CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance

Greenwashing in Sustainability Reporting: A Systematic Literature Review of Strategic Typologies and Content-Analysis-Based Measurement Approaches

Open access
Janik, Agnieszka, Ryszko, Adam·2025·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su18010017
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of research on strategic positioning of companies and the measurement of greenwashing in sustainability reporting. Its main aim is to synthesize and organize the existing literature, identify key research gaps, and outline directions for future studies. Drawing on a rigorous content analysis of 88 studies, we delineate strategic typologies of greenwashing in sustainability reporting and examine content-analysis-based measurement approaches used to detect it. Our SLR shows that most strategic typologies draw on theories such as legitimacy theory, impression management theory, signaling theory, and stakeholder theory. Several studies adopt a four-quadrant matrix with varying conceptual dimensions, while others classify strategic responses to institutional pressures along a passive–active continuum. However, the evidence suggests that to assume that companies uniformly pursue sustainability reporting strategies is a major oversimplification. The findings also indicate that the literature proposes a variety of innovative, content-analysis-based approaches aimed at capturing divergences between communicative claims and organizational realities—most notably, discrepancies between disclosure and measurable performance, and between symbolic and substantive sustainability actions, as well as the identification of selective or manipulative communication practices that may signal greenwashing. Analytical techniques commonly focus on linguistic and visual cues in sustainability reports, including tone (sentiment and narrative framing), readability (both traditional readability indices and machine learning–based textual complexity measures), and visual content (selective emphasis, imagery framing, and graphic distortions). We also synthesize studies that document empirically verified instances of greenwashing and contrast them with research that, in our view, relies on overly simplified or untested assumptions. Based on this SLR, we identify central theoretical and methodological priorities for advancing the study of greenwashing in sustainability reporting and propose a research agenda to guide future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su18010017

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Systematic literature reviews highlight the pervasiveness of selective and exaggerated ESG disclosures that undermine the credibility of sustainability reporting.

    “Systematic literature reviews further highlight the pervasiveness of selective and exaggerated ESG disclosures that undermine the credibility of sustainability reporting, emphasizing the importance of stronger verification mechanisms and governance safeguards to counter greenwashing risks [22,23].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction and §3.2.3 describe selective, exaggerated ESG disclosures as forms of greenwashing, and the Conclusions link preventing greenwashing to more credible sustainability reporting (page numbers unavailable). But the review does not establish that these practices are pervasive; its Directions for Future Research say evidence on the prevalence of some distortive practices remains limited. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Noronha, C., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 59-86. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. TerraChoice. The Sins of Greenwashing, Home and Family Edition 2010: Report on Environmental Claims Made in the North American Consumer Market, 2010. Available online: https://www.twosides.info/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/Terrachoice_The_Sins_of_Greenwashing_-_Home_and_Family_Edition_2010.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  3. Laskin, A.V.; Mikhailovna Nesova, N. The Language of Optimism in Corporate Sustainability Reports: A Computerized Content Analysis. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q. 2022, 85, 80-98. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Gatti, L.; Seele, P.; Rademacher, L. Grey Zone in-Greenwash Out. A Review of Greenwashing Research and Implications for the Voluntary-Mandatory Transition of CSR. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2019, 4, 6. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods;
  6. Dienes, D.; Sassen, R.; Fischer, J. What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2016, 7, 154-189. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. López-Fernández, M.C.; Serrano-Bedia, A.M.; Pérez-Pérez, M. Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 1, 18. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Amores-Salvado, J.; Martin-de Castro, G.; Albertini, E. Walking the talk, but above all, talking the walk: Looking green for market stakeholder engagement. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 30, 431-442. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Kurpierz, J.R.; Smith, K. The greenwashing triangle: Adapting tools from fraud to improve CSR reporting. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy 2020, 11, 1075-1093. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Cho, C.H.; Michelon, G.; Patten, D.M. Enhancement and obfuscation through the use of graphs in sustainability reports: An international comparison. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2012, 3, 4-88. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Janik, A., & Ryszko, A.
Affiliations
Silesian University of Technology (PL)
Corresponding author
Ryszko, Adam
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-12-19
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
17
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su18010017
OpenAlex
W4417493793
Cited by
28
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 28
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Management and Organization, Silesian University of Technology (13/030/BK_25/0089)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Keywords
greenwashing, sustainability reporting, legitimacy theory, impression management, signaling theory, stakeholder theory, readability, corporate sustainability communication, institutional pressures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review