Next Article in Journal
Human–Plant Encounters: How Do Visitors’ Therapeutic Landscape Experiences Evolve? A Case Study of Xixiang Rural Garden in Erlang Town, China
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Non-Antibiotic Pollution in Farmland Soil on the Risk of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Transfer
Previous Article in Special Issue
From Awareness to Action: Using Immersive Augmented Reality to Promote Sustainable Food Practices
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/su18010451
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

Green Branding in the Digital Era: The Role of Influencer Credibility and Greenwashing in Shaping Brand Authenticity, Trust and Purchase Intentions

by
Athanasios Poulis
1,*,
Prokopis Theodoridis
2 and
Theofanis Zacharatos
2
1
Department of Business Administration, University of West Attica, 12241 Athens, Greece
2
School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(1), 451; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010451
Submission received: 24 October 2025 / Revised: 22 December 2025 / Accepted: 26 December 2025 / Published: 2 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Food Marketing, Consumer Behavior and Lifestyles—2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines digital sustainability signals and the psychological mechanisms (authenticity and trust) that relate to consumers’ sustainable food purchase intentions. While the attitude–behavior gap remains a persistent challenge in sustainability research, our study focuses on upstream factors that may help explain why intentions vary in strength. Drawing on signaling theory, this research develops and tests a framework that combines positive signals (e.g., influencer credibility) and negative signals (e.g., perceived greenwashing) to investigate the impact on green brand authenticity, brand trust, and purchase intention. Data were gathered from a survey of 324 adult social media users who follow influencers with a focus on sustainability and have recent experience buying eco-labeled food products. Using PLS-SEM, results indicate that influencer credibility has a significant and positive effect on perceptions of green brand authenticity, whereas the influence of greenwashing has a significant and negative effect. Authenticity shows a strong prediction of brand trust, and this in turn predicts green purchase intentions with trust mediating the authenticity–intention relationship to some degree. The results indicate authenticity as a key mechanism by which digital signals affect sustainable consumption. The research provides practical insights for food brands seeking to strengthen the psychological conditions that support sustainable consumption intentions.

1. Introduction

The food industry is one of the most important fields where sustainability can be promoted. The sector is a major driver of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity decline, and overconsumption of natural resources, but also of consumer health and lifestyles [1,2]. Consumer awareness is increasing on these issues and sustainable food products have become prominent in supermarkets, restaurants, and digital marketplaces [3]. However, despite this momentum, studies consistently show that expressed consumer concern in this area does not always lead to actual purchase behavior, in something commonly referred to as the ‘attitude–behavior gap’ or ‘green gap’ [4,5]. This gap highlights the need to understand psychological drivers that influence consumers’ sustainability-related purchase intentions, which represent an important proximal step toward behavior.
In this regard, digital media has transformed the way sustainability is communicated. The emergence of social media influencers has altered the marketing landscape fundamentally, allowing for more personalized, interactive, and targeted marketing communication than traditional advertising [6,7]. Influencers, seen as authentic and relatable, can influence consumer perceptions of sustainable brands by sharing narratives that align with values of integrity, transparency, and other values. At the same time, the surge of messages related to sustainability has led to higher levels of consumer skepticism and worries about greenwashing—the practice of exaggerating or falsifying the claims about sustainability [8,9]. Consumers are therefore faced with a double reality: legitimate signals of sustainability by trusted influencers on the one hand and potentially misleading signals by corporate overstatement on the other.
While previous research has explored the importance of brand authenticity as a determinant of consumer attitudes [10,11] and brand trust as a key antecedent of purchase behavior [12,13], comparatively little consideration has been given to how digital sustainability signals affect authenticity and trust in a specific context, i.e., food consumption. Furthermore, few research combine positive digital cues (influencer credibility) and negative digital cues (greenwashing) in a unified study. This is surprising given that food consumption is a highly value-driven and visible area where consumers take an active interest in whether brands deliver on their sustainability promises.
The present study attempts to address this research gap by developing and testing a framework in which influencer credibility and greenwashing perceptions affect green brand authenticity, and in turn, lead to brand trust and green purchase intentions. By paying attention to signaling processes in digital food marketing, this research adds to the literature in three main ways. First, it shows how both positive and negative signals are involved in consumer perceptions of authenticity. Second, it empirically confirms the role of authenticity as a precursor to trust and purchase intention in the sustainable food context. Third, it underscores the role that influencer marketing can play as a strategic lever for sustainable branding.

2. Theoretical Underpinning: Signaling Theory

This study is most based on the theory of signaling [14,15], which provides an interesting understanding of consumer decoding of sustainability-related brand messages. According to signaling theory, in markets where information is asymmetric, firms must use observable cues to communicate otherwise unobservable attributes such as product quality, ethically sourced, or environmentally sound. Consumers then assess the credibility of these signals to lessen uncertainty and make buying decisions.
In the context of the sustainable food marketing, influencers are signal amplifiers. Their perceived credibility, as defined by such factors as expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness [16] boosts the chances of consumers accepting sustainability messages as genuine. Endorsements by credible influencers therefore act as high-quality signals and reduce skepticism as well as strengthen the authenticity of the brand [6,17].
Conversely, when consumers recognize inconsistencies, exaggerations, or vague claims, it is recognized as low quality or distorted signals, ”conceptually understood as greenwashing” [9]. Such signals make sustainability communication less effective, as well as the perception of authenticity [8]. The duality of strong (influencer-driven) versus weak (greenwashing) signals is especially relevant in digital markets, where consumers are constantly exposed to competing stories about the sustainability practices of different brands.
In our research, influencers are defined as content creators who regularly post about sustainability and/or sustainable food and maintain ongoing interaction with audiences through social media platforms. This study focuses specifically on sustainability-oriented influencers, a content-domain category characterized by posts relating to environmental responsibility, sustainable lifestyles, eco-food practices, and related value-driven narratives. Unlike formal classifications such as micro-, macro-, or celebrity influencers, our operationalization emphasizes content specialization rather than follower size, which is more consistent with signaling theory. Within this framework, sustainability-focused influencers function as high-quality positive signals because of their perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and integrity in sustainability communication.
Brand authenticity is the consumer’s evaluation response to signals. As suggested by Morhart et al. (2015) [10], authenticity includes perceived consistency, integrity and continuity of actions of a brand. Within the framework of signaling theory, authenticity refers to the consumer’s choice to accept a signal as credible and consistent with the identity of the brand. Once authenticity is established, it increases trust in the brand, a crucial mediator in lowering consumer uncertainty and increasing purchase intention [18,19].
Within the context of signaling theory, the two focal constructs in this study represent distinct types of digital sustainability signals that differ in both quality and direction. Influencer credibility constitutes a high-quality, positive signal because it is based on observable attributes such as perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and authenticity. Such signals reduce information asymmetry and increase the likelihood that consumers interpret sustainability claims as genuine and reliable [6,17]. In contrast, perceived greenwashing functions as a low-quality, negative signal that introduces ambiguity and skepticism into the evaluation process. Greenwashing is interpreted as a distorted or noisy signal, lowering consumer confidence in sustainability claims and weakening the credibility of the brand [8,9].
Situating these two constructs within the signaling framework clarifies their roles as competing cues in digital environments—one amplifying trust and authenticity, and the other diluting them. This categorization underscores how consumers navigate mixed digital sustainability messages and provides a stronger conceptual basis for the relationships tested in our model.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Influencer Credibility and Green Brand Authenticity

Brand authenticity has become an important construct in consumer research and represents the consumer’s perception that a brand is authentic, consistent and true to its values [10]. It is usually defined in relation to four dimensions (credibility, integrity, continuity, and symbolism) through which consumers derive their inferences about whether a brand’s actions are in line with the stated identity [19]. In the field of sustainability, authenticity plays an important role, as consumers are especially sensitive to the danger of false claims and therefore trust credible signals when assessing a brand’s environmental commitments [20,21].
Influencer marketing has become one of the most significant digital channels in influencing consumer perceptions in this sphere. The credibility of influencers, which is often thought of in terms of expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness [22,23,24], is at the heart of the effectiveness of their persuasion communication. When sustainability messages are delivered by credible influencers, consumers are more likely to infer that the associated brand’s environmental efforts are sincere, as influencer credibility functions as a credibility signal that reduces information asymmetry between brands and consumers [10,19,25]. Influencers who maintain an authentic and credible self-presentation in sponsored content have been shown to transfer these perceptions to the brands they endorse, thereby enhancing perceived brand authenticity and credibility [25,26,27]. Similarly, influencer credibility has positive influence on consumer trust in branded content, which is the credibility dimension of authenticity [6]. Other research supports this result, with credible influencers helping to develop positive brand perceptions and making consumers more likely to perceive brands as genuine in their communications [17,28].
Taken together, these findings suggest that influencer credibility serves as a powerful motivator of brand authenticity, especially in the context of sustainable marketing of food where consumer skepticism is high. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H1. 
The perceived credibility of influencers positively influences the credibility of green brands.

3.2. Perceived Greenwashing and Green Brand Authenticity

Although brands are communicating their efforts to be more sustainable than ever, consumers can be skeptical about such claims. The literature on greenwashing emphasizes the point that when consumers feel there is exaggeration or deception in environmental messages this reduces consumer trust and lessens positive evaluations of brands [8]. Greenwashing is usually defined as the act of giving a false impression, or providing false information with respect to a company’s environmental practices [12], and has been extensively conceptualized as a credibility-destroying practice in sustainability communication [29]. As such, it generates cognitive dissonance and undermines the credibility aspect of the authenticity factor which is vital for consumers to believe in a brand’s claim of authenticity for its sustainability positioning [10,30,31].
Perceived greenwashing has been found to undermine consumers’ beliefs about sincerity and genuineness, which reduces the authenticity of the brand’s claims about sustainability. For instance, Chen and Chang (2013) [8] empirically showed that greenwashing perceptions have negative effects on the green brand equity because of their negative effect on trust. Similarly, consumers interpret misleading sustainability advertising as violating the norm of honesty and this significantly decreases the perceived authenticity [32]. More recent empirical evidence further confirms that greenwashing weakens green trust and, consequently, consumers’ confidence in brands’ environmental commitments [9,33,34].
Within sustainable food marketing, the concept of authenticity is particularly often linked with transparency and consistency of environmental communication. When consumers recognize vague or exaggerated claims, they compromise the credibility of the brand and wonder whether it is in tune with sustainability values. This shows that perceived greenwashing is a substantial barrier to green brand genuineness since it affects the very basis of perceived genuineness.
Accordingly the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. 
Perceived greenwashing has a negative effect on green brand authenticity.

3.3. Green Brand Authenticity to Green Purchase Intention

Brand authenticity is even seen as a strong influence on consumer behavior, especially in markets where consumers are skeptical about environmental claims. This authenticity is the perceived quality of a brand being genuine, consistent, and true to what it says it values [10]. When consumers see a brand as genuine in its sustainability practices, they are more likely to develop positive behavioral intentions, such as purchase intention [11,35,36].
Recent research consistently emphasizes the role of authenticity in shaping green purchase decisions. Authenticity in CSR communication has been shown to enhance consumer trust and, in turn, directly strengthen purchase intentions toward sustainable brands [37,38,39]. Similarly, Vu et al. (2022) [40] demonstrate that consumers who perceive higher levels of environmental authenticity are significantly more likely to express intentions to purchase green products. Collectively, these findings suggest that authenticity operates both as a direct antecedent of green purchase behavior and as an indirect driver through trust-based mechanisms [41,42].
In terms of the food sector, Ahn and Back (2019) [43] highlighted the importance of perceived authenticity in food branding for consumer loyalty and intention to repurchase, implying that the same mechanisms apply to sustainable categories of food. More recently, Lam and Tavitiyaman (2025) [44] found that perceived authenticity in eco-friendly restaurants had a significant effect on the amount of green purchase intentions, indicating the usefulness of authenticity in various sustainability contexts.
Hence green brand authenticity is an antecedent of trust and is a direct driver of green purchase intention. Consumers see authentic brands to be more reliable and in line with their values which makes it more willing to support such brands with their purchasing decisions.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is set:
H3. 
Green brand authenticity positively influences green purchase intention.

3.4. Green Brand Authenticity to Brand Trust

Beyond its direct effect on behavioral intentions, brand authenticity is conceptually and empirically established as a key precursor of brand trust. Authenticity reflects consumers’ perception that a brand is true to its stated values, acts with integrity, and maintains continuity over time [10,11,41]. When consumers perceive a brand as authentic, they infer that the brand’s claims are credible and that its behavior is consistent with its promises, which provides a foundation for trusting relationships [18,19,45,46]. Prior studies in branding and hospitality show that authentic brand cues (e.g., heritage, integrity, honesty) strengthen trust and long-term relational outcomes [20,43,47]. In sustainability contexts, authenticity is particularly important because it signals that environmental commitments are not just opportunistic, but embedded in the brand’s identity, thereby enhancing trust in green claims [10,11]. Accordingly, we propose:
H4. 
Green brand authenticity positively influences green brand trust.

3.5. Brand Trust to Green Purchase Intention

Brand trust has been widely identified as a central driver of consumers’ willingness to buy, particularly when products involve risk, credence attributes, or complex sustainability claims. Trust reduces perceived risk, increases confidence in product performance and signals that the brand will behave in a reliable and benevolent way [48,49,50]. In food and retailing contexts, higher levels of brand trust have been shown to significantly increase purchase intentions for organic and private-label food [13,51,52]. Hospitality and tourism studies similarly demonstrate that trust in environmentally responsible brands leads to stronger green behavioral intentions, including willingness to pay [13,53]. Recent work in environmental CSR and green consumption confirms that trust is a crucial proximal antecedent of green purchase intention, translating positive perceptions into actual buying intentions [40]. In line with this literature, we expect that when consumers trust a sustainable food brand, they will be more inclined to choose its products. Therefore, we propose:
H5. 
Green brand trust positively influences green purchase intention.

3.6. Mediation of Brand Trust Between Green Brand Authenticity and Green Purchase Intention

Authenticity has been widely accepted as a critical factor in determining consumer’s relationship toward a particular brand, which includes consumer’s perception that the brand is true, consistent and driven by value [10,54]. Within the sustainability domain, authenticity plays a particularly important role, as it helps reduce consumer skepticism and provides a credible foundation upon which stronger behavioral intentions can be developed [18]. While authenticity can directly enhance positive brand attitudes, its influence on purchase-related outcomes is often indirect, operating primarily through the development of consumer trust [11].
This mediating pathway has been confirmed by empirical studies. Khan and Fatma (2023) [38] showed that when consumers perceive the authentic in communication from brands, it will increase customer trust which is followed by purchasing intentions in sustainable fashion. Similarly, Vu et al. (2022) [40] found that authenticity has a positive effect on trust in environmentally responsible brands, and trust has a significant mediating effect on purchase intention. In the field of food sector, there is evidence that trust mediates the relationship between perceived brand credibility (a strong correlation of authenticity), and consumer’s purchase intentions for organic private brands products [13,44]. These results converge on the idea that authenticity is necessary, but not sufficient, as an antecedent; it becomes behaviorally relevant mostly when it leads to trust.
Recent research further emphasizes the importance of trust as a mechanism for overcoming greenwashing skepticism, showing that although perceived greenwashing erodes confidence in sustainability claims, the development of green trust can mitigate skepticism and restore consumers’ willingness to engage in green purchasing behaviors [55,56,57].
Taken together, the literature suggests that green brand authenticity has the greatest influence on green purchase intention through brand trust. Authenticity helps in building the foundation of credibility and sincerity and trust is the process by which these perceptions are operationalized into consumer willingness to act. Given all the above the following framework was formulated (Figure 1).

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Context, Population and Sample

We examined consumers’ responses to sustainable food brands in digital environments where influencer content is prevalent. The target population comprised adult social media users (18+) who (i) follow at least one influencer that posts about sustainability/food and (ii) have purchased eco-labeled or sustainability-positioned food in the past six months. This population aligns the focal stimuli (influencer posts and sustainability claims) with actual category experience, reducing hypothetical bias in intention measures.
Data was collected through a professional online panel with national coverage, which applied quota controls on age and gender to approximate national internet demographics. Access to the survey occurred exclusively through closed panel invitations (i.e., no open links), ensuring controlled recruitment and identity-verified participation. Screening was implemented through two behavioral filter questions. First, respondents were asked to indicate whether they currently follow any influencer who posts sustainability-related or eco-food content; those selecting “none” were screened out. Second, participants confirmed whether they had purchased any eco-labeled or sustainability-positioned food products within the last six months; again, a “no” response resulted in exclusion. These behavioral items served to verify eligibility without requiring respondents to rely on self-definitions or subjective interpretations, reducing social desirability bias and enhancing accuracy.
The influencers relevant to this study were not predetermined or restricted to specific accounts. Instead, respondents evaluated the sustainability- or food-focused influencers they already follow in their own social media environment. This means that influencers in the sample were defined by content relevance (i.e., focus on sustainability and/or sustainable food) rather than by their follower count. This approach reflects the naturalistic exposure of consumers to digital sustainability messaging and aligns with the signaling framework of influencer credibility as a positive digital cue.
Table 1 presents the demographic composition of the sample. Gender distribution is balanced (49% male, 51% female), and the age structure shows representation across all major adult groups, with the largest segments being individuals aged 25–44, who typically demonstrate high digital engagement. Education levels are relatively high, with 72% holding university or postgraduate degrees, which is consistent with research showing that sustainability-oriented consumers tend to be more educated.
Social media usage patterns indicate a highly digitally active sample: 88% report daily social media use, and the remaining 12% use platforms several times per week. This is important for the study context, as frequent exposure to influencer content is a prerequisite for interpreting digital sustainability signals. Furthermore, respondents’ exposure to sustainability influencers was also meaningful: 42% follow one sustainability-oriented influencer, 38% follow two to three, and 20% follow four or more. This confirms that participants routinely engage with sustainability- or food-related influencer content, which is essential for evaluating digital sustainability signals in this study. This profile confirms that the sample is well aligned with the study’s focus on digital sustainability communication and consumer responses to influencer-driven signals.
The final usable sample size is n = 324. This exceeds contemporary guidance for PLS-SEM based on model complexity and statistical power: (a) minimum sample size estimation via the inverse-square-root/gamma-exponential methods [58] indicates adequacy for models with our largest structural regression having two predictors; and (b) best-practice PLS-SEM reporting papers recommend samples in the low-to-mid hundreds for multi-construct models aimed at prediction and theory testing [58,59].

4.2. Measurement Scales

All constructs in the proposed model were operationalized as reflective latent variables with seven-point Likert scales as measures (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scales were adapted from existing ones, with some words changed slightly to reflect the sustainable food and influencer marketing context. Influencer credibility was measured by means of the traditional source-credibility scale (Ohanian, 1990) [16], which includes features such as expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. This scale has been widely used for digital and influencer marketing research, including Lou and Yuan (2019) [6] and Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [17], with Cronbach’s alpha reported to be over 0.80 for sub-dimension consistently. Items were modified to refer to “influencers” instead of “celebrity endorsers.” Perceptions of greenwashing were measured by the four-item scale by Chen and Chang (2013) [8], which operationalizes consumer perceptions of misleading, exaggerated, or deceptive environmental claims. This scale has been widely used in sustainability research with reported alphas usually exceeding 0.85 [9,32]. Brand authenticity was measured using items adapted from Morhart et al. (2015) [10] who conceptualized authenticity along the areas of credibility, integrity, continuity, and symbolism. The items were modified to be specific to sustainability communication. This scale has been validated in several different contexts with Cronbach’s alpha values generally ranging between 0.85 and 0.92 [11,18]. Brand trust was measured using four items of the scale of Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2001) [48], which can be seen as measuring consumer’s perceptions of brand reliability and honesty. This scale has been repeatedly applied in consumer and sustainability research, with reported alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.94 [13,40]. Purchase intention was measured using three items adapted from Chen and Chang (2012) [41] and subsequent sustainability studies [54]. These items capture consumers’ willingness and intention to purchase environmentally friendly food products. Cronbach’s alphas reported in prior studies typically exceed 0.85.

5. Results

All reflective indicators loaded strongly on their intended constructs. Discriminant validity was established using both Fornell–Larcker (Table 2) and discriminant validity (Table 3) [60].
Table 4 demonstrates that composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.883 to 0.922 and AVE from 0.610 to 0.724, exceeding thresholds [59]. Finally, collinearity statistics confirmed that all VIF values were ≤ 1.43, indicating no multicollinearity issues.
The results presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 demonstrate that all constructs exhibit strong measurement quality. As shown in Table 4, the Cronbach’s α and composite reliability (CR) values for all constructs exceed recommended thresholds (0.70 for α and 0.70–0.90 for CR), indicating high internal consistency [60]. The AVE values range between 0.610 and 0.724, confirming satisfactory convergent validity. Table 4 further supports discriminant validity, as all HTMT values fall below the conservative 0.85 threshold [60]. Combined, these results confirm that the measures used in this study are empirically distinct and appropriate for inclusion in the structural model.
Table 5 reports the structural model results. Influencer perceived credibility exerted a significant positive effect on green brand authenticity (H1: β = 0.44, p < 0.001). Conversely, perceived greenwashing negatively influenced authenticity (H2: β = −0.28, p < 0.001). Authenticity strongly predicted brand trust (H4: β = 0.60, p < 0.001), which in turn predicted green purchase intention (H5: β = 0.50, p < 0.001). The direct effect of authenticity on intention remained significant (H3: β = 0.22, p < 0.001).
Table 5 reports the estimated structural path coefficients. Influencer perceived credibility shows a strong and positive effect on green brand authenticity, while perceived greenwashing exerts a negative and significant effect, confirming the dual-signal mechanism proposed in this study. Green brand authenticity strongly predicts brand trust, which in turn predicts green purchase intention. Authenticity itself also maintains a smaller but significant direct effect on purchase intention. These results collectively support all hypothesized relationships and validate the signaling-theory-driven framework.
As displayed in Table 6, brand trust partially mediated the authenticity–intention relationship (indirect β = 0.30, p < 0.001). Indirect effects also showed that influencer credibility increased intention (β = 0.13, p < 0.001) and greenwashing reduced intention (β = −0.08, p = 0.002) through the authenticity–trust pathway. Model fit and predictive performance are shown in Table 7, and indicated significant explained variance (R2 = 0.45, 0.36 and 0.52 for GBA, BT, and GPI, respectively), acceptable SRMR (0.059), and superior predictive accuracy when compared with linear benchmark (q2_predict = 0.19).
The indirect effects reported in Table 6 indicate that brand trust partially mediates the relationship between green brand authenticity and green purchase intention. The mediated pathway (GBA → BT → GPI) is statistically significant and larger in magnitude than the direct effect of authenticity on intention, suggesting that trust is the primary psychological mechanism through which authenticity influences consumer behavior. Additionally, influencer credibility and perceived greenwashing exhibit significant indirect effects on purchase intention via authenticity and trust, reinforcing the cascading nature of digital sustainability signals.
As shown in Table 7, the model demonstrates robust explanatory and predictive power. The R2 values for green brand authenticity (0.45), brand trust (0.36), and green purchase intention (0.52) indicate substantial variance explained in the key outcome variables. The SRMR value of 0.059 is below the conventional 0.08 threshold, suggesting good model fit. Furthermore, the positive q2_predict values from the PLSpredict procedure confirm the model’s predictive relevance compared with linear benchmarks [58]. Taken together, these metrics indicate that the model performs well both theoretically and predictively.

6. Discussion

The present study investigated the role of influencer credibility and perceived greenwashing in the green brand authenticity, and the downstream effect of green brand authenticity on brand trust and green purchase intention in the context of sustainable food.
The results indicate that influencer credibility has a strong and significant positive effect on perceptions of green brand authenticity (β = 0.44, p < 0.001). This finding aligns with prior research highlighting credibility as a central determinant of persuasion in digital environments [6,16,17] and extends this line of inquiry by demonstrating its importance for authenticity formation in sustainability-focused food marketing. Consistent with Morhart et al. (2015) [10], authenticity perceptions are enhanced when brand narratives are communicated by trusted and credible sources. Within the tested model, the effect of influencer credibility on authenticity is stronger than that of perceived greenwashing, suggesting that credibility-based signals play a more prominent role in shaping authenticity judgments in this empirical context. This indicates that sustainability-oriented influencers function not merely as endorsers but as key facilitators of authenticity transfer. From a managerial perspective, these results underscore the importance of carefully selecting influencers with high levels of perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness, as well as ensuring strong influencer–brand fit to avoid dilution of authenticity.
As hypothesized, perceived greenwashing negatively affects green brand authenticity (β = −0.28, p < 0.001). This finding is consistent with earlier work showing that vague or deceptive sustainability claims undermine credibility and trust [9,41]. The moderate effect size observed in this study suggests that while avoiding greenwashing is essential to prevent authenticity erosion, it does not actively generate authenticity. Rather, the findings imply that greenwashing may function more as a hygiene factor than as a value-creating mechanism: its absence prevents credibility loss, but its avoidance alone is insufficient to build genuine authenticity. Accordingly, firms seeking to strengthen green brand authenticity should complement anti-greenwashing efforts with clear, specific, and verifiable sustainability claims, supported by transparent certifications and traceable supply chain information.
The results further reveal a direct and positive effect of green brand authenticity on green purchase intention (β = 0.22, p < 0.001). This finding supports prior studies identifying authenticity as a driver of positive consumer attitudes and behaviors [10,11]. However, the relatively modest magnitude of this direct effect, compared with the strength of the mediated pathway through trust, suggests that authenticity alone may not be sufficient to fully translate into behavioral intentions. Instead, authenticity appears to operate primarily as an upstream evaluative cue that enhances consumers’ confidence in the brand, which then needs to be converted into trust to influence purchase decisions. This highlights the importance of integrating authenticity-focused communication with trust-building mechanisms, such as consistent service quality, honest sourcing practices, and reliable customer support.
The relationship between green brand authenticity and brand trust emerges as the strongest path in the model (β = 0.60, p < 0.001). This finding reinforces prior research indicating that authenticity is a key antecedent of trust and long-term relational outcomes [10,18,19], and it emphasizes the centrality of authenticity in trust formation within sustainable food markets. The magnitude of this effect suggests that trust in sustainability contexts is driven less by technical product attributes and more by perceived value alignment, integrity, and consistency over time. Firms should therefore focus on maintaining coherence between their sustainability claims and actions, ensuring that sustainability is perceived as a fundamental and enduring brand value rather than a short-term marketing tactic.
Brand trust, in turn, has a strong positive effect on green purchase intention (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), consistent with extensive prior research identifying trust as a core determinant of consumer behavior [13,48]. Together, the results highlight the importance of authenticity and trust as sequential antecedents in sustainable consumption decisions. Purchase behavior in sustainability contexts appears to be trust-contingent: while authenticity initiates favorable evaluations, trust acts as the proximal driver that converts these evaluations into behavioral intentions.
Finally, the mediation analysis confirms that brand trust partially mediates the relationship between green brand authenticity and green purchase intention (indirect effect β = 0.30, p < 0.001), consistent with the dual-path perspective proposed by Moulard et al. (2021) [19]. This finding indicates that authenticity influences purchase intention both directly and indirectly, with the indirect pathway through trust playing a more substantial role. Moreover, the significant indirect effects of influencer credibility and perceived greenwashing on purchase intention demonstrate how digital sustainability signals cascade through authenticity and trust to shape behavioral outcomes. Collectively, these results contribute to the literature on digital sustainability communication by empirically validating a cascading signal–evaluation–behavior mechanism, illustrating how influencer strategies and greenwashing perceptions jointly shape consumer responses. From a managerial standpoint, authenticity and trust should be treated as a two-stage lever, with influencer selection and anti-greenwashing policies designed in tandem to reinforce this mediation process.

7. Conclusions

This study set out to explore how digital sustainability signals affect consumer behavior in the context of sustainable food marketing. By combining the theory of signaling, the research proved that influencer credibility acts as a powerful positive signal to strengthen perceptions of brand authenticity as well as perceptions of greenwashing act as a negative signal that undermines perceptions of brand authenticity. In turn, authenticity became a strong antecedent of brand trust which in turn translated into higher green purchase intentions. Mediation analysis also supported that trust is the key mechanism by which authenticity influences behavioral intention, offering a fine-grained explanation of consumer evaluation and response to sustainability messaging in the digital space.
In terms of theoretical contributions, this study extends the theory of signaling by showing its relevance of digital sustainability communication. Previous uses of signaling theory have mainly been in the context of corporate reporting, eco-labels, or price-quality signaling [5,15]. This study shows that digital influencers and perceived greenwashing can also be thought of in terms of market signals with consumers actively interpreting their credibility. The findings contribute to the literature on brand authenticity by empirically confirming its two-fold functioning: Authenticity is not only a direct predictor of green purchase intention, but it is also an indirect driver through trust. This validates and extends previous conceptualizations [10,19], proving that authenticity is the psychological mechanism responsible for the transformation of signals into trust-based consumer behavior. By targeting the sustainable food sector, this research provides context-specific understanding of an area where the attitude–behavior gap remains especially large [2]. The framework shows how authenticity and trust can contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the psychological antecedents of sustainable consumption intentions.
This study also offers several practical implications for managers, sustainability communicators, and food brands seeking to strengthen consumer trust and reduce the attitude–behavior gap. First, the strong effect of influencer credibility on brand authenticity highlights the importance of selecting influencers who demonstrate expertise, transparency, and value alignment with sustainability issues. Brands should prioritize long-term partnerships with influencers who have an established reputation for integrity rather than focusing solely on reach or popularity. Second, the negative impact of perceived greenwashing reinforces the need for precise, verifiable, and consistent sustainability communication. Vague or exaggerated claims undermine authenticity and trust, suggesting that brands should invest in traceability information, third-party certifications, and evidence-based sustainability narratives. Third, because authenticity increases brand trust—and trust is a key predictor of green purchase intention—brands should build continuity in their sustainability practices, ensuring that claims are supported by real operational behaviors. Finally, the findings emphasize that sustainable food companies should design communication strategies that integrate credible influencer messaging with transparent product information to encourage more responsible consumer behavior. By strategically managing both positive (credibility) and negative (greenwashing) digital signals, brands can more effectively close the green gap and strengthen the likelihood that positive attitudes translate into stronger purchase intentions, which are an important precursor to sustainable consumption behavior.
Although the study makes strong contributions, some limitations point to future investigation. The research has been carried out under the sustainable food sector, so it may have limits of generalization for other industries (e.g., the fashion, tourism industry). While the present study adopts a quantitative, theory-testing approach, recent work in sustainability and responsible business research emphasizes the value of qualitative and interpretive perspectives for understanding how sustainability claims are constructed, perceived, and legitimized [61,62]. Future research could therefore complement the present findings by employing qualitative or mixed-method designs—such as open-ended questions, interviews, or case studies—to explore how consumers interpret sustainability narratives, eco-labels, and influencer credibility in greater depth, and to compare these insights with existing qualitative sustainability studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Methodology, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Software, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Validation, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Formal analysis, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Investigation, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Resources, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Data curation, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Writing—original draft, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Writing—review & editing, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Visualization, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Supervision, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Project administration, A.P., P.T. and T.Z.; Funding acquisition, A.P., P.T. and T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the Code of Ethics and Conduct of Research of the University of West Attica, this research can be conducted without the need for prior approval from the ethics committee.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The dataset presented in this article are not readily available because the data are part of an ongoing study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kraus, S.; Burtscher, J.; Vallaster, C.; Angerer, M. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Orientation: A Reflection on Status-Quo Research and Future Research Directions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vermeir, I.; Weijters, B.; De Houwer, J.; Geuens, M.; Slabbinck, H.; Spruyt, A.; Verbeke, W. Environmentally Sustainable Food Consumption: A Review and Research Agenda from a Goal-Directed Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1603. [Google Scholar]
  3. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability Labels on Food Products: Consumer Motivation, Understanding and Use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015, 3, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Vaccari, A.; Ferrari, E. Why Eco-Labels Can Be Effective: Evidence from Italian Consumers. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2015, 24, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lou, C.; Yuan, S. Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. J. Interact. Advert. 2019, 19, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ki, C.W.C.; Cuevas, L.M.; Chong, S.M.; Lim, H. Influencer Marketing: Social Media Influencers as Human Brands Attaching to Followers and Yielding Positive Marketing Results by Fulfilling Needs. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 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]
  9. Seele, P.; Gatti, L. Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017, 26, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morhart, F.M.; Malär, L.; Guèvremont, A.; Girardin, F.; Grohmann, B. Brand Authenticity: An Integrative Framework and Measurement Scale. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Napoli, J.; Dickinson, S.J.; Beverland, M.B.; Farrelly, F. Measuring Consumer-Based Brand Authenticity. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Delmas, M.A.; Burbano, V.C. The Drivers of Greenwashing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Konuk, F.A. The Role of Store Image, Perceived Quality, Trust and Perceived Value in Predicting Consumers’ Purchase Intentions towards Organic Private Label Food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 43, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spence, M. Job Market Signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 39–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ohanian, R. Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube Bloggers Promote It, Why Should I Buy? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Eggers, F.; O’Dwyer, M.; Kraus, S.; Vallaster, C.; Güldenberg, S. The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Brand Trust and SME Growth. J. World Bus. 2013, 48, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moulard, J.G.; Raggio, R.D.; Folse, J.A.G. Brand Authenticity: Testing the Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Management’s Passion for Its Products. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Beverland, M.B. Crafting Brand Authenticity: The Case of Luxury Wines. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 1003–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Duffek, B.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Merlo, O. Authenticity in Influencer Marketing: How Can Influencers and Brands Work Together to Build and Maintain Influencer Authenticity? J. Mark. 2025, 89, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.; Kim, E. Influencer marketing on Instagram: How sponsorship disclosure, influencer credibility, and brand credibility impact the effectiveness of Instagram promotional post. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2020, 11, 232–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Buvár, Á.; Zsila, Á.; Orosz, G. Non-Green Influencers Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Dynamic Norms Enhance the Credibility of Authentic Pro-Environmental Posts. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1112762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Giambastiani, G.; Romito, S.; Vurro, C. When Does Collaborating with Green Influencers Backfire? An Experimental Analysis of How Authenticity Components Shape Consumer Reactions to Sponsored Content. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2025, 34, 3385–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liao, J.; Chen, J. The Authenticity Advantage: How Influencer Authenticity Management Strategies Shape Digital Engagement with Sponsored Videos. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 185, 114937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Audrezet, A.; de Kerviler, G.; Moulard, J.G. Authenticity under Threat: When Social Media Influencers Need to Go Beyond Self-Presentation. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 117, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pegan, G.; Balzano, M. Authenticity as Consistency: Insights from Micro-Influencer Partnerships with Sustainable Fashion Brands. In Sustainable Digital Marketing for Fashion and Luxury Brands: Theory and Practice; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 265–291. [Google Scholar]
  28. Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, M.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. Building Influencers’ Credibility on Instagram: Effects on Followers’ Attitudes and Behavioral Responses Toward the Influencer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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]
  30. Tu, J.C.; Cui, Y.; Liu, L.; Yang, C. Perceived Greenwashing and Its Impact on the Green Image of Brands. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Daou, L.; Sayegh, E.; Atallah, E.; Jabbour Al Maalouf, N.; Sarkis, N. Greenwashing as a Barrier to Sustainable Marketing: Expectation Disconfirmation, Confusion, and Brand–Consumer Relationships. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nyilasy, G.; Gangadharbatla, H.; Paladino, A. Greenwashing: A Consumer Perspective. Econ. Sociol. 2012, 5, 116. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tarabieh, S.M.Z.A. The Impact of Greenwash Practices on 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]
  34. Alyahia, M.; Azazz, A.M.; Fayyad, S.; Elshaer, I.A.; Mohammad, A.A. Greenwashing Behavior in the Hotel Industry: The Role of Green Transparency and Green Authenticity. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Claeys, P.; Charry, K.; Tessitore, T. To Be Real or Not to Be Real? The Effect of Genuine (vs. Nongenuine) Depictions of Social Media Influencers on Followers’ Well-Being and Brand Purchase Intention. Psychol. Mark. 2024, 41, 203–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pittman, M.; Oeldorf-Hirsch, A.; Brannan, A. Green Advertising on Social Media: Brand Authenticity Mediates the Effect of Different Appeals on Purchase Intent and Digital Engagement. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 2022, 43, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lim, J.S.; Jiang, H. How Perceptions of Dialogic Communication and Authenticity of CSR Communication Lead to Trust and Brand Loyalty through Online Brand Community Engagement Intention. J. Public Relat. Res. 2024, 36, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, I.; Fatma, M. CSR Influence on Brand Image and Consumer Word of Mouth: Mediating Role of Brand Trust. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, Y.; Du, J.; Shahzad, F.; Li, X. Untying the Influence of Green Brand Authenticity on Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intention: A Moderation–Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 724452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vu, D.M.; Ha, N.T.; Ngo, T.V.N.; Pham, H.T.; Duong, C.D. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives and Green Purchase Intention: An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Soc. Responsib. J. 2022, 18, 1627–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. 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]
  42. Kim, J.H.; Song, H. The Influence of Perceived Credibility on Purchase Intention via Competence and Authenticity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ahn, J.; Back, K.J. Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Brand Engagement in Integrated Resorts. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lam, R.; Tavitiyaman, P. Impact of Green Servicescape on Visitors’ Emotional Bonding Through Their Green Behavior: Mediating Role of Perceived Environmental Responsibility and Trust. J. China Tour. Res. 2025, 21, 990–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, C.; Guo, R. The Effect of a Green Brand Story on Perceived Brand Authenticity and Brand Trust: The Role of Narrative Rhetoric. J. Brand Manag. 2021, 28, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Deng, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, D. How Does Brand Authenticity Influence Brand Loyalty? Exploring the Roles of Brand Attachment and Brand Trust. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2025, 37, 1255–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chua, B.L.; Kim, S.; Baah, N.G.; Moon, H.; Yu, J.; Han, H. When Hospitality Brands Go Green: The Role of Authenticity and Stereotypes in Building Customer–Green Brand Relationships. J. Sustain. Tour. 2024, 32, 1118–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Delgado-Ballester, E.; Munuera-Alemán, J.L. Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 1238–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kumar, A.; Manrai, A.K.; Manrai, L.A. Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Isac, N.; Javed, A.; Radulescu, M.; Cismasu, I.D.L.; Yousaf, Z.; Serbu, R.S. Is Greenwashing Impacting Green Brand Trust and Purchase Intentions? Mediating Role of Environmental Knowledge. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 21329–21346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.M.; Zaman, H.M.F.; Alvi, A.K. Linkage of Green Brand Positioning and Green Customer Value with Green Purchase Intention: The Mediating and Moderating Role of Attitude toward Green Brand and Green Trust. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221102441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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]
  53. Liu, X.; Kim, T.H.; Lee, M.J. The Impact of Green Perceived Value through Green New Products on Purchase Intention: Brand Attitudes, Brand Trust, and Digital Customer Engagement. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amin, S.; Tarun, M.T. Effect of Consumption Values on Customers’ Green Purchase Intention: A Mediating Role of Green Trust. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 17, 1320–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tan, Z.; Sadiq, B.; Bashir, T.; Mahmood, H.; Rasool, Y. Investigating the Impact of Green Marketing Components on Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Image and Brand Trust. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Szabo, S.; Webster, J. Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 171, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based SEM. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’Adamo, I.; Lupi, G. Sustainability and Resilience after COVID-19: A Circular Premium in the Fashion Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. van Tulder, R. Business & the Sustainable Development Goals: A Framework for Effective Corporate Involvement; Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 18 00451 g001
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model based on signaling theory.
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model based on signaling theory.
Sustainability 18 00451 g001
Table 1. Sample demographics.
Table 1. Sample demographics.
VariableCategory%n
GenderMale49%159
Female51%165
Age18–2414%45
25–3422%71
35–4424%78
45–5421%68
55+19%62
Education LevelSecondary education28%91
Bachelor’s degree46%149
Postgraduate degree (MSc/PhD)26%84
Daily Social Media UseDaily88%285
Several times/week12%39
Number of Sustainability-Focused
Influencers Followed		1 influencer42%136
2–3 influencers38%123
4+ influencers20%65
Eco-Labeled Food Purchase
(Past 6 Months)		Yes100%324
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and latent correlations.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and latent correlations.
ConstructMeanSDIPCPGWGBABTGPI
IPC4.981.07 0.220.620.550.49
PGW3.221.210.22 −0.46−0.38−0.33
GBA4.861.050.62−0.46 0.690.64
BT4.721.120.55−0.380.69 0.71
GPI4.791.150.49−0.330.640.71
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
ConstructIPCPGWGBABTGPI
IPC 0.340.720.640.58
PGW0.34 0.490.410.36
GBA0.720.49 0.750.68
BT0.640.410.75 0.73
GPI0.580.360.680.73
Table 4. Construct reliability and convergent validity.
Table 4. Construct reliability and convergent validity.
ConstructCronbach’s αCRAVE
IPC0.910.9220.610
PGW0.8610.8830.654
GBA0.8750.8960.676
BT0.8920.9080.724
GPI0.8660.8890.708
Table 5. Structural model—path coefficients.
Table 5. Structural model—path coefficients.
HypothesisPathβSEtp95% BCa CIf2
H1IPC → GBA0.440.067.23<0.001[0.32, 0.56]0.23
H2PGW → GBA−0.280.074.02<0.001[−0.42, −0.15]0.12
H3GBA → GPI0.220.063.67<0.001[0.10, 0.34]0.07
H4GBA → BT0.600.0512.10<0.001[0.50, 0.70]0.57
H5BT → GPI0.500.068.47<0.001[0.38, 0.61]0.40
Table 6. Mediation analysis—indirect effects via brand trust.
Table 6. Mediation analysis—indirect effects via brand trust.
Indirect Pathβ_IndirectSEtp
GBA → BT → GPI0.300.056.29<0.001
IPC → GBA → BT → GPI0.130.034.62<0.001
PGW → GBA → BT → GPI−0.080.033.120.002
Table 7. Model fit and predictive performance.
Table 7. Model fit and predictive performance.
TargetValue
GBA0.45
BT0.36
GPI0.52
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

Poulis, A.; Theodoridis, P.; Zacharatos, T. Green Branding in the Digital Era: The Role of Influencer Credibility and Greenwashing in Shaping Brand Authenticity, Trust and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability 2026, 18, 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010451

AMA Style

Poulis A, Theodoridis P, Zacharatos T. Green Branding in the Digital Era: The Role of Influencer Credibility and Greenwashing in Shaping Brand Authenticity, Trust and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010451

Chicago/Turabian Style

Poulis, Athanasios, Prokopis Theodoridis, and Theofanis Zacharatos. 2026. "Green Branding in the Digital Era: The Role of Influencer Credibility and Greenwashing in Shaping Brand Authenticity, Trust and Purchase Intentions" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010451

APA Style

Poulis, A., Theodoridis, P., & Zacharatos, T. (2026). Green Branding in the Digital Era: The Role of Influencer Credibility and Greenwashing in Shaping Brand Authenticity, Trust and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability, 18(1), 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010451

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop