The Green Claims Effect: How Environmental Claims Influence Consumer Understanding and Brand Perception
Eric Unis, Senior Attorney, National Advertising Division, BBB National Programs
Researchers at the University of British Columbia conducted a study for BBB National Programs to examine how consumers respond to different types of environmental marketing, or green, claims.
The study explored a central question facing advertisers, regulators, and consumers: When companies make environmental benefit claims, what do consumers take away from those messages?
The researchers compared unqualified green claims—broad statements such as “eco-friendly paper products”—against qualified claims that explain the specific basis for the environmental benefit, such as “eco-friendly paper products made from 100% recycled materials.”
The study surveyed 1,794 consumers in the United States for their reactions to simulated advertising across six kinds of products and services. The study explored the messages that consumers took away from various forms of green advertising and whether green claims influenced both consumer attitudes toward brands and their assumptions about a company’s broader environmental practices.
The findings, outlined in The Green Claims Effect, suggest that broad, unqualified claims can create a “halo effect.” This is a phenomenon where consumers assumed companies engaged in a wider range of environmentally responsible practices than were actually stated in the advertising. For example, when participants saw an unqualified claim such as “eco-friendly paper products,” they were significantly more likely to assume the company also engaged in other environmentally friendly practices such as using renewable energy, minimizing waste, and maintaining a sustainable supply chain even though none of those practices were mentioned in the advertisement.
Phyllis Marcus, Vice President, National Advertising Division, BBB National Programs said that “Environmental claims can be powerful tools for communicating with consumers, but this research shows that consumers may infer more from broad green claims than advertisers may intend.”
The study results indicated that both qualified and unqualified green claims improved consumer attitudes toward brands compared to advertisements with no environmental messaging. Importantly, qualified claims providing more detailed information did not reduce brand appeal.
The research suggests that more transparent and specific messaging about environmental benefits can help consumers make more accurate assumptions about a company’s environmental impact and do so without harming brand perception.
The findings support efforts to encourage businesses to use clear and informative messaging to advertise substantiated environmental claims. Significantly, the results are consistent with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides’ admonition that broad, unqualified environmental claims are likely to convey a wide range of meanings, so marketers should instead clearly limit the claim to specific, substantiated, benefits.
For advertisers, the study is consistent with the view that greater transparency does not come at a marketing cost. For policymakers and consumer advocates, the findings highlight how claim wording can shape consumer understanding. And for consumers, the research is a reminder not to read more into a company’s green claims than is expressly stated in the advertising.
While broad environmental claims generated positive brand perceptions, they were also more likely to lead consumers to infer environmental practices that were never stated in the advertisement. More specific, qualified claims helped consumers form more accurate impressions without diminishing brand appeal.
The findings suggest that advertisers can improve transparency and consumer understanding while preserving the benefits of environmental marketing.
Researchers at the University of British Columbia conducted a study for BBB National Programs to examine how consumers respond to different types of environmental marketing, or green, claims.The study explored a central question facing advertisers, regulators, and consumers: When companies make environmental benefit claims, what do consumers take away from those messages?
The researchers compared unqualified green claims—broad statements such as “eco-friendly paper products”—against qualified claims that explain the specific basis for the environmental benefit, such as “eco-friendly paper products made from 100% recycled materials.”
The study surveyed 1,794 consumers in the United States for their reactions to simulated advertising across six kinds of products and services. The study explored the messages that consumers took away from various forms of green advertising and whether green claims influenced both consumer attitudes toward brands and their assumptions about a company’s broader environmental practices.
The findings, outlined in The Green Claims Effect, suggest that broad, unqualified claims can create a “halo effect.” This is a phenomenon where consumers assumed companies engaged in a wider range of environmentally responsible practices than were actually stated in the advertising. For example, when participants saw an unqualified claim such as “eco-friendly paper products,” they were significantly more likely to assume the company also engaged in other environmentally friendly practices such as using renewable energy, minimizing waste, and maintaining a sustainable supply chain even though none of those practices were mentioned in the advertisement.
Phyllis Marcus, Vice President, National Advertising Division, BBB National Programs said that “Environmental claims can be powerful tools for communicating with consumers, but this research shows that consumers may infer more from broad green claims than advertisers may intend.”
The study results indicated that both qualified and unqualified green claims improved consumer attitudes toward brands compared to advertisements with no environmental messaging. Importantly, qualified claims providing more detailed information did not reduce brand appeal.
The research suggests that more transparent and specific messaging about environmental benefits can help consumers make more accurate assumptions about a company’s environmental impact and do so without harming brand perception.
The findings support efforts to encourage businesses to use clear and informative messaging to advertise substantiated environmental claims. Significantly, the results are consistent with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides’ admonition that broad, unqualified environmental claims are likely to convey a wide range of meanings, so marketers should instead clearly limit the claim to specific, substantiated, benefits.
For advertisers, the study is consistent with the view that greater transparency does not come at a marketing cost. For policymakers and consumer advocates, the findings highlight how claim wording can shape consumer understanding. And for consumers, the research is a reminder not to read more into a company’s green claims than is expressly stated in the advertising.
The Findings Suggest a Win-Win Opportunity
The broader industry conversation is often framed as a tradeoff between marketing effectiveness and disclosure. This research suggests that tradeoff may be overstated.While broad environmental claims generated positive brand perceptions, they were also more likely to lead consumers to infer environmental practices that were never stated in the advertisement. More specific, qualified claims helped consumers form more accurate impressions without diminishing brand appeal.
The findings suggest that advertisers can improve transparency and consumer understanding while preserving the benefits of environmental marketing.