CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Environmental Sustainability in BusinessConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationConsumer Perception and Purchasing Behavior

Decoding Digital Greenwashing: A Quantitative Analysis of Signaling Theory, Brand Trust, and Purchase Intention among Generation Z Consumers in the Fast-Fashion Sector

Open access
Zhao, Bingqi, Abu Bakar, Abdul·2026·Social Reports
DOI 10.66638/eg0dpq69
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The global fast-fashion industry faces increasing scrutiny as the proliferation of digital greenwashing—the deployment of vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims—intersects with the heightened digital literacy of Generation Z consumers. While corporate entities increasingly utilize sustainability-themed marketing to construct brand legitimacy, the psychological impact of deceptive signaling on consumer-brand relationships remains underexplored in the quantitative literature. This study addresses this gap by operationalizing Signaling Theory (Spence, 1973) to examine how perceived greenwashing is associated with brand equity and consumer behavior. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from a sample of Generation Z consumers (N = 268) who actively engage with fast-fashion digital platforms. Pearson correlation analysis indicated that Perceived Greenwashing was strongly and negatively associated with Brand Trust (r = −.68, p < .001), suggesting that deceptive environmental signals are associated with elevated consumer eco-skepticism. A mediation analysis utilizing Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4) with 5,000 bootstrapped resamples provided evidence of partial mediation: Brand Trust carried a significant indirect effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention (indirect effect = −0.46, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.35]), while a significant direct effect remained (β = −0.12, p < .05), together accounting for 48.1% of the variance in Purchase Intention (R² = .481, f² = .927). These findings suggest that for this digitally native cohort, deceptive green signaling is associated with significant erosion of brand trust and purchase intent, pointing to a managerial imperative for transparent, verifiable sustainability communication. Limitations of the cross-sectional design and directions for future experimental research are discussed.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cross-sectional survey of 268 Generation Z fast-fashion consumers finds perceived digital greenwashing strongly negatively associated with brand trust and purchase intention, with brand trust partially mediating the greenwashing–purchase intention link. The authors interpret the pattern as a signaling failure and argue for verifiable, substantive sustainability communication.

Key findings

  • Perceived Greenwashing was high (M = 4.08, SD = 0.84), Brand Trust low (M = 2.12, SD = 0.89), and Purchase Intention moderate/suppressed (M = 2.76, SD = 0.95). PGW was negatively correlated with Brand Trust (r = -.68, p < .001) and Purchase Intention (r = -.54, p < .001); Brand Trust was positively correlated with Purchase Intention (r = .72, p < .001).
  • Brand Trust partially mediated the PGW–Purchase Intention association: indirect effect = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.35], with a remaining direct effect (β = -0.12, p < .05). The model accounted for 48.1% of variance in Purchase Intention (R² = .481, f² = .927, F(2, 265) = 122.59, p < .001).
  • Path estimates were PGW → Brand Trust β = -0.72, p < .001, and Brand Trust → Purchase Intention controlling for PGW β = 0.65, p < .001.
  • Scales showed strong reliability (PGW α = .89; BT α = .92; PI α = .87), convergent validity (AVE = .64, .69, .61), and discriminant validity (√AVE values .800, .831, .781 exceeded maximum |r| = .72).

Methods

  • Quantitative, cross-sectional online Qualtrics survey of Generation Z consumers (born 1997–2012) who had purchased fast-fashion apparel in the prior three months and been exposed to a digital sustainability campaign. Final validated sample N = 268; from 342 responses, 46 were removed for attention-check failures and 28 for >10% missing data. Recruitment used convenience sampling with purposive criteria via social media and university networks.
  • Measures: 5-item Perceived Greenwashing scale adapted from Laufer (2003) and Chen and Chang (2013); 4-item Brand Trust scale adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001); 3-item Purchase Intention scale adapted from Spears and Singh (2004); all on 5-point Likert scales.
  • Analysis: IBM SPSS v29; descriptives, reliability/validity assessment, Pearson correlations, and Hayes’ PROCESS macro Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped resamples and 95% CIs. Harman’s single-factor test assessed common method variance (26.7% single-factor variance).

Limitations

  • Stated: the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; respondents evaluated self-nominated brands, introducing brand heterogeneity; convenience sampling via university and social media networks over-represents educated, urban, digitally engaged Gen Z consumers; Harman’s single-factor test is an imperfect CMV diagnostic; specific transparency technologies (e.g., certification labels, blockchain tracking) remain empirically untested.
  • Stated: future research should use longitudinal panel and experimental between-subjects designs to test trust recovery and compare strong verified signals, weak unverified signals, and null environmental signals.
  • Evident from the text: all three constructs were measured in a single survey administration, so common-source and common-method bias cannot be fully ruled out despite the Harman test; the mediation table reports only paths a and b, while the indirect and direct effects are described in prose, so the full path model is not tabulated.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.66638/eg0dpq69

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Among Generation Z fast-fashion consumers, Perceived Greenwashing was negatively associated with Purchase Intention (r = -.54, p < .001).

    “Perceived Greenwashing was negatively associated with Purchase Intention (r = -.54,p < .001),providing support for Hypothesis 3 and confirming a negative association between deceptive green signaling and consumer purchase engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Among Generation Z fast-fashion consumers, Brand Trust was strongly positively associated with Purchase Intention (r = .72, p < .001).

    “Brand Trust exhibited a strong positive association with Purchase Intention (r = .72,p < .001),supporting Hypothesis 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the mediation model, the path from Perceived Greenwashing to Brand Trust was significant (β = -0.72, p < .001).

    “Path a (PGW → BT) was significant (β = -0.72,p < .001),indicating that higher perceived greenwashing is associated with substantially lower brand trust.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The direct effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention after controlling for Brand Trust remained statistically significant (β = -0.12, p < .05).

    “while a significant direct effect remained (β = -0.12,p < .05)”
    • Also stated in: § 4.4. Mediation Analysis: The Brand Trust Pathway · plain
      “Critically, the direct effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention, after controlling for Brand Trust (path c'), remained statistically significant (β = -0.12,p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The indirect effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention via Brand Trust was -0.46, with a bootstrapped 95% CI of [-0.58, -0.35].

    “Brand Trust carried a significant indirect effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention (indirect effect = -0.46,95% CI [-0.58, -0.35])”
    • Also stated in: § 4.4. Mediation Analysis: The Brand Trust Pathway · plain
      “The indirect effect of Perceived Greenwashing on Purchase Intention via Brand Trust was -0.46, with a bootstrapped 95% CI of [-0.58, -0.35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 5
  • May combine two claims. 8

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Digital greenwashing in fast fashion includes executional greenwashing and hidden trade-offs.

    “This includes executional greenwashing-the use of nature-inspired imagery, green color palettes, and naturalistic visual identities to induce a perception of ecological responsibility-and hidden trade-offs, where a brand highlights a singular recycled attribute of a garment while omitting the broader carbon footprint of its high-volume production cycle (Silva & Ibrahim, 2025).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Silva & Ibrahim, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Social contract theory proposes that legitimate economic activity is embedded within implicit normative agreements between organizations and their stakeholder communities.

    “Social contract theory proposes that legitimate economic activity is embedded within implicit normative agreements between organizations and their stakeholder communities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Signaling Theory posits that in environments characterized by uncertainty and information asymmetry, consumers rely on observable signals to infer the unobservable quality or ethical standards of a firm.

    “Signaling Theory posits that in environments characterized by uncertainty and information asymmetry, consumers rely on observable signals to infer the unobservable quality or ethical standards of a firm (Al-Sayed et al., 2026).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Al-Sayed et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Vague, unverifiable environmental claims may not only fail to build brand equity among Gen Z consumers but may be negatively associated with the trust and purchase intention they were designed to cultivate.

    “The data suggest that vague, unverifiable environmental claims may not only fail to build brand equity among Gen Z consumers but may be negatively associated with the very trust and purchase intention they were designed to cultivate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Harman's single-factor test is an imperfect diagnostic for common method variance.

    “Fourth, the Harman's single-factor test, while suggesting CMV is not a dominant confound (26.7% single-factor variance), is an imperfect diagnostic”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    When the signaling environment becomes saturated with low-cost deceptive signals, the credibility of even genuine environmental claims may be systematically undermined by signal noise.

    “According to Taj et al. (2025), when the signaling environment becomes saturated with low-cost deceptive signals, the credibility of even genuine environmental claims may be systematically undermined by signal noise.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Taj et al. (2025)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    If a brand is perceived to have violated its environmental commitment through greenwashing, the resulting trust erosion may be qualitatively different from ordinary product dissatisfaction and may produce stronger and longer-lasting attitudinal consequences.

    “If the brand is subsequently perceived to have violated this commitment through greenwashing, the resulting trust erosion may be qualitatively different from ordinary product dissatisfaction-it constitutes a perceived breach of a normative contract, which prior literature suggests produces stronger and longer-lasting attitudinal consequences (Taj et al., 2025).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Taj et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; findings should be interpreted as associational evidence.

    “It is acknowledged at the outset that the crosssectional design of this study permits associational rather than causal conclusions”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1. Research Design · plain
      “It is acknowledged that the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference; all findings should be interpreted as associational evidence consistent with the proposed framework”
    • Also stated in: § 6.2. Limitations and Future Research · plain
      “The primary limitation is the cross-sectional design, which captures consumer perceptions at a specific point in time but cannot establish whether greenwashing perception causes trust erosion”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Strong environmental signals are costly to produce and difficult to fabricate, such as verified third-party certifications, whereas weak signals are low-cost, vague, and easily mimicked.

    “Strong signals are those that are costly to produce and difficult to fabricate, such as verified third-party certifications.Weak signals are low-cost, vague, and easily mimicked, such as the use of the term 'conscious' or 'eco-friendly' without supporting quantitative evidence (Patel & Rossi, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Patel & Rossi, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Internal consistency was strong across all three constructs (PGW α = .89; BT α = .92; PI α = .87), each exceeding .70.

    “Internal consistency was strong across all three constructs (PGW: α = .89;BT: α = .92;PI: α = .87),each exceeding the accepted threshold of .70 (Hair et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hair et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Trust in the digital age is asymmetrically constructed-built incrementally through consistent and verifiable signaling, but potentially reduced rapidly through a single widely circulated greenwashing exposure.

    “Research suggests that trust in the digital age is asymmetrically constructed-built incrementally through consistent and verifiable signaling, but potentially reduced rapidly through a single widely circulated greenwashing exposure (Chen & Mueller, 2025).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen & Mueller, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The university-network recruitment strategy likely over-represents educated, urban, and digitally engaged Gen Z consumers, so findings are not generalizable to the full Gen Z cohort.

    “While this sample provides sufficient statistical power for mediation analysis (Hair et al., 2024), the university-network recruitment strategy likely over-represents educated, urban, and digitally engaged Gen Z consumers.Findings should therefore be interpreted as indicative of this population segment rather than as generalizable to the full Gen Z cohort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
12 of 12

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The existing literature has focused heavily on the drivers of green purchase intention, leaving underexplored the mechanisms through which greenwashing perception erodes brand trust.

    “The existing literature has focused heavily on the drivers of green purchase intention, leaving underexplored the mechanisms through which greenwashing perception erodes brand trust.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a need for quantitative data to examine the association between deceptive green signaling and consumer-brand relationship outcomes among Generation Z.

    “There is a need for quantitative data to examine the association between deceptive green signaling and consumer-brand relationship outcomes among this digitally sophisticated cohort.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Continued exposure to misleading green signals is associated with elevated eco-skepticism among Generation Z consumers.

    “Continued exposure to these potentially misleading signals has been associated with elevated eco-skepticism among Generation Z consumers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Respondents can accurately recall and evaluate digital sustainability campaigns from the preceding three months.

    “Respondents were instructed to evaluate a specific major fast-fashion brand of their choosing that they had encountered digital sustainability campaigns from in the preceding three months”
4 of 4

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 265) = 122.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 265) = 122.59,p < .001”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported mediation-model R2 conflicts with the correlation matrix

    Major

    For a regression of Purchase Intention on Perceived Greenwashing and Brand Trust, the three reported correlations imply R2 = .523, not .481. The stated variance explained by the model is therefore inconsistent with the paper's own correlation matrix.

  • Path-a t statistic conflicts with the reported correlation

    Minor

    Path a is a single-predictor regression of Brand Trust on Perceived Greenwashing. With N = 268 and the reported correlation of −.68, its t statistic would be approximately −15.1, not −12.00.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Al-Sayed, R., Roberts, M., & Kline, D. (2026). Signaling in the age of skepticism: Quantifying the ROI of verifiable green claims. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 35(1), 112–130.
  2. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
  3. Chen, X., & Mueller, F. (2025). The carbon footprint of clicks: Macroeconomic drivers of fashion industry reform. Global Journal of Sustainability and Technology, 29(4), 405–422.
  4. Gomez, L., & Thorne, A. (2025). The integrity gap: Brand trust in the era of performative sustainability. International Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 211–230.
  5. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2024). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  6. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  7. Kim, H., & Zhao, L. (2024). Decoding the black box of eco-skepticism: Cognitive load and reactance in green marketing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(1), 55–76.
  8. Patel, N., & Rossi, M. (2024). Digital greenwashing: A systematic review of corporate sustainability rhetoric. Harvard Business Review Analytics, 18(3), 55–74.
  9. Silva, C., & Ibrahim, T. (2025). The boomerang effect: Why deceptive green marketing erodes brand equity among Gen Z. Information Systems Research, 36(4), 888–905.
  10. Taj, M., Lee, S. M., & Gupta, R. (2025). Signal noise and the collapse of green credibility: A Signaling Theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 601–618.
  11. Wang, Y., Zhao, L., & Lee, S. M. (2026). Generative AI and the future of green storytelling: Navigating consumer skepticism. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 43(2), 310–328.

Authors
Zhao, B., & Abu Bakar, A.
Affiliations
Kuala Lumpur University of Science & Technology (MY)
Venue
Social Reports
Publisher
LINDEN Publishing Sdn. Bhd.
Published
2026-03-31
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
57-71
ISSN
3141-1231 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.66638/eg0dpq69
OpenAlex
W7154082337
Cited by
0
References
8
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Open access
Licence
Locations
Social Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Perception and Purchasing Behavior
Keywords
signaling theory, brand trust, purchase intention, Generation Z consumers, fast fashion, sustainability communication, brand equity, consumer-brand relationships

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

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