Next Article in Journal
Empirical Investigation of the Motivation and Perceptions of Tourists Visiting Spa Resorts in the Vâlcea Subcarpathians, Romania
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainability for Predicting Customer Lifetime Value: A Mediation–Moderation Effect Across SEO Metrics in Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling the Spatiotemporal Coordination Between Ecosystem Services and Socioeconomic Development to Enhance Their Synergistic Development Based on Water Resource Zoning in the Yellow River Basin, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Technological Adoption Sequences and Sustainable Innovation Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis of Optimal Pathways
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146589
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Greenwashing Awareness and Green Perceived Benefits on Green Purchase Propensity: The Mediating Role of Green Consumer Confusion

by
Nikolaos Apostolopoulos
1,
Ilias Makris
2,
Georgios A. Deirmentzoglou
3 and
Sotiris Apostolopoulos
3,*
1
Department of Management Science and Technology, University of the Peloponnese, 22100 Tripoli, Greece
2
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Peloponnese, 24100 Kalamata, Greece
3
Department of Economics and Business, Neapolis University Pafos, Pafos 8042, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6589; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146589
Submission received: 23 June 2025 / Revised: 15 July 2025 / Accepted: 17 July 2025 / Published: 18 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development in the Digital Economy: Impact on Consumer Behavior)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

In response to the increasing demand for environmentally friendly products and the parallel rise of deceptive green marketing practices, this study examines the impact of greenwashing awareness and green perceived benefits on consumers’ propensity to purchase green products, with a focus on the mediating role of green consumer confusion. Drawing upon data collected from 300 consumers in Greece through an online questionnaire, this study employed validated measurement scales and used multiple regression analyses to test its hypotheses. The findings reveal that both greenwashing awareness and green perceived benefits positively influence green purchase propensity. Additionally, green consumer confusion mediates the relationship between greenwashing awareness and green purchase propensity, indicating that the awareness of greenwashing reduces confusion and enhances consumers’ likelihood to choose genuinely green products. This study contributes to the literature by offering an integrated model that connects greenwashing awareness, green consumer confusion, and green perceived benefits in shaping green purchase propensity. Finally, the findings offer valuable insights for organizations to design clearer, more trustworthy green marketing strategies that minimize consumer confusion and foster informed green purchasing decisions.

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, green purchasing behaviors have become increasingly popular among consumers [1,2,3]. This consumer group places heavy emphasis on quality, healthy, and environmentally friendly products [4,5]. Responsible purchasing behavior concerning green products has created momentum in green markets [6,7,8]. Furthermore, the green product market is constantly growing, supported by international and national policies addressing environmental impacts [9,10]. Concurrently, enterprises have adapted their strategies to produce and sell green products to meet market demand [11].
Three elements of consumer behavior contribute to the green trend: the influence on consumer awareness, green confusion, and the perception of green benefits. Furthermore, the increased awareness among consumers about purchasing green products, combined with their perception, has also intensified competition in green markets [12,13,14]. In this sense, the consumer awareness of green products motivates businesses to produce, promote, and distribute environmentally friendly goods [15,16]. Additionally, as green markets expand and competition grows, companies pursue promotional strategies to demonstrate their positive green image and social responsibility [17]. A number of firms engage in greenwashing, concealing their poor environmental performance with regard to their operations and products, and projecting a positive environmental image that is not real [18,19]. This practice misleads consumers, who struggle to recognize deceptive promotions of enterprises or products [20,21].
Greenwashing creates confusion for consumers who doubt whether businesses or products conform to their projected messages [22]. This confusion and uncertainty make consumers skeptical and cause them to purchase the incorrect products [23,24]. Furthermore, consumers’ overall perception of green products is not limited to the product’s function, but also includes other total effects, which determine the perceived benefit [25]. In this light, the perceived benefits of green products influence consumers positively [26,27] and increase their willingness to buy green products, thereby reducing uncertainty [28,29]. On top of that, greenwashing is deemed considerably impactful on the green economy and is generally linked to the undermining of sustainability, as the consequences are economic, social, and environmental. It is evident that once the balance among economic, social, and environmental factors is altered, then we observe a disruption of sustainable development strictly related to sustainable prosperity and the well-being of citizens. That is also the case with greenwashing towards the climate crisis and the false or fake addressing of the issue, whilst the respective deceptive marketing of sustainability constitutes harm to the main principles of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals.
To develop a more comprehensive understanding of green purchasing practices in relation to parameters such as green consumer awareness, the effect of green confusion, and green perceptual benefits, this research focuses on three aspects impacting green purchasing practices. First, it examines whether the awareness of greenwashing has a positive effect on green market practices. The second aspect examines whether green consumer confusion mediates the relationship between the awareness of greenwashing and green market practices. Lastly, the third aspect examines whether green perceptual benefits positively affect the aforementioned green purchase tendency.

2. Literature Review

The green market is a vibrant market [30,31]. It is evident that consumer interest in green products is growing, and at the same time, more businesses are relying on the production of green products to meet the demand [32,33,34]. This green market dynamic has not only not exhausted the research interest, but it has contrarily strengthened and extended it to various aspects, such as the continuous study of greenwashing dimensions [35,36,37,38]. Based on criticisms in the literature, as long as corporate social responsibility is voluntary and unregulated, it facilitates and expands the greenwashing phenomenon [39,40]. Some businesses are tempted to exaggerate and embellish their operations and products, or even mislead consumers about their environmental friendliness, as competition among businesses has its own potential [36,41,42]. These enterprises attempt to create a favorable image of their environmentally friendly practices and products that do not reflect reality [39,43]. These practices constantly take on different forms through the methods they use and the messages they send to consumers. They are continuously under the research lens in order to shape wholesome and ethical trends in the green market. Many scholars believe that more research is needed to highlight the variety of forms and mechanisms associated with greenwashing [36,38,44].
Green consumer awareness, green confusion, and perceived green benefits all have a momentum at their core, which is why research interest is ongoing and not limited [12,14,23,27]. According to the relevant literature, raising the awareness of green consumption contributes to environmental ethics and strengthens consumers’ perceptions. This is an essential factor in addressing the greenwashing phenomenon [13,45]. Research by Haba et al. [46] and Groening et al. [47] revealed gaps in the research on green consumer behavior. These studies indicated the need for further research to explain individual consumers’ green behavior and explore the challenges further. Greenwashing negatively impacts consumers’ intention to purchase green products and directly affects green confusion and perceived green risk [48]. This study seeks appropriate policies that reduce consumer confusion and encourage businesses to avoid greenwashing practices [49,50]. Green confusion is a constant source of research interest, as are green perceptual benefits. The latter leads to a positive attitude toward purchasing green products, strengthening satisfaction, and improving the perception of greenwashing, respectively [27,51,52].
The literature lacks a holistic approach to the green market trend in relation to consumer awareness, green confusion, and green perceptual benefits. This study aims to address that gap. More specifically, based on the international literature and recent relevant studies, the need for further investigation of various aspects of greenwashing has been clearly underlined [17,53,54,55,56]. These research gaps require filling. Similarly, aspects such as green consumer awareness, the impact of green confusion, and green benefits that are addressed in this research have been examined in isolation and in a fragmented manner, so additional research is needed to fill this research gap. This empirical study aims to cover the aforementioned gaps by following a holistic approach, and more so in countries like Greece, which exhibits an outdated and ineffective institutional framework concerning consumer protection. Worth noting, the institutional framework for consumer protection in Greece is based on a 1994 law when modern ways of advertising and promoting products or services, employing, for instance, web and e-commerce practices, had not yet become prevalent [57,58]. Even more striking is that the EU (Greece serves as a member) has not formulated an institutional framework to address greenwashing, whilst the two elaborating EU Directives on greenwashing are scheduled to be incorporated into the national laws of the Member States in 2026 and 2027, respectively [59].

3. Institutional Framework in Greece and the EU

Greece’s institutional framework with regard to consumer protection is based on two outdated pieces of legislation enacted in 1991 and 1994. Notably, at the time, the web and other modern forms of communication and product promotion were not yet widespread [57,58]. These are Law 1961/1991 on “unfair competition” and Law 2251/1994 on “consumer protection”. The particular ineffective institutional framework that defines advertising “as a communication” and as a “statement” leaves great scope for the development of greenwashing phenomena. Also, in Greece, the “Advertising-Communication Code” was formulated, and the primary and secondary control committee for misleading or unfair promotion of products to consumers was established, respectively [60]. Additionally, the “Consumer Ethics Code” has been formulated, which establishes the framework of relations between suppliers and consumers and imposes administrative sanctions on certain violations [58]. However, Greece, like other countries within the Balkan peninsula, has understaffed and weak control, enforcement, and fine collection services despite the digitalization of many services over the last few years. Greece’s institutional framework would have changed if the issues of consumer protection from greenwashing had been settled at the EU level, because Greece, as an EU member, is obliged to incorporate the European Directives into its legal framework. The EU is currently developing a framework to protect consumers from greenwashing. The “Empowering the Consumers for a Green Transition” (ECGT) directive, which came into force in March 2024, should be transposed into the national laws of EU Member States by September 2026. On top of that, the “Green Claims Directive”, which aims to combat greenwashing, is still at the inter-institutional negotiation stage with strong opposition from small businesses. And even if the Directive is ultimately implemented, EU Member States will transpose it into national law at the latest in 2027. This delay has resulted in a proliferation of greenwashing phenomena in the EU. According to the EU’s own figures, in 2023, 53% of products provided vague, unfounded, and misleading claims, and half of the green labels are difficult to verify their claims [59]. Both at the EU level and at the level of Member States such as Greece, an effective institutional framework is certainly needed to adequately tackle greenwashing practices.

4. Theoretical Background

To approach the consumer awareness of green products holistically, considering the confusion often caused by certain enterprises’ green messages and the overall perceptual benefits sought by consumers, this research combined three theories: Theories of Planned Behavior (TPB), Persuasion Knowledge, and Source Credibility. Specifically, Ajzen’s 1985 theory of planned behavior interprets the prediction of behaviors based on the principle of compatibility [61,62]. According to this principle, consumer behavior is a target in a given context, time, and place [63,64]. Ajzen [65] determined that the variables influencing an individual’s behavior are “attitude toward the behavior”, “subjective norm”, and “perceived behavioral control.” Years earlier, Ajzen [66] proposed extending the TPB on the premise that additional variables would improve predictability. This capability improves and extends the predictability of human behavior [67,68]. Thus, new variables that explore green consumer decision-making play a pivotal role in influencing concrete decisions within green market practices [69,70,71].
The application of persuasion knowledge theory facilitates the comprehension of consumer awareness and the extent of their comprehension of corporate messages, thereby enabling the discernment of specific consumer behaviors [72]. Furthermore, it is imperative to ascertain the extent to which consumers are cognizant of their exposure to persuasive messages and the subsequent activation of defensive mechanisms [73].
Finally, source credibility theory elucidates the manner in which consumer attitudes are influenced by the credibility of the source that transmits the message [73]. The formation of consumer attitudes is influenced by and contingent on the source’s societal status [74]. Consequently, the greater the perceived credibility of the firm, the more the consumer is influenced [75]. In the context of web-based environments, the credibility of the source is a pivotal factor in consumer behavior formation [76].

5. Hypotheses Development

In the last decade, numerous studies have been conducted to elucidate the relationship between greenwashing and purchasing decisions. For instance, Sun and Shi [77] conducted a survey in China on the fast fashion industry to examine the relationship between greenwashing perceptions, perceived betrayal, and green purchasing intentions. The findings indicate that individuals who believe a company is misrepresenting its environmental attributes are more likely to feel betrayed by the company and less likely to purchase products from that company.
Similarly, in a study of consumers of green products, Chen et al. [78] found that when consumers perceive a company to be engaging in greenwashing, they are less likely to purchase the products in question. Furthermore, the relationship between greenwashing and green purchase intention is mediated by green brand image and green brand loyalty. This suggests that consumers who perceive the brand as a benchmark for excellent environmental attributes and who are loyal to the brand due to these attributes are more likely to buy the product. This is consistent with that of Guerreiro and Pacheco [79], who demonstrate that greenwashing perceptions have an indirect effect on green purchasing through word-of-mouth and trust.
Green confusion is another factor that may affect consumers’ behavior relative to green products [80]. According to Turnbull et al. [81], green consumer confusion is the inability of the customer to properly interpret the environmental features of a service or product throughout the information processing procedure. Greenwashing usually overwhelms customers with information and makes it harder for them to really assess the products. Therefore, consumers would become confused about green promises as a result of greenwashing [82,83,84]. A consumer experiencing confusion is unable to assess a product’s quality [52]. Green consumer uncertainty affects consumer decision-making [85]. On their research, Braga et al. [86] conducted a survey on green products in retail, which revealed that consumers who believe that green products tend to use greenwashing techniques are more likely to be confused in recognizing the “real” green products on the market and less likely to perceive the benefits that green products provide, such as better quality and healthier products. However, the literature on consumer confusion and green consumption resulted in contradictory findings. Chen and Chang [52] investigate the effect of greenwashing on trust and the mediating role of consumer confusion among Taiwanese consumers of electronic products and their findings indicate that consumers who perceived the product to be engaging in greenwashing, i.e., misleading them about its environmental features, tended to perceive the product as less credible and reliable with respect to its environmental performance. Their study suggests that green consumer confusion is the mediator in the nexus between greenwashing and green trust.
On the other hand, Yang et al. [23] conclude a positive relation between green confusion and consumption, claiming that in general, confusion increases rather than decreases consumption. In line with that, Saxema & Sharma [87] conclude that confusion may result in reducing consumer purchases. Based on their study of hotel guests’ green service experiences, Zhang et al. [80] found that greenwashing by organizations leads to consumer confusion and ultimately harms the brand’s reputation both in the market and among prospective customers (see also [88] for similar conclusions).
Finally, Chen and Chang [89] examine the influence of green perceived value on green purchase intentions among Taiwanese consumers of electronic products. The findings suggest that green perceived value exerts a positive impact on green purchase intentions. This implies that consumers who perceive the product as offering more environmental benefits and value than its competitors are more likely to purchase it.
While previous studies have extensively explored purchase intention as an antecedent of consumer behavior [90], purchase propensity reflects the likelihood that consumers will act upon their stated intentions. Therefore, our study specifically focuses on purchase propensity to better capture consumers’ actual purchasing tendencies.
In consideration of the aforementioned studies, it can be posited that consumers who are aware of greenwashing practices may be better equipped to identify and purchase actual green products. Furthermore, these individuals may be less prone to confuse green products with non-green products and proceed with the purchase of the green product. Furthermore, consumers who perceive greater benefits from green products may be more likely to purchase them than those who do not. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1):
H1: 
Greenwashing awareness (GWA) has a positive effect on the green purchase propensity (GPP).
H2: 
Green consumer confusion (GCC) mediates the relationship between greenwashing awareness (GWA) and green purchase propensity (GPP).
H3: 
Green perceived benefits (GPB) positively affect green purchase propensity (GPP).

6. Methodology

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of customers’ greenwashing awareness (the perceived ability to identify greenwashing practices) and the perceived benefits of consuming green products on their propensity to purchase green products. Primary data were collected from consumers across Greece who shop at supermarkets for their daily needs. Greece was chosen for this study because it is a country that has made significant improvements in sustainability in the past few years [91]. An online questionnaire was sent to Greek consumers using a non-probability approach based on researchers’ network, a very common approach in web surveys [92]. More precisely, we used purposive sampling, a type of non-probability sampling [93], because it allows us to select participants who are most likely to provide relevant and insightful data for this study [94]. In our case, we wanted to reach active supermarket consumers who are familiar with green products. Moreover, we have ensured that participants with different demographic characteristics and from the 13 regions of Greece are proportionally represented in our sample.
The following two questions were used as filters to ensure that the respondents are consumers who shop at supermarkets:
  • Are you the family member who does the grocery shopping?
  • Do you go to the supermarket to do your shopping?
Respondents who answered “no” to one or both of these questions were excluded from further analysis. A total of 300 responses were retained in our research. To justify our sample size, we followed Green’s [95] guidelines for regression analysis. For seven predictors, the recommended minimum sample size is 106 to test model fit (50 + 8k) and 111 to test individual predictors (104 + k). Since we examine both, we used the more conservative threshold of 111. With 300 respondents, our study exceeds this requirement.
The main variables of the research instrument were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To measure greenwashing awareness (GWA) and green consumer confusion (GCC), five and six items were used, respectively, based on the work of Chen and Chang [52]. Similarly, four items from Braga et al. [86] assessed green perceived benefits (GPB), while green purchase propensity (GPP) was evaluated using three items derived from Chen and Chang [89] (see Appendix A). Finally, the questionnaire included demographic items such as gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), age (18–39 years old = 1, 40–59 years old = 2, over 59 years old = 3), education level (high school diploma = 1, BSc degree = 2, Master’s degree = 3, PhD = 4), income (very low = 1 to very high = 5), and location (urban = 0, rural = 1).
In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted multiple regression analyses using Jamovi (version 2.3.19.0).

7. Findings

A total of 300 consumers participated in our survey. Of these, 149 (49.6%) were male and 151 (50.4%) were female. 99 (33%) were 18–39 years old, 99 (33%) were 40–59 years old, and 102 (34%) were over 59 years old. Among the respondents, 81 (27%) hold a high school diploma, 123 (41%) hold a BSc degree, 68 (23%) have a Master’s degree, and 28 (9%) hold a PhD. Regarding income, on a subjective scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), 5 (2%) respondents answered 1, 43 (14%) answered 2, 175 (58%) answered 3, 65 (22%) answered 4, and 12 (4%) answered 5. In addition, 228 (76%) respondents live in an urban area, and the remaining 72 (24%) live in a rural area. Finally, 17 respondents (5.7%) lived in Eastern Macedonia & Thrace, 50 (16.7%) in Central Macedonia, 7 (2.3%) in Western Macedonia, 9 (3.0%) in Epirus, 20 (6.7%) in Thessaly, 6 (2.0%) in the Ionian Islands, 18 (6.0%) in Western Greece, 14 (4.7%) in Central Greece, 109 (36.3%) in Attica, 17 (5.7%) in the Peloponnese, 6 (2.0%) in the Northern Aegean, 9 (3.0%) in the Southern Aegean, and 18 (6.0%) in Crete, ensuring proportional representation from all 13 regions of Greece (Table 1).
To confirm that the latent variable measurements aligned with the theory, we carried out reliability and validity assessments. All construct values exceeded the thresholds of CR of 0.60, AVE of 0.50, and Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.60 (Table 2).
Discriminant validity was also assessed using Fornell and Larcker’s [96] criteria. As shown in Table 3, the square roots of the AVE values (indicated in parentheses) for each construct exceed the inter-construct correlations, thereby supporting discriminant validity.
Table 4 shows the correlation between the dependent, independent, and demographic variables. Our dependent variable-GPP has a significant correlation with GWA (r = 0.14, p < 0.05), GPB (r = 0.64, p < 0.001), GCC (r = −0.28, p < 0.001), Education (r = 0.23, p < 0.001), Income (r = 0.15, p < 0.01) and Location (r = −0.24, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the mediator variable-GCC has a significant correlation with GWA (r = −0.60, p < 0.001), GPB (r = −0.17, p < 0.01), GCC (r = −0.28, p < 0.001), Age (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), Education (r = −0.21, p < 0.001), Income (r = −0.25, p < 0.001) and Location (r = 0.33, p < 0.001).
In order to test our hypotheses, we used multiple regression analyses (Table 5). In all models, demographic variables that showed a significant correlation with the respective dependent variable were included as control variables. Specifically, in Models 1, 2, and 4, where the dependent variable is GPP, education, income, and location were included. In Model 3, where the dependent variable is GCC, age was also added alongside the aforementioned demographic variables.
Model 1 tests solely the impact of the control variables on GPP. The findings reveal that education and location have a significant effect on GPP, while income does not. In Model 2, the two independent variables, GWA and GPB, are added alongside the control variables. The model shows that GWA (β = 0.11, p < 0.05) and GPB (β = 0.60, p < 0.001) have a significant positive effect on the GPP, confirming H1 and H3.
To test the H2, we used Baron and Kenny’s [97] test for mediation. Accordingly, we developed Model 3 and Model 4. Model 3 examines the effect of the control variables and GWA on the mediator-GCC. Model 4 assesses the impact of the control variables, independent variables, and the mediator on the dependent variable, GPP.
The first condition of this test is supported, since in Model 3 the independent variable, GWA, has a significant effect on the mediator-GCC (β = −0.52, p < 0.001). Moreover, the independent variable-GWA significantly affects the dependent variable-GPP (β = 0.11, p < 0.05), as shown in Model 2, which supports the second condition of Baron and Kenny’s [97] test. Lastly, the third condition is also confirmed in Model 4, since the mediator-GCC has a significant effect on the dependent variable-GPP (β = −0.12, p < 0.05). In support of this condition, in Model 4, the effect of the independent variable, GWA, on the dependent variable, GPP, disappears (β = 0.04, p > 0.05). Therefore, H2 is confirmed.

8. Discussion

This study examines the impact of greenwashing awareness and green perceived benefits on green purchase propensity and the mediating role of green consumer confusion. The findings reveal that greenwashing awareness has a significant positive effect on green purchase propensity. This result implies that supermarket customers who are aware of greenwashing practices are more likely to buy green products than people who are not aware of greenwashing. The awareness of greenwashing can prompt consumers to exercise greater skepticism in evaluating companies’ environmental claims. This skepticism may lead consumers to engage in further research and to seek out genuinely green products, avoiding brands that engage in deceptive practices. Furthermore, the aforementioned relationship is significantly influenced by green consumer confusion. Customers who are aware of greenwashing practices are more likely to discern the distinctions between genuinely environmentally friendly products and those falsely marketed as green. Consequently, they are more inclined to purchase green products. Conversely, consumers who are unaware of greenwashing may encounter difficulties in identifying these differences and may be more susceptible to being misled by superficial claims. These findings are aligned with previous studies. Braga et al. [86] and Chen and Chang [52] examine the role of green consumer confusion in retail products and electronics accordingly. Both studies conclude that green consumer confusion is a mediator in the relationship between greenwashing and green purchase intentions.
Furthermore, the results indicate that the perceived benefit of green products has a significant impact on the likelihood of consumers purchasing them. This suggests that customers who perceive green products as offering superior quality, greater advantages, and the ability to meet their expectations are more inclined to purchase them. The perception of the benefits associated with green products increases the propensity of consumers to choose green products over conventional ones. This finding is consistent with the findings of Chen and Chang [89], who examined the role of green perceived value and risk on green purchase intentions. The results of this study indicate that a green perceived value has a positive impact on green purchase intentions; conversely, a green perceived risk exerts a negative influence. This suggests that consumers who perceive a product to offer more environmental benefits than its competitors and to have a reduced potential to inflict environmental damage are more inclined to make a purchase.

9. Conclusions and Limitations

This study investigates the impact of greenwashing awareness and green perceived benefits on green purchase propensity, as well as the mediating role of green consumer confusion. A survey of Greek consumers was conducted using a questionnaire to reveal the effect of greenwashing awareness on green purchase propensity. In order to form a more comprehensive understanding, this research focuses on three aspects of the impact on green purchasing practices: whether greenwashing awareness has a positive effect on green market practices, whether green consumer confusion mediates the relationship between greenwashing awareness and green market practices, and whether green perceived benefits have a positive effect on the aforementioned green purchase tendency. The findings highlight a positive relationship between greenwashing awareness and green purchase propensity, suggesting that consumers who perceive the benefits associated with green products are more likely to choose green products over conventional ones. This research is an attempt to fill the gap in the literature, with regard to a more holistic approach to the green market trend in relation to consumer awareness factors, the impact of green confusion, and green perceived benefits.
The findings of this research have important practical implications for organizations seeking to promote sustainable consumption. This study highlights that increasing consumer awareness of greenwashing practices can positively influence green purchasing behavior, provided that consumer confusion is effectively minimized. Therefore, companies should prioritize transparent, verifiable, and clear communication of their environmental claims to build trust and reduce skepticism. Marketing strategies should avoid ambiguous or exaggerated messages that may contribute to confusion and instead focus on credible certifications and straightforward product information.
The current research, apart from its empirical contribution, also contributes at the theoretical level. Specifically, it responds to the need for greater interest and attention to be paid in achieving a comprehensive understanding of green market practices, especially in countries with incomplete institutional and regulatory frameworks. Moreover, it adds to the international literature through a holistic approach to consumer awareness regarding greenwashing of goods and services and the influence of green market tactics. On top of that, this study provides international literature with evidence on the green consumer confusion that mediates the relationship between consumer awareness and green market practices. Notable findings on perceived benefits and the impact of purchasing green products are also highlighted. Additional findings under the lens of the theories of planned behavior, persuasion knowledge, and reliable source theories are also confirmed for regions with ineffective institutional and regulatory frameworks towards greenwashing. Through the theoretical contribution of this study, future researchers will be able to extend the knowledge to other aspects of greenwashing. The green market is a vibrantly developing market that, among others, is constantly shaping new practices in the field of product and service promotion to capture the attention of the consumer, thereby continuously sparking research interest.
Some limitations of the present study stem from the fact that it was conducted exclusively among Greek supermarket consumers, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Future research could expand the sample to include different cultural or retail contexts in order to explore broader segments of the market. Moreover, the relationship between respondents’ income levels and their propensity to purchase green products could be further examined, as many authentically green products tend to be more expensive than alternative products of greenwashing.
Although the results cannot be generalized beyond the specific geographic area of Greece in which this study was conducted, they offer valuable insights that may inform similar research in comparable contexts. Finally, future studies might consider including not only the primary shoppers in a household but also other family members, as purchasing decisions may be influenced by collective preferences or suggestions, rather than by the individual’s personal “green” criteria alone.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A. and N.A.; methodology, S.A. and G.A.D.; software, G.A.D.; validation, N.A. and I.M.; formal analysis, S.A. and G.A.D.; investigation, S.A., I.M. and N.A.; resources, S.A., I.M. and N.A.; data curation, G.A.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A., G.A.D., I.M. and N.A.; writing—reviewing and editing, S.A., G.A.D., I.M. and N.A.; visualization, G.A.D. and S.A.; supervision, S.A. and I.M.; project administration, N.A.; funding acquisition, S.A. and N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partly funded by the Neapolis University Pafos.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is waived for ethical review as “no sensitive personal data are collected, and all participants remain anonymous”, provided by the University of the Peloponnese.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request by the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Scale items.
Table A1. Scale items.
VariablesItemsSources
Greenwashing Awareness (GWA)GWA1: It is difficult to identify whether a product is misleading about its environmental characteristics through the use of text. (R)Adapted from [52]
GWA2: It is difficult to identify if a product is misleading about its environmental characteristics through the use of images and graphics. (R)
GWA3: It is difficult to determine whether a product has an unclear or unproven environmental/green claim. (R)
GWA4: It is difficult to perceive if a product exaggerates its “green” attributes. (R)
GWA5: It is difficult to recognize when a product omits important information to make it appear “greener” than it actually is. (R)
Green Perceived Benefits (GPB)GPB1: Green products have more advantages than conventional products.Adapted from [86]
GPB2: The consumption of green products ensures a better quality of life.
GPB3: The consumption of green products improves my health.
GPB4: The consumption of green products meets my expectations.
Green Consumer Confusion (GCC)GCC1: There are a lot of similarities between many products, making it difficult to know which ones are really green.Adapted from [52]
GCC2: The difference between a green product and a non-green product is difficult to discern.
GCC3: With so many products on the market, it can be confusing to identify their green features.
GCC4: Choosing a product that is made with respect for the environment is difficult because there are so many to choose from.
GCC5: I feel inadequately informed about whether a product is green or not every time I buy it.
GCC6: Every time I buy a product, I am not sure about its environmental characteristics.
Green Purchase Propensity (GPP)GPP1: I buy a product because the company that makes it is more environmental responsible than its competitors.Adapted from Chen and Chang [89]
GPP2: I buy a product because it is green.
GPP3: I buy a product because it has more green benefits than other products.
Source: Author’s own work.

References

  1. Varah, F.; Mahongnao, M.; Pani, B.; Khamrang, S. Exploring young consumers’ intention toward green products: Applying an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 9181–9195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Determinants of consumers’ green purchase behavior in a developing nation: Applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 134, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rosenbaum, M.S.; Wong, I.A. Green marketing programs as strategic initiatives in hospitality. J. Serv. Mark. 2015, 29, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chung, K.C. Green marketing orientation: Achieving sustainable development in green hotel management. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2020, 29, 722–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Do Paço, A.M.F.; Reis, R. Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. In Green Advertising and the Reluctant Consumer; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 123–131. [Google Scholar]
  6. Do Paço, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dabija, D.C.; Chebeň, J.; Lančarič, D. Cross-cultural investigation of consumers’ generations attitudes towards purchase of environmentally friendly products in apparel retail. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2017, 12, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Liargovas, P.; Apostolopoulos, N.; Pappas, I.; Kakouris, A. SMEs and green growth: The effectiveness of support mechanisms and initiatives matters. In Green Economy in the Western Balkans: Towards a Sustainable Future; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 79–108. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moisander, J. Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 404–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mydock III, S.; Pervan, S.J.; Almubarak, A.F.; Johnson, L.; Kortt, M. Influence of made with renewable energy appeal on consumer behaviour. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2018, 36, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kumar, A.; Pandey, M. Social media and impact of altruistic motivation, egoistic motivation, subjective norms, and ewom toward green consumption behavior: An empirical investigation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M.; Nogueira, S. Willingness to pay more for green products: A critical challenge for Gen Z. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yener, G.; Secer, A.; Ghazalian, P.L. What Factors Influence Consumers to Buy Green Products? An Analysis through the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability Framework and Consumer Awareness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Papadas, K.K.; Avlonitis, G.J.; Carrigan, M.; Piha, L. The interplay of strategic and internal green marketing orientation on competitive advantage. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moon, C.; Walmsley, A.; Apostolopoulos, N. The mindset of eco and social entrepreneurs: Piloting a new measure of ‘sustainability mindset’. In ECIE 2019 14th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2 Vols); Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited: Reading, UK, 2019; p. 686. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Cao, C.; Huang, S. The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Majláth, M. The effect of greenwashing information on ad evaluation. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 6, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Delmas, M.A.; Burbano, V.C. The drivers of greenwashing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Contreras-Pacheco, O.E.; Claasen, C. Fuzzy reporting as a way for a company to greenwash: Perspectives from the Colombian reality. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2017, 15, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nyilasy, G.; Gangadharbatla, H.; Paladino, A. Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Spiteri Cornish, L.; Moraes, C. The impact of consumer confusion on nutrition literacy and subsequent dietary behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 558–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, S.P.; Chang, S.C.; Liang, T.C.; Situmorang, R.O.P.; Hussain, M. Consumer confusion and green consumption intentions from the perspective of food-related lifestyles on organic infant milk formulas. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Walsh, G.; Mitchell, V.W. The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 838–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Previte, J.; Drennan, J.; Sullivan Mort, G. M-technology, consumption and gambling: A conceptualisation of consumer vulnerability in an m-gambling marketplace. In Macromarketing 2006 Seminar Proceedings: Macromarketing the Future of Marketing? Marketing Department, University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2006; pp. 173–188. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Why not green marketing? Determinants of consumers’ intention to green purchase decision in a new developing nation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Martínez, M.P.; Cremasco, C.P.; Gabriel Filho, L.R.A.; Junior, S.S.B.; Bednaski, A.V.; Quevedo-Silva, F.; Padgett, R.C.M.L. Fuzzy inference system to study the behavior of the green consumer facing the perception of greenwashing. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 116064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Silva, M.; Wang, P.; Kuah, A.T. Why wouldn’t green appeal drive purchase intention? Moderation effects of consumption values in the UK and China. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Islam, M.S.; Zabin, I. Consumer’s attitude towards purchasing green food. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mukonza, C.; Swarts, I. The influence of green marketing strategies on business performance and corporate image in the retail sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 838–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guizzi, G.; Murino, T.; Romano, E. An innovative approach to environmental issues: The growth of a green market modeled by system dynamics. In New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 538–557. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jin, C.H.; Villegas, J. Consumer responses to advertising on the internet: The effect of individual difference on ambivalence and avoidance. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2006, 10, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tesprasit, K.; Aksharanandana, P.; Kanchanavibhu, A. Building green entrepreneurship: A journey of environmental awareness to green entrepreneurs in Thailand. J. Inf. Technol. Appl. Manag. 2020, 27, 35–47. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sawant, R. A study on awareness and demand pattern amongst consumers WRT green products. Int. J. Mark. Technol. 2015, 5, 136–148. [Google Scholar]
  35. Free, C.; Jones, S.; Tremblay, M.S. Greenwashing and sustainability assurance: A review and call for future research. J. Account. Lit. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santos, C.; Coelho, A.; Marques, A. A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its relationship to stakeholders: State of art and future research agenda. Manag. Rev. Q. 2023, 74, 1397–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. de Freitas Netto, S.V.; Sobral, M.F.F.; Ribeiro, A.R.B.; Soares, G.R.D.L. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, Z.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, H.N.; Nguyen, T.T.N.; Cao, T.T. Greenwashing behaviours: Causes, taxonomy and consequences based on a systematic literature review. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 1486–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. 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, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scherer, A.G.; Palazzo, G.; Baumann, D. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Bus. Ethics Q. 2006, 16, 505–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, J.; Fairclough, S.; Dibrell, C. Attention, action, and greenwash in family-influenced firms? Evidence from polluting industries. Organ. Environ. 2017, 30, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, Y.S.; Lin, C.L.; Chang, C.H. The influence of greenwash on green word-of-mouth (green WOM): The mediation effects of green perceived quality and green satisfaction. Qual. Quant. 2014, 48, 2411–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Yang, Z.; Nguyen, N.; Johnson, L.W.; Cao, T.K. Greenwash and green purchase intention: The mediating role of green skepticism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The means and end of greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xiao, J.; Wang, Q.; Dai, J.; Yang, B.; Li, L. Urban Residents’ Green Agro-Food Consumption: Perceived Risk, Decision Behaviors, and Policy Implications in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Haba, H.F.; Bredillet, C.; Dastane, O. Green consumer research: Trends and way forward based on bibliometric analysis. Clean. Responsib. Consum. 2023, 8, 100089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Groening, C.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. Green marketing consumer-level theory review: A compendium of applied theories and further research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1848–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nisa, N.U.; Mendoza, S.A.J.; Shamsuddinova, S. The Concept of Greenwashing and its Impact on Green Trust, Green Risk, and Green Consumer Confusion: A Review-Based Study. J. Asian Bus. Strategy 2022, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tarabieh, S.M.Z.A. The impact of greenwash practices over green purchase intention: The mediating effects of green confusion, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Towards green trust: The influences of green perceived quality, green perceived risk, and green satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vafaei, S.A.; Azmoon, I.; Fekete-Farkas, M. The impact of perceived sustainable marketing policies on green customer satisfaction. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, D.; Ji, R.; Park, S.D. Unpacking Green Consumer Behavior Among Chinese Consumers: Dual Role of Perceived Value and Greenwashing. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nygaard, A.; Silkoset, R. Sustainable development and greenwashing: How blockchain technology information can empower green consumers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022, 32, 3801–3813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lopes, J.M.; Gomes, S.; Trancoso, T. The dark side of green marketing: How greenwashing affects circular consumption? Sustainability 2023, 15, 11649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Urbański, M.; Ul Haque, A. Are you environmentally conscious enough to differentiate between greenwashed and sustainable items? A global consumers perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Argiros, G. Consumer safety in Greece: An analysis of the Consumer Protection Act 1991. J. Consum. Policy 1994, 17, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Douga, A.E.; Koumpli, V.P. Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law in Greece. In Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 307–329. [Google Scholar]
  59. European Commission. Green Claims. 2023. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  60. Communication Control Board. Greek Advertising and Communication Code (Greek). 2023. Available online: https://www.see.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EKDE_2023.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  61. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Changing behavior using the theory of planned behavior. In The Handbook of Behavior Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 17–31. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hameed, I.; Waris, I.; Amin ul Haq, M. Predicting eco-conscious consumer behavior using theory of planned behavior in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 15535–15547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Perugini, M.; Bagozzi, R.P. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Vaccari, A.; Ferrari, E. Why eco-labels can be effective marketing tools: Evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nagaraju, B.; Thejaswini, H.D. Consumers’ perception analysis-market awareness towards eco-friendly FMCG products: A case study of Mysore district. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 16, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sheth, J.N.; Sethia, N.K.; Srinivas, S. Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Friestad, M.; Wright, P. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Harms, B.; Bijmolt, T.H.; Hoekstra, J.C. You don’t fool me! Consumer perceptions of digital native advertising and banner advertising. J. Media Bus. Stud. 2019, 16, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. MacKenzie, S.B.; Lutz, R.J. An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lafferty, B.A.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Newell, S.J. The dual credibility model: The influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2002, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jin, S.; Qiao, N.; Dabuo, F.T.; Zhu, C. The evolution mechanism of green products supply and demand in a demand-driven market. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sun, Y.; Shi, B. Impact of greenwashing perception on consumers’ green purchasing intentions: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chen, Y.S.; Huang, A.F.; Wang, T.Y.; Chen, Y.R. Greenwash and green purchase behaviour: The mediation of green brand image and green brand loyalty. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Guerreiro, J.; Pacheco, M. How green trust, consumer brand engagement and green word-of-mouth mediate purchasing intentions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, H.; Ainn, Q.U.; Bashir, I.; Haq, J.U.; Bonn, M.A. Does Greenwashing Influence the Green Product Experience in Emerging Hospitality Markets Post-COVID-19? Sustainability 2022, 14, 12313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ayoub, D.; Awad, R. The Effect of Greenwashing on Consumers’ Green Purchase Intentions. Arab. J. Adm. 2024, 44, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Walsh, W. Consumer Confusion Proneness: Scale Development, Validation, and Application. J. Mark. Manag. 2007, 23, 697–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Laufer, S. Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tjhin, V.U.; Abbas, B.S.; Budiastuti, D.; Kosala, R.; Lusa, S. The role of electronic word-of-mouth on customer confusion in increasing purchase intention. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2018, 26, 21. [Google Scholar]
  85. Morisada, M.; Miwa, Y.; Dahana, W.D. Identifying valuable customer segments in online fashion markets: An implication for customer tier programs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 33, 100822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Braga, S.; Martínez, M.P.; Correa, C.M.; Moura-Leite, R.C.; Da Silva, D. Greenwashing effect, attitudes, and beliefs in green consumption. RAUSP Manag. J. 2019, 54, 226–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Saxena, P.; Sharma, G. Relationship between the Constructs of Green Wash, Green Consumer Confusion, Green Perceived Risk and Green Trust Among Urban Consumers in India. Transnatl. Mark. J. 2021, 9, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Leonidou, C.N.; Skarmeas, D. Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of Green Skepticism. J. Bus. Ethic. 2017, 144, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sun, B.; Morwitz, V.G. Stated intentions and purchase behavior: A unified model. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2010, 27, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Agoraki, K.K.; Deirmentzoglou, G.A.; Psychalis, M.; Apostolopoulos, S. Types of Innovation and Sustainable Development: Evidence from Medium-and Large-sized Firms. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2023, 21, 2450013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  93. Battaglia, M. Purposive sample. In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Campbell, S.; Greenwood, M.; Prior, S.; Shearer, T.; Walkem, K.; Young, S.; Bywaters, D.; Walker, K. Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. J. Res. Nurs. 2020, 25, 652–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Green, S.B. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1991, 26, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06589 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework. Source: Authors’ own work.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework. Source: Authors’ own work.
Sustainability 17 06589 g001
Table 1. Distribution of Survey Respondents Across Greek Regions.
Table 1. Distribution of Survey Respondents Across Greek Regions.
RegionsPopulationNumber of Respondents
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace562,06917
Central Macedonia1,792,06950
Western Macedonia255,0567
Epirus319,5439
Thessaly687,52720
Ionian Islands200,7266
Western Greece643,34918
Central Greece505,26914
Attica3,792,469109
Peloponnese583,36617
Northern Aegean194,1366
Southern Aegean324,5429
Crete617,36018
Table 2. Factor loadings, CR, AVE, and Cronbach’s alpha.
Table 2. Factor loadings, CR, AVE, and Cronbach’s alpha.
VariablesItemsFLCRAVEa
GWAGWA10.870.910.670.91
GWA20.88
GWA30.80
GWA40.81
GWA50.73
GPBGPB10.710.870.620.87
GPB20.89
GPB30.84
GPB40.70
GCCGCC10.790.910.620.9
GCC20.82
GCC30.88
GCC40.83
GCC50.64
GCC60.73
GPPGPP10.790.920.780.86
GPP20.92
GPP30.94
Source: Authors’ own work.
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and discriminant validity.
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and discriminant validity.
VariablesMeanSDGWAGPBGCCGPP
GWA2.300.89(0.82)
GPB3.930.79−0.03(0.80)
GCC3.470.94−0.60 ***−0.17 **(0.79)
GPP3.540.950.14 *0.64 ***−0.28 ***(0.89)
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Author’s own work.
Table 4. Correlation matrix for the dependent, independent, and demographic variables.
Table 4. Correlation matrix for the dependent, independent, and demographic variables.
VariablesGWAGPBGCCGPPGenderAgeEducationIncomeLocation
GWA-
GPB−0.03-
GCC−0.60 ***−0.17 **-
GPP0.14 *0.64 ***−0.28 ***-
Gender−0.040.020.05−0.02-
Age−0.15 **0.070.17 **0.100.00-
Education0.16 **0.25 ***−0.21 ***0.23 ***−0.12 *−0.12 *-
Income0.29 ***0.11−0.25 ***0.15 **−0.08−0.010.22 ***-
Location−0.29 ***−0.23 ***0.33 ***−0.24 ***−0.020.04−0.29 ***−0.24 ***-
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Author’s own work.
Table 5. Multiple regression analyses.
Table 5. Multiple regression analyses.
Independent VariablesDependent Variables
Green Purchase Propensity (GPP)Green Consumer Confusion (GCC)Green Purchase Propensity (GPP)
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Control paths
Education0.18 **0.07−0.080.06
Income0.100.05−0.050.05
Location−0.16 **−0.050.16 **−0.03
Age 0.09
Direct effect paths
GWA 0.11 *−0.52 ***0.04
GPB 0.60 *** 0.58 ***
Mediating path
GCC −0.12 *
Goodness-of-fit statistics
R20.100.420.420.43
F10.7642.9942.5836.87
VIF1.101.161.131.35
Note: Standardized coefficients are reported. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Authors’ own work.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Apostolopoulos, N.; Makris, I.; Deirmentzoglou, G.A.; Apostolopoulos, S. The Impact of Greenwashing Awareness and Green Perceived Benefits on Green Purchase Propensity: The Mediating Role of Green Consumer Confusion. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146589

AMA Style

Apostolopoulos N, Makris I, Deirmentzoglou GA, Apostolopoulos S. The Impact of Greenwashing Awareness and Green Perceived Benefits on Green Purchase Propensity: The Mediating Role of Green Consumer Confusion. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146589

Chicago/Turabian Style

Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos, Ilias Makris, Georgios A. Deirmentzoglou, and Sotiris Apostolopoulos. 2025. "The Impact of Greenwashing Awareness and Green Perceived Benefits on Green Purchase Propensity: The Mediating Role of Green Consumer Confusion" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146589

APA Style

Apostolopoulos, N., Makris, I., Deirmentzoglou, G. A., & Apostolopoulos, S. (2025). The Impact of Greenwashing Awareness and Green Perceived Benefits on Green Purchase Propensity: The Mediating Role of Green Consumer Confusion. Sustainability, 17(14), 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146589

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop