e i-
ous s udies (e.g., Cas añeda-Ga cía e al., 2020).
Second, we andomly assigned all pa icipan s o one o
he ou expe imen al g oups, exposing hem o di e en
s imuli h ough a i m’s websi e and some ela ed media
in o ma ion. Thi d, we asked he pa icipan s o espond o
he ques ionnai e o con i m he s imuli ecep ion wi h
some manipula ion checks. They we e also asked abou
hei pe cep ions and willingness o main ain business
ela ionships wi h he i m p esen ed in he ea men .
Finally, hey we e eques ed o p o ide some sociodemo-
g aphic in o ma ion.
Pa icipan s and sample
Ou inal sample included 125 manage s om medium and
la ge Spanish i ms. Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed h ough a
ep esen a i e (on size and indus ies) panel o Spanish
manage s. Owing o he andom pa icipan s’ assignmen
and he measu es applied o gua an ee he quali y o he
inal answe s, he numbe o cases in each ea men g oup
anged om 30 o 32. Table 1 shows he desc ip i e s a is-
ics o he pa icipan s and he companies hey se e.
All pa icipan s we e in o med abou he esea ch aims
o he expe imen and he da a p o ec ion and p i acy
policy. They p o ided hei in o med consen o hei
anonymous pa icipa ion in he s udy and we e ully
deb ie ed a he end o he s udy. We also consul ed he
e hical commi ee and pe sonal da a p o ec ion o ice o
he uni e si ies in ol ed in he expe imen design. The
app o ing bodies con i med ha he design was in acco d-
ance wi h he p i acy and e hical s anda ds wi hou any
con lic o in e es .
Measu es
S imulus de elopmen . S imulus de elopmen is a c ucial
aspec o social expe imen a ion, as i in ol es c ea ing
and e ining s imuli used o elici pa icipan s’ pe cep ions
o he phenomenon collec ed by he main a iable o in e -
es , g eenwashing1 in his case. In iew o he o iginal di -
e en ia ed cha ac e is ics o g eenwashing p esen ed by
Delmas and Bu bano (2011), we ollowed Fe ón-Vilchez
e al. (2021) o cons uc ou s imulus as a combina ion o
Vale o-Gil e al. 737
en i onmen al pe o mance and en i onmen al co po a e
communica ion manipula ion.
This combina ion o posi i e e sus poo en i onmen-
al pe o mance and en i onmen al e sus gene al com-
munica ion esul ed in ou ea men g oups (Figu e 2):
(1) G eenwashing (GW) in ol es poo pe o mance and
en i onmen al communica ion; (2) B ownwashing (BW)
equi es posi i e pe o mance and gene al communica-
ion; (3) G eenes (GR) equi es posi i e pe o mance and
en i onmen al communica ion; and (4) Passi is (PS)
equi es poo pe o mance and gene al communica ion.
Ou main a ge g oup was GW, while BW, GR, and PS
ac ed as con ol g oups in ou analysis o g eenwashing
manage ial eac ions o isola e o he e ec s ela ed o
en i onmen al pe o mance o communica ion.
We ope a ionalized his manipula ion h ough a ic i-
ious chemical Spanish i m, Ni achemical, o elude any
bias in e ms o p e ious pe sonal opinions and pe cep-
ions (de V ies e al., 2015; Nyilasy e al., 2014; Pa guel e
al., 2011). On co po a e communica ion, ollowing he
ecommenda ions o Pa guel e al. (2011) on he use o a
websi e in e ace in expe imen al designs, we c ea ed wo
e sions o a Ni achemical webpage o manipula e co po-
a e communica ion. We c ea ed an en i onmen al mes-
sage using a ypical in e ace o a co po a e webpage in
bo h e sions bu including a clea en i onmen al message
in he i m’s mission, ision, and alues and using en i on-
men al- ela ed images and design o he en i onmen al
e sion o he webpage.
On en i onmen al pe o mance, we elied on Nyilasy
e al. (2014), who cons uc ed posi i e and nega i e en i-
onmen al pe o mance e en s in e ms o w i en cases.
Then, simila o p io s udies on expe imen al design
(Nyilasy e al., 2014; Pa guel e al., 2011), we c ea ed wo
ic i ious media news abou an en i onmen al awa d o
manipula e he posi i e/poo en i onmen al pe o mance:
one o hem na a ing ha Ni achemical won an en i on-
men al awa d based on i s posi i e en i onmen al pe o -
mance (Pa guel e al., 2011) and he o he na a ing ha i
did no win he en i onmen al awa d speci ically due o
i s nega i e en i onmen al pe o mance. A copy o media
news (including hei ansla ion) and Ni andalsa web-
page ha e been added o he Supplemen a y Ma e ial ile
o cla i y how we p esen ed he s imuli o he pa icipan s
du ing he expe imen .
A e he ea men phase, we included ou i ems in he
ques ionnai e con i ming he planned s imulus ecep ion
in e ms o bo h en i onmen al pe o mance and en i on-
men al communica ion as he i s manipula ion check.
The ques ionnai e also included eigh i ems adap ed om
Leonidou and Ska meas (2017) o measu ing pe cei ed
g eenwashing as he second manipula ion check, o gua -
an ee he sui abili y o he expe imen al design. Table 2
shows he i ems included in he ques ionnai e o con i m-
ing he s imulus ecep ion and measu ing he pe cei ed
le el o g eenwashing. I ems we e sco ed using a 7-poin
Like - ype scale whe e 1 = o ally disag ee and 7 = o ally
ag ee wi h he sen ence p esen ed in he i em.
Manage ial cha ac e is ics
H3(-) H4(-) H5(-)
*H2e ec is less nega i e ha H1 e ec Ce ain y scena io
Pe cei ed
g eenwashing
Willingness o deal wi h a
g eenwashe in a B2B
ela ionship
Willingness o deal wi h a
g eenwashe in a B2B
ela ionship
Unce ain y scena io
H1(-)*
H2(-)*
Risk a e sion Impo ance
o epu a ion
P opensi y o
us
Figu e 1. Theo e ical model.
738 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
Dependen a iable. We measu ed he pa icipan s’ gene al
willingness o main ain business ela ionships using a mul-
iple-i em scale including nine a i ma ions adap ed om
he li e a u e (Cha e ji e al., 2016; de la To e-Ruiz e al.,
2015; Fe ón- Vílchez e al., 2021). Table 3 lis s he i ems
used o measu ing he willingness o accep di e en busi-
ness decisions ela ed o he ic i ious i m. All cases used a
7-poin Like - ype scale, om “1” implying “ o ally disa-
g ee” o “7” deno ing “ o ally ag ee” wi h he sen ence p e-
sen ed in he i em. We asked he pa icipan s o o e wo
di e en answe s o e e y i em o cap u e he willingness
o main ain business ela ionships unde unce ain and ce -
ain esul s scena ios. Thus, esponden s we e aimed o
alue hei willingness o accep hese business decisions
when economic esul s a e bo h gua an eed and unsu e.
Mode a ion a iables. To measu e ou di e en mode a ion
a iables, we used he ins umen ’s measu emen o se en
i ems o iginally p oposed by Ro e (1967) and mo e
ecen ly adap ed and upda ed by Maye and Da is (1999)
and Da id Schoo man e al. (2016) o measu e he pa ici-
pan s’ p opensi y o us . In he case o he pa icipan s’
isk a e sion, we included a single i em ollowing he
adap a ion o Casaló e al. (2015) om he o iginal scale o
Jawo ski and Kohli (1993).
Finally, we measu ed he impo ance o epu a ion by
using i e i ems adap ed om No heim-Hansen (2015). In
all cases, we used a 7-poin Like - ype scale, as men ioned
ea lie . Table 3 o e s de ailed in o ma ion on hese i ems.
We also con olled o pa icipan s’ sociodemog aphic
and p o essional condi ions, such as age, sex, p o essional
expe ience (numbe o yea s/mon hs in o al and in he
cu en posi ion), whe he he pa icipan s had ecei ed
en i onmen al aining, and some desc ip i e in o ma ion
om he i ms hey wo ked a . We also accoun ed o pe -
cep ions and opinions ha could a ec he esponses, such
as he pa icipan s’ g een a i ude le el and hei eelings
abou media in o ma ion and he chemical sec o .
Scale e alua ion. We an di e en es s o e alua e ou
scales and con i m he sui abili y o ou measu es o ga he
da a on he heo e ical cons uc s. In e ms o eliabili y
and in e nal consis ency, C onbach’s alpha indica o s
(g eenwashing [0.94], business ela ionships [0.95], p o-
pensi y o us [0.75], impo ance o epu a ion [0.90]),
composi e eliabili y alues (g eenwashing [0.86], busi-
ness ela ionships [0.90], p opensi y o us [0.80], impo -
ance o epu a ion [0.83]), and high i ems co ela ions
(g eenwashing [>0.44], business ela ionships [>0.48],
p opensi y o us [>0.36], impo ance o epu a ion
[>0.44]) con i med he sui abili y o ou measu es
Table 1. Desc ip i e s a is ics.
Cha ac e is ic Ca ego ies Sample
Gende Female 33.6%
Male 66.4%
Age 25–35 yea s 13.6%
36–40 yea s 16.8%
41–45 yea s 26.4%
46–50 yea s 20.0%
51–60 yea s 17.6%
Mo e han 60 yea s 5.6%
P o essional
expe ience
Less han 13 yea s 22.4%
13–20 yea s 32.8%
21–25 yea s 17.6%
Mo e han 25 yea s 27.2%
Ca ee ime in
he posi ion
Less han 5 yea s 24%
5–10 yea s 24.8%
11–15 yea s 25.6%
Mo e han 15 yea s 25.6%
Sec o Hea y indus y 2.4%
Ligh indus y 12%
P ima y sec o 3.2%
Wholesale 4.8%
Cons uc ion 2.4%
Logis ics 10.4%
U ili ies 5.6%
Finance and insu ance 8.8%
Hospi ali y 5.6%
In o ma ion and communica ions
echnology
21.6%
Educa ion 8%
Heal h 5.6%
O he se ices 9.6%
Size Medium en e p ise 34.4%
La ge en e p ise 65.6%
En i onmen al
aining
Yes 45.6%
No 54.4%
G eenwashing
(GW)
Passi is
(PS)
G eenes
(GR)
B ownwashing
(BW)
En i onmen al COMMUNICATION Gene al
U
U
N
N
Poo PERFORMANCE Posi e
Figu e 2. G oups o ea men desc ip ion.
Vale o-Gil e al. 745
a e sion and conside s co po a e epu a ion impo an ,
leading o a lowe p obabili y o he business collabo a-
ion o s a o con inue.
Conclusion
In addi ion o he abo e con ibu ions o ou esul s o p io
li e a u e, his s udy o e s se e al impo an implica ions
om a heo e ical pe spec i e. On he one hand, i aimed o
e eal, h ough expe imen al design, how g eenwashing
a ec s manage ial decision-making in a uni e sal way,
wi hou ocusing on a speci ic g oup o s akeholde s.
P e ious li e a u e discussed how he exis ence o g een-
washing a ec s he ela ionship o companies wi h a spe-
ci ic g oup o s akeholde s. Fo example, in he con ex o
g eenwashing, some s udies ocused on a company’s ela-
ionship wi h i s supplie s o o he membe s o he alue
chain (e.g., Keh & Xie, 2009; Pizze i e al., 2021), pa ne s
in a s a egic alliance (e.g., No heim-Hansen, 2015), non-
go e nmen al o ganiza ions (Be one e al., 2017), o i s
consume s (e.g., Pa k e al., 2014; Wang e al., 2020) con-
side ing he ela ionship wi h each s akeholde g oup indi-
idually. Ou co ela ion esul s among i ems measu ing he
willingness o main ain business ela ionships wi h di e en
s akeholde s we e e y high (M = 0.66). Thus, in he p es-
ence o g eenwashing, manage s end owa d monoli hic
beha io s in he decision-making p ocess, as hei esponses
and eac ions depend mo e on hei indi idual cha ac e is-
ics han on he s akeholde s’ g oup (unde he suspicion o
g eenwashing) hey ela e o. This is in line wi h Mu illo-
Luna e al. (2008) who ound no di e ences in en i onmen-
al in e es s ac oss s akeholde g oups and asse ed ha
he e was a single dimension o en i onmen al demand.
On he o he hand, ou esul s con i m he ole o manag-
e s’ indi idual a i udes ela ed o us in s a egic decision-
making, especially conce ning en i onmen al issues
(Aguinis & Gla as, 2012). We analyzed how a manage ’s
indi idual cha ac e is ics ha a e in ima ely ela ed o us
(i.e., p opensi y o us , isk a e sion, and impo ance o
co po a e epu a ion) a ec he nega i e e ec o pe cei ed
g eenwashing. Ou esul s elucida e s a egic decision-mak-
ing when g eenwashing is pe cei ed, ex ending cu en
knowledge o i s consequences on he analysis o manage s’
indi idual cha ac e is ics. In his sense, ou wo k is espe-
cially in e es ing, gi en he sca ci y o s udies ocusing on
he pe sonal cha ac e is ics o manage s when making deci-
sions a ec ing he global na u e o a company, especially in
olun a y managemen p ac ices (Aguinis & Gla as, 2012).
Fu he mo e, om a me hodological pe spec i e, his
s udy o e s wo essen ial con ibu ions. On he one hand,
we o e a be e unde s anding o he phenomenon o
g eenwashing, aking ad an age o an expe imen al design
in which he pa icipan s a e ac ual manage s wi h expe i-
ence in e alua ing and selec ing business pa ne s ins ead
o being p ospec i e manage s, s uden s, consume s, o he
public. Fo ins ance, Fe ón-Vílchez e al. (2021) used a
sample o 243 unde g adua e s uden s om business and
managemen deg ees; Pa k e al. (2014) used a sample o
145 business school s uden s; and Pizze i e al. (2021)
in ol ed public pa icipan s om an Amazon Mechanical
Tu k. He e, we used a sample o 125 manage s o con i m
ha when pe cei ed g eenwashing exis s, he willingness
o collabo a e wi h a g eenwashe dec eases.
On he o he hand, we p opose a h ee-s ep con ol p o-
cess o ensu e he quali y and alidi y o he expe imen :
con olling he da a collec ion o he expe imen be o e,
du ing, and a e he expe imen execu ion. This h ee-
phase con ol me hod is based on he adi ional pe spec-
i e o ype con ol conce ning he ime o occu ence: a
p io i o eed o wa d, concu en , and eedback con ol
(Flamhol z, 1996).
Implica ions o manage s and egula o s
The p essing social awa eness o clima e change and he
need o be sus ainable ha e led many companies o adop
symbolic en i onmen al beha io s by simply disclosing
en i onmen al in o ma ion wi hou engaging in ac ual o
meaning ul ac i i ies. We analyze he consequences o ca -
ying ou such symbolic p ac ices on business ela ionships
wi h o he companies; we speci ically s udy he esponse o
a company’s manage s o such beha io in a (po en ial)
pa ne . Ou esul s p o ide heo e ical and empi ical con-
ibu ions as well as implica ions o p ac i ione s. We ea -
i m ha manage s who obse e a g eenwashing beha io
in hei coun e pa a e less willing o deal wi h ha g een-
washe . This ac has epe cussions o manage s, as i
allows hem o obse e he beha io o a po en ial pa ne
when hey pe cei e a symbolic en i onmen al p o ile, and
demons a es he impo ance o hei in insic cha ac e is-
ics in making co po a e collabo a ion decisions.
The esul s ob ained may also ha e epe cussions on
egula o s esponsible o de eloping no ma i e bodies o
a oiding his ype o symbolic p ac ices. In his sense, he
Eu opean Commission is launching he “G een Claims”
Di ec i e (Eu opean Commission, 2023), which in ends o
oblige companies o use c edible and us wo hy labels
and claims. Ou implica ions esul also essen ial o
ad ance in he s udy and p oposal o ways, a iables, and
conc e e measu es o i ems ha can de ec g eenwashe s.
Simila ly, hey also o e e idence o he nega i e conse-
quences o companies ha ca y ou such p ac ices, which
will be inc easingly gaining impo ance in he u u e.
Limi a ions and u u e esea ch
This s udy has some limi a ions. Fi s , al hough we ca ied
ou an ex ensi e expe imen , he in en ion o main ain o
ini ia e business ela ionships wi h a g eenwashe does no
imply an ac ual business isk. Thus, e en i he si ua ions
746 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
o unce ain y and ce ain y a e con empla ed o manag-
e s pa icipa ing in he expe imen , he isk o ca ying ou
business ela ionships has no eal consequences o such
manage s and hei company. Second, his wo k had a
ans e sal na u e; he analysis could be con as ed and
complemen ed wi h a sample o manage s using longi udi-
nal analyses. Thi d, u u e s udies can ex end ou implica-
ions by in oducing a iables ela ed o pe cei ed ai ness
o business e hics. I would be in e es ing o pe o mance
addi ional s udies on he willingness o deal wi h a g een-
washe in scena ios o ce ain y and unce ain y when he
economic esul s a y o he company ha pe o ms he
g eenwashing. As in Baze man and Moo e’s (2012) ul i-
ma um game, a manage ’s decision o main ain business
ela ionships wi h someone who is no beha ing in a ai
way—a g eenwashe —may change when he g eenwashe
has gua an eed economic esul s.
Acknowledgemen s
The au ho s hank P o . Vicen e Salas Fumás and P o . Ca los
O us Sanclemen e o p o iding help du ing he esea ch.
Decla a ion o con lic ing in e es s
The au ho (s) decla ed no po en ial con lic s o in e es wi h
espec o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his
a icle.
Funding
The au ho (s) disclosed eceip o he ollowing inancial suppo
o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his a icle:
This wo k was pa ially suppo ed by se e al esea ch p ojec s
g an ed by he Spanish Minis y o Science and Inno a ion (p o-
jec numbe s ECO2017-88222-P and ECO2017–86305C4-3-R),
he Go e n men o A agón (G oup Re e ence CREVALOR:
S42_17R), FEDER 2014–2020 “Cons uyendo Eu opa desde
A agón,” and FEDER 2014–2020 Andalucía (p ojec numbe
A-SEJ-192-UGR20).
ORCID iD
Ve a Fe ón-Vílchez h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-2475-4686
Supplemen al ma e ial
Supplemen al ma e ial o his a icle is a ailable online.
No e
1. The iden i ica ion o g eenwashing is no always ob ious
and some imes equi es ime and a ce ain le el o expe-
ience and en i onmen al aining. The de ec ion could be
especially a duous in cases no e y exposed o public sc u-
iny. Ne e heless, he economic in e es o a business ela-
ionship inc eases he in e es o a manage o in es iga e
a po en ial pa ne . In addi ion, se e al ini ia i es, such as
he Co po a e Clima e Responsibili y Moni o , o e ad ice
and speci ic ways o de ec g eenwashing, such as hose
ela ed o he de ec ion o inconsis en epo ing o hidden
GhG scope exclusion (Day e al., 2023). O he ins i u ions
ecommend he use o a i icial in elligence ools o sup-
po supe iso s in he de ec ion o po en ial g eenwashing
p ac ices h ough he analysis o he subs an ial in o ma-
ion al eady a ailable in egula ed documen s, ad e ising
and ESG da a p o ide s (Eu opean Secu i ies and Ma ke s
Au ho i y, 2023).
Re e ences
Aguinis, H. (1995). S a is ical powe p oblems wi h mod-
e a ed mul iple eg ession in managemen esea ch.
Jou nal o Managemen , 21(6), 1141–1158. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90026-8
Aguinis, H., & Gla as, A. (2012). Wha we know and don’
know abou co po a e social esponsibili y: A e iew and
esea ch agenda. Jou nal o Managemen , 38(4), 932–968.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0149206311436079
Aji, H. M., & Su ikno, B. (2015). The ex ended consequence
o g eenwashing: Pe cei ed consume skep icism. In e -
na ional Jou nal o Business and In o ma ion, 10(4), 433–
468.
Ande son, J. C., & Ge bing, D. W. (1988). S uc u al equa ion
modeling in p ac ice: A e iew and ecommended wo-s ep
app oach. Psychological Bulle in, 103(3), 411–423. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Azzone, G., Bianchi, R., Mau i, R., & Noci, G. (1997). De ining
ope a ing en i onmen al s a egies: P og ammes and plans
wi hin I alian indus ies. En i onmen al Managemen
and Heal h, 8(1), 4–19. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/0956616
9710159159
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). S uc u al equa ion model in ma ke ing
esea ch: Basic p inciples. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), P inciples
o ma ke ing esea ch (pp. 317–385). Blackwell Publishing.
Ba nes, J. H. (1984). Cogni i e biases and hei impac on s a-
egic planning. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 5(2), 129–
137. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/smj.4250050204
Baze man, M. H., & Moo e, D. A. (2012). Judgmen in manage-
ial decision-making. John Wiley & Sons.
Be one, P., Fos u i, A., & Gelabe , L. (2017). Does g eenwash-
ing pay o ? Unde s anding he ela ionship be ween en i-
onmen al ac ions and en i onmen al legi imacy. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 144(2), 363–379. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s10551-015-2816-9
Boa eng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., F ongillo, E. A., Melga -
Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Bes p ac ices
o de eloping and alida ing scales o heal h, social, and
beha io al esea ch: A p ime . F on ie s in Public Heal h,
6, A icle 149. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ pubh.2018.00149
Boi al, O., He as-Saiza bi o ia, I., & Tes a, F. (2017). SA8000 as
CSR-washing? The ole o s akeholde p essu es. Co po a e
Social Responsibili y and En i onmen al Managemen ,
24(1), 57–70. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/CSR.1391
Bowen, F. (2014). A e g eenwashing: Symbolic co po a e en i-
onmen alism and socie y. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
B amme , S., Jackson, G., & Ma en, D. (2012). Co po a e social
esponsibili y and ins i u ional heo y: New pe spec i es on
p i a e go e nance. Socio-economic Re iew, 10(1), 3–28.
Bundy, J., Sh opshi e, C., & Buchhol z, A. K. (2013). S a egic
cogni ion and issue salience: Towa d an explana ion o
Vale o-Gil e al. 747
i m esponsi eness o s akeholde conce ns. Academy
o Managemen Re iew, 38(3), 352–376. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5465/am .2011.0179
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay p e e ences and
job sea ch decisions: A pe son-o ganiza ion i pe spec-
i e. Pe sonnel Psychology, 47(2), 317–348. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994. b01727.x
Casaló, L. V., Fla ián, C., Guinalíu, M., & Ekinci, Y. (2015).
A oiding he da k side o posi i e online consume e iews:
Enhancing e iews’ use ulness o high isk-a e se a el-
e s. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 68(9), 1829–1835.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2015.01.010
Cas añeda-Ga cía, J. A., F ías-Jamilena, D. M., Rod íguez-
Molina, M. A., & Jones, A. (2020). Online ma ke ing
e ec i eness- he in luence o in o ma ion load and digi al
li e acy, a c oss-coun y compa ison. Elec onic Ma ke s,
30, 759–773. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s12525-019-00372-9
Changing Ma ke s Founda ion. (2021). Syn he ics Anonymous:
Fashion b ands’ addic ion o ossil uels. h p://
changingma ke s.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2021/07/
Syn he icsAnonymous_FinalWeb.pd
Cha e ji, A. K., Findley, M., Jensen, N. M., Meie , S., &
Nielson, D. (2016). Field expe imen s in s a egy esea ch.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 37(1), 116–132. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1002/smj.2449
Chen, H., Be na d, S., & Rahman, I. (2019). G eenwashing in
ho els: A s uc u al model o us and beha io al in en ions.
Jou nal o Cleane P oduc ion, 206, 326–335. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.09.168
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). G eenwash and g een us :
The media ion e ec s o g een consume con usion and
g een pe cei ed isk. Jou nal o Business E hics, 114(3),
489–500. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0
Chu chill, G. A. (1979). A pa adigm o de eloping be e measu es
o ma ke ing cons uc s. Jou nal o Ma ke ing Resea ch,
16, 64–73. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/002224377901600110
Co , R., & K yscynski, D. (2011). In i ed edi o ial: D illing
o mic o- ounda ions o human capi al-based compe i i e
ad an ages. Jou nal o Managemen , 37(5), 1429–1443.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0149206310397772
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2015). CSR as c isis isk:
Expanding how we concep ualize he ela ionship. Co po a e
Communica ions: An In e na ional Jou nal, 20(2), 144–162.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2013-0078
Da id Schoo man, F., Maye , R. C., & Da is, J. H. (2016).
Empowe men in e e ina y clinics: The ole o us in del-
ega ion. Jou nal o T us Resea ch, 6(1), 76–90. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479
Day, T., Mooldijk, S., Hans, F., Smi , S., Posada, E., Sk ibbe, R.,
Woollands, S., Fea nehough, H., Ku amochi, T., Wa necke,
C., Kachi, A., & Höhne, N. (2023). Co po a e clima e espon-
sibili y moni o : Assessing he anspa ency and in eg i y
o companies’ emission educ ion and ne -ze o a ge s.
New Clima e Ins i u e and Ca bon Ma ke Wa ch. h ps://
ca bonma ke wa ch.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2023/02/
Co po a eClima eResponsibili yMoni o 2023.pd
de la To e-Ruiz, J. M., A agón-Co ea, J. A., & Ma ín-Tapia, I.
(2015). Do indi idual p e e ences a ec he en i onmen al
decision-making p ocess in eams? The ole o pa icipa-
ion. Business S a egy and he En i onmen , 24(6), 451–
465. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/bse.1830
Delmas, M. A., & A agon-Co ea, J. A. (2016). Field expe i-
men s in co po a e sus ainabili y esea ch: Tes ing s a e-
gies o beha io change in ma ke s and o ganiza ions.
O ganiza ion & En i onmen , 29(4), 391–400. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/1086026616677827
Delmas, M. A., & Bu bano, V. C. (2011). The d i e s o g een-
washing. Cali o nia Managemen Re iew, 54(1), 64–87.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1525/cm .2011.54.1.64
de V ies, G., Te wel, B. W., Elleme s, N., & Daamen, D. D. L.
(2015). Sus ainabili y o p o i abili y? How communica ed
mo i es o en i onmen al policy a ec public pe cep ions
o co po a e g eenwashing. Co po a e Social Responsibili y
and En i onmen al Managemen , 22(3), 142–154. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1002/cs .1327
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examina ion o he
na u e o us in buye -selle ela ionships. Jou nal o
Ma ke ing, 61(2), 35–51.
Eu opean Commission. (2023). P oposal o a Di ec i e o he
Eu opean Pa liamen and o he Council on subs an ia ion
and communica ion o explici en i onmen al claims (G een
Claims Di ec i e). COM(2023) 166 inal.
Eu opean Secu i ies and Ma ke s Au ho i y. (2023). P og ess
Repo on G eenwashing Response o he Eu opean
Commission’s eques o inpu on “g eenwashing isks
and he supe ision o sus ainable inance policies.
h ps://www.esma.eu opa.eu/si es/de aul / iles/2023-06/
ESMA30-1668416927-2498_P og ess_Repo _ESMA_
esponse_ o_COM_R I_on_g eenwashing_ isks.pd
[ESMA30-1668416927-2498].
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heime iks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012).
Mic o ounda ions o ou ines and capabili ies: Indi iduals, p o-
cesses, and s uc u e. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 49(8),
1351–1374. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01052.x
Fellne , G., & Maciejo sky, B. (2007). Risk a i ude and ma -
ke beha io : E idence om expe imen al asse ma ke s.
Jou nal o Economic Psychology, 28(3), 338–350. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.006
Fe ón-Vílchez, V., Vale o-Gil, J., & Suá ez-Pe ales, I. (2021).
How does g eenwashing in luence manage s’ decision-
making? An expe imen al app oach unde s akeholde
iew. Co po a e Social Responsibili y and En i onmen al
Managemen , 28(2), 860–880. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/
cs .2095
Flamhol z, E. (1996). E ec i e o ganiza ional con ol: A ame-
wo k, applica ions, and implica ions. Eu opean Managemen
Jou nal, 14(6), 596–611. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0263-
2373(96)00056-4
Fomb un, C. J. (1996). Repu a ion: Realizing alue om he co -
po a e image. Ha a d Business School P ess.
Fomb un, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). Wha ’s in a name?
Repu a ion building and co po a e s a egy. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 33(2), 233–258.
F azie , P. A., Tix, A. P., & Ba on, K. E. (2004). Tes ing mode a-
o and media o e ec s in Counseling psychology esea ch.
Jou nal o Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
Ganesan, S. (1994). De e minan s o long- e m o ien a ion in
buye -selle ela ionships. Jou nal o Ma ke ing, 58(2),
1–19.
Ga ze , N. (2015). The impac o co po a e epu a ion and epu-
a ion damaging e en s on inancial pe o mance: Empi ical
748 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 28(3)
e idence om he li e a u e. Eu opean Managemen Jou -
nal, 33(6), 485–499. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.emj.2015.
10.001
Gige enze , G., & B igh on, H. (2009). Homo heu is icus: Why
biased minds make be e in e ences. Topics in Cogni i e
Science, 1(1), 107–143. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2008.01006.x
Gossel , J. F., an Rompay, T., & Haske, L. (2019). Won’ ge
ooled again: The e ec s o in e nal and ex e nal CSR
ECO-labeling. Jou nal o Business E hics, 155(2), 413–424.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8
G aesse , A. C., Ho man, N. L., & Cla k, L. F. (1980). S uc u al
componen s o eading ime. Jou nal o Ve bal Lea ning and
Ve bal Beha io , 19(2), 135–151. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/
S0022-5371(80)90132-2
Gula i, R. (1995). Does amilia i y b eed us ? The implica ions
o epea ed ies o con ac ual choice in alliances. Academy
o Managemen Jou nal, 38(1), 85–112.
Guo, R., Zhang, W., Wang, T., Li, C. B., & Tao, L. (2018). Timely
o conside ed? B and us epai s a egies and mechanism
a e g eenwashing in China- om a legi imacy pe spec i e.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 72, 127–137. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j.indma man.2018.04.001
Hai , J. F. J. R., Ande son, R. E., Ta ham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1998). Mul i a ia e da a analysis. P en ice-Hall.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glais e , K. W., &
Pea man, A. D. (1999). B eaking he ame: An analysis o
s a egic cogni ion and decision making unde unce ain y.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 20(10), 977–985. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199910)20:10<977::AID-
SMJ58>3.0.CO;2-X
Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Ma ke ing communica ions
and co po a e social esponsibili y (CSR): Ma iage o con-
enience o sho gun wedding? Jou nal o Business E hics,
88(1), 103–113. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1
Jawo ski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Ma ke -o ien a ion: The
cons uc , esea ch p oposi ions, and manage ial implica-
ions. Jou nal o Ma ke ing, 54, 1–18.
Judge, T. A., Tho esen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbou ne, T.
M. (1999). Manage ial coping wi h o ganiza ional
change: A disposi ional pe spec i e. Jou nal o Applied
Psychology, 84(1), 107–122. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-
9010.84.1.107
Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Co po a e epu a ion and cus ome
beha io al in en ions: The oles o us , iden i ica ion and
commi men . Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 38(7),
732–742. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.indma man.2008.02.005
Kim, D. J., Fe in, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2009). T us and sa -
is ac ion, wo s epping s ones o success ul e-comme ce
ela ionships: A longi udinal explo a ion. In o ma ion
Sys ems Resea ch, 20(2), 237–257. h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/
is e.1080.0188
Kim, S. (2019). The p ocess model o co po a e social esponsibil-
i y (CSR) communica ion: CSR communica ion and i s ela-
ionship wi h consume s’ CSR knowledge, us , and co po a e
epu a ion pe cep ion. Jou nal o Business E hics, 154(4),
1143–1159. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6
Kogu , B., & Kula ilaka, N. (1994). Ope a ing lexibili y, global
manu ac u ing, and he op ion alue o a mul ina ional ne -
wo k. Managemen Science, 40(1), 123–139.
Leonidou, C. N., & Ska meas, D. (2017). G ay shades o g een:
Causes and consequences o g een Skep icism. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 144(2), 401–415. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s10551-015-2829-4
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunke , B. B. (1996). De eloping and main-
aining us in wo k ela ionships. T us in O ganiza ions:
F on ie s o Theo y and Resea ch, 114, 139.
Liao, Y., Liu, Y., & Yao, X. (2017). The ole o us in supplie
oppo unis ic beha io and supplie pe o mance. Jou nal
o Business Resea ch, 71, 64–74. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
jbus es.2016.10.004
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). G eenwash: Co po a e
en i onmen al disclosu e unde h ea o audi . Jou nal o
Economics and Managemen S a egy, 20(1), 3–41. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/J.1530-9134.2010.00282.X
Lyon, T. P., & Mon gome y, A. W. (2015). The means and end o
g eenwash. O ganiza ion & En i onmen , 28(2), 223–249.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1086026615575332
Makadok, R. (2001). Towa d a syn hesis o he esou ce-based
and dynamic-capabili y iews o en c ea ion. S a egic
Managemen Jou nal, 22(5), 387–401.
Ma quis, C., To el, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Sc u iny, no ms,
and selec i e disclosu e: A global s udy o g eenwash-
ing. O ganiza ion Science, 27(2), 483–504. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1287/o sc.2015.1039
Maye , R. C., & Da is, J. H. (1999). The e ec o he pe o -
mance app aisal sys em on us o managemen : A ield
quasi-expe imen . Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 84(1),
123–136. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
Maye , R. C., Da is, J. H., & Da id Schoo man, F. (1995).
An in eg a i e model o o ganiza ional us . Academy
o Managemen Re iew, 20(3), 709–734. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5465/am .1995.9508080335
Mish a, A. K. (1996). O ganiza ional esponses o c isis. T us
in O ganiza ions: F on ie s o Theo y and Resea ch, 261,
A icle 1996.
Mon gome y, A. W., Lyon, T. P., & Ba g, J. (2023). No end
in sigh ? A g eenwash e iew and esea ch agenda.
O ganiza ion & En i onmen . Ad ance online publica ion.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/10860266231168905
Moo man, C., Zal man, G., & Deshpande, R. (1993). Fac o s
a ec ing us in ma ke esea ch ela ionships. Jou nal o
Ma ke ing, 57(1), 81–101. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/1252059
Mu illo-Luna, J. L., Ga cés-Aye be, C., & Ri e a-To es, P.
(2008). Why do pa e ns o en i onmen al esponse di e ?
A s akeholde s’ p essu e app oach. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 29(11), 1225–1240. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/smj.711
Na ayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemme e , B. (2011). The
cogni i e pe spec i e in s a egy: An in eg a i e e iew.
Jou nal o Managemen , 37(1), 305–351. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0149206310383986
No heim-Hansen, A. (2015). A e “g een b ides” mo e a ac i e?
An empi ical examina ion o how p ospec i e pa ne s’
en i onmen al epu a ion a ec s he us -based mechanism
in alliance o ma ion. Jou nal o Business E hics, 132(4),
813–830. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-014-2342-1
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychome ic heo y (2nd ed.). McG aw-
Hill.
Nu osis, M. J. (1993). SPSS o Windows base sys em use s guide
Release 6.0. SPSS Inco po a ed.
Vale o-Gil e al. 749
Nyilasy, G., Gangadha ba la, H., & Paladino, A. (2014).
Pe cei ed g eenwashing: The in e ac i e e ec s o g een
ad e ising and co po a e en i onmen al pe o mance on
consume eac ions. Jou nal o Business E hics, 125(4),
693–707. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3
Oli e , R. L. (1980). A cogni i e model o he an eceden s
and consequences o sa is ac ion decisions. Jou nal
o Ma ke ing Resea ch, 17(4), 460–469. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/002224378001700405
Pain e -Mo land, M. (2006). T iple bo om-line epo ing as
social g amma : In eg a ing co po a e social esponsibil-
i y and co po a e codes o conduc . Business E hics: A
Eu opean Re iew, 15(4), 352–364. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/
j.1467-8608.2006.00457.x
Pa guel, B., Benoî -Mo eau, F., & La ceneux, F. (2011). How
sus ainabili y a ings migh de e ‘g eenwashing’: A
close look a e hical co po a e communica ion. Jou nal
o Business E hics, 102(1), 15–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s10551-011-0901-2
Pa k, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Co po a e social esponsibili-
ies, consume us and co po a e epu a ion: Sou h Ko ean
consume s’ pe spec i es. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 67(3),
295–302. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2013.05.016
Pizze i, M., Ga i, L., & Seele, P. (2021). Fi ms alk, supplie s
walk: Analyzing he locus o g eenwashing in he blame
game and in oducing “ ica ious g eenwashing.” Jou nal
o Business E hics, 170(1), 21–38. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s10551-019-04406-2
Rahi, S., O hman Mansou , M. M., Alha a sheh, M., &
Alghizzawi, M. (2021). The pos -adop ion beha io o
in e ne banking use s h ough he eyes o sel -de e mina-
ion heo y and expec a ion con i ma ion model. Jou nal
o En e p ise In o ma ion Managemen , 34(6), 1874–1892.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/JEIM-04-2020-0156
Rindo a, V. P., & Fomb un, C. J. (1999). Cons uc ing compe i-
i e ad an age: The ole o i m–cons i uen in e ac ions.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 20(8), 691–710.
Ro e , J. B. (1967). A new scale o he measu emen o in e pe -
sonal us . Jou nal o Pe sonali y, 35(4), 651–665. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967. b01454.x
Schoo man, F. D., Maye , R. C., & Da is, J. H. (2007). An in e-
g a i e model o o ganiza ional us : Pas , p esen , and
u u e. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 32(2), 344–354.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5465/am .2007.24348410
Seele, P., & Ga i, L. (2017). G eenwashing e isi ed: In sea ch
o a ypology and accusa ion-based de ini ion inco po a ing
legi imacy s a egies. Business S a egy and he En i onmen ,
26(2), 239–252. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/bse.1912
Shah, R. H., & Swamina han, V. (2008). Fac o s in luencing
pa ne selec ion in s a egic alliances: The mode a ing ole
o alliance con ex . S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 29(5),
471–494. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/smj.656
Sha ma, S., A agón-Co ea, J. A., & Rueda-Manzana es, A.
(2007). The con ingen in luence o o ganiza ional capa-
bili ies on p oac i e en i onmen al s a egy in he se ice
sec o : An analysis o No h Ame ican and Eu opean ski
eso s. Canadian Jou nal o Adminis a i e Sciences /
Re ue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Adminis a ion, 24(4),
268–283. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/cjas.35
Sha ma, S., & Ta p, F. (2018). Does manage ial pe sonali y ma -
e ? E idence om i ms in Vie nam. Jou nal o Economic
Beha io and O ganiza ion, 150, 432–445. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.003
Siano, A., Volle o, A., Con e, F., & Amabile, S. (2017). “Mo e
han wo ds”: Expanding he axonomy o g eenwashing a e
he Volkswagen scandal. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 71,
27–37. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2016.11.002
Si kin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconcep ualizing he de e -
minan s o isk beha io . Academy o Managemen Re iew,
17(1), 9–38. h ps://doi.o g/10.5465/am .1992.4279563
Ska meas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consume s doub , wa ch
ou ! The ole o CSR skep icism. Jou nal o Business Resea ch,
66(10), 1831–1838. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2013.02.004
S ad le , L., & Lin, H. (2017). Mo ing o he nex s a egy s age:
Examining i ms’ awa eness, mo i a ion and capabili y d i -
e s in en i onmen al alliances. Business S a egy and he
En i onmen , 26(6), 709–730. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/bse.1937
Szabo, S., & Webs e , J. (2021). Pe cei ed g eenwashing: The
e ec s o g een ma ke ing on en i onmen al and p oduc
pe cep ions. Jou nal o Business E hics, 171(4), 719–739.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0
Te wiesch, C., Ren, Z. J., Ho, T. H., & Cohen, M. A. (2005). An
empi ical analysis o o ecas sha ing in he semiconduc-
o equipmen supply chain. Managemen Science, 51(2),
208–220. h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0317
To elli, R., Balluchi, F., & Lazzini, A. (2020). G eenwashing and
en i onmen al communica ion: E ec s on s akeholde s’
pe cep ions. Business S a egy and he En i onmen , 29(2),
407–421. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/bse.2373
Videlaine, G., & Sca ingella, L. (2019). Online epu chase in en-
ion: Empi ical s udy on he household equipmen ma ke .
Russian Managemen Jou nal, 17(4), 569–590. h ps://doi.
o g/10.21638/spbu18.2019.409
Walke , K., & Wan, F. (2012). The ha m o symbolic ac ions
and g een-washing: Co po a e ac ions and communica ions
on en i onmen al pe o mance and hei inancial implica-
ions. Jou nal o Business E hics, 109(2), 227–242. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4
Wang, D., Walke , T., & Ba abano , S. (2020). A psychological
app oach o egaining consume us a e g eenwashing:
The case o Chinese g een consume s. Jou nal o Consume
Ma ke ing, 37(6), 593–603. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/JCM-
06-2019-3257
Wu, Y., Zhang, K., & Xie, J. (2020). Bad g eenwashing, good
g eenwashing: Co po a e social esponsibili y and in o ma-
ion anspa ency. Managemen Science, 66(7), 3095–3112.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3340
Yang, Z., Nguyen, T. T. H., Nguyen, H. N., Nguyen, T. T. N., &
Cao, T. T. (2020). G eenwashing beha iou s: Causes, ax-
onomy and consequences based on a sys ema ic li e a u e
e iew. Jou nal o Business Economics and Managemen ,
21(5), 1486–1507. h ps://doi.o g/10.3846/jbem.2020.13225
Yu, E. P., Luu, B. V., & an Chen, C. H. (2020). G eenwashing in
en i onmen al, social and go e nance disclosu es. Resea ch
in In e na ional Business and Finance, 52, 101192. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j. iba .2020.101
Zand, D. E. (1972). T us and manage ial p oblem sol ing.
Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 17, 229–239.
