Guest editorial: Greenwashing: managerial and financial perspectives in the context of uncertainty

With environmental problems becoming increasingly severe, low-carbon development has become an inevitable choice. Energy conservation, emission reduction, and low-carbon development are vital for promoting sustainable development worldwide (e.g. Abakah et al., 2025; Shang et al., 2023; Tian et al., 2023). Growing environmental awareness is prompting consumers to shift towards greener lifestyles – a transition crucial for steering economies and societies towards sustainable development (Zhang and Zheng, 2023). At the same time, as consumer demand for green products rises, many companies are adopting green marketing strategies to gain a competitive advantage and attract eco-conscious consumers (Rossolini et al., 2021). Thus, green marketing has become an important means for companies to secure a competitive edge (Zhang et al., 2018; Szerena and Webster, 2021). However, the marketing success of green products has also contributed to the emergence of greenwashing (Yang et al., 2020), and interest in the topic has grown in recent decades (Santos et al., 2024).The increased interest in corporate green practices (Miroshnychenko et al., 2017) and heightened competition in the global marketplace have prompted companies to disclose more information about their environmental contributions. In these disclosures, some firms tend to exaggerate or overstate their environmental commitments, and such green marketing strategies, when decoupled from substantive actions, are referred to as greenwashing (Testa et al., 2018). From a financial perspective, green finance, one of the central themes of sustainable finance research (Agha et al., 2024; Tiwari, 2022), plays a crucial role in promoting green, low-carbon development and achieving carbon neutrality (Kumar et al., 2025; Zheng et al., 2023). While some scholars argue that the development of green finance can mitigate corporate tendencies towards greenwashing, others contend that green financial instruments themselves may be misused for greenwashing through the misappropriation of green funds (Zhang, 2023; Zheng et al., 2023). This Special Issue invites multi-directional discussions on these tensions.In contexts characterised by uncertainty (Qureshi et al., 2023), greenwashing can be a double-edged sword, presenting both opportunities and risks (Forliano et al., 2025). Risks associated with greenwashing include reputational, legal, competitive, and investment risks (Bo and Battisti, 2024). However, exaggerated environmental claims may also create market opportunities, attract investors, promote transformation initiatives, and garner policy support and collaboration by enhancing a green image.Specifically, the Call stressed the urgency of exploring how managerial incentives, financial frameworks, regulatory mechanisms, and stakeholder expectations shape greenwashing practices. It invited scholars to consider the phenomenon's multidimensional nature and its implications for firms, markets, and society.In line with this vision, the Call encouraged contributions that advance theoretical, empirical, and methodological perspectives on the dynamics of greenwashing across diverse organisational settings. It explicitly urged researchers to investigate.This Special Issue reflects these ambitions. Its contributions collectively offer a rich, multifaceted, and interdisciplinary understanding of greenwashing, shedding light on the phenomenon from managerial, behavioural, technological, financial, and policy-oriented perspectives. Together, the papers deepen our understanding of why firms engage in greenwashing, how stakeholders interpret and respond to such behaviour, and which mechanisms may effectively curb deceptive practices, particularly within the financial and banking sectors.The following section presents a comprehensive synopsis of the contributions included in this Special Issue.We received 39 submissions for this Special Issue and accepted 10. The resulting collection brings together a diverse set of contributions that collectively explore the complexities of greenwashing – its drivers, its consequences, and its potential remedies. The papers span behavioural, managerial, technological, financial, institutional, and public policy perspectives, offering complementary insights that enrich academic understanding and provide guidance for practitioners and regulators.We begin with a foundational perspective offered in the paper “Assessing the economic and social impacts of greenwashing: moderating impact of big data analytics adoption” by Chaudhuri et al. (2026). This study investigates how greenwashing affects both economic and social outcomes and highlights the moderating role of big data analytics (BDA). Drawing on a structural equation modelling approach and a cross-national European sample, the authors show that greenwashing undermines both economic achievements and social legitimacy, reducing trust and weakening corporate credibility. However, they also demonstrate that BDA adoption helps mitigate these negative outcomes by enhancing transparency, improving decision-making processes, and supporting more reliable monitoring of sustainability activities. This study underscores the vital role of technological capabilities in reducing information asymmetries associated with greenwashing and opens new avenues for research on data-driven sustainability governance.The second contribution, “The role of institutional pressures in greenwashing: a two-phase study on company behavior” by Chakraborty et al. (2026) adopts an institutional theory perspective to analyse how coercive, normative, mimetic and economic pressures influence greenwashing practices within organisations. Through a longitudinal two-phase design involving over 1,700 corporate managers, the study reveals that institutional pressures can simultaneously inhibit and encourage greenwashing. While coercive pressures tend to limit deceptive practices, mimetic and normative pressures, especially in highly competitive or sustainability-oriented markets, may incentivise firms to communicate environmental commitments symbolically rather than substantively. The findings highlight the ambivalent nature of institutional environments and offer insightful implications for regulators seeking to refine environmental policy frameworks.Moving from institutional forces to macroeconomic conditions, the third contribution by Zhao et al. (2026)“How does perception of economic policy uncertainty affect corporate greenwashing?”, explores how firms adjust their environmental communication strategies when confronted with heightened economic policy uncertainty. Using panel data from Chinese listed firms over nearly a decade, the authors show that uncertainty serves as a catalyst for increased greenwashing. Firms tend to strategically amplify sustainability claims as a buffer against investor concerns, thereby increasing the divergence between actual environmental performance and disclosed information. The study also highlights the roles of agency costs, investor sentiment and credit availability in shaping these dynamics. The contribution offers policymakers in emerging economies valuable insights into managing the unintended consequences of macroeconomic instability on corporate behaviour.The following paper by Raimo et al. (2026) captures the intersection between sustainability and intangible assets in “Circular intellectual capital: integrating circular economy principles into intellectual capital frameworks”. This study introduces the innovative concept of Circular Intellectual Capital (CIC), which reinterprets traditional intellectual capital components through the lens of circular economy principles. Through an empirical analysis of Italian listed companies, the paper finds that CIC disclosure remains limited and is significantly influenced by firm size and profitability. The authors provide a pioneering framework that connects circularity with organisational intellectual assets, highlighting the strategic relevance of human, structural, and relational capital in fostering sustainable transformation.Governance mechanisms and managerial incentives emerge prominently in the fifth contribution, “Greenwashing and executive compensation: what is the link? Evidence from banks”. Abis and Damilano (2026) using a global panel of banks, examine the effects of ESG-linked executive compensation on the likelihood of greenwashing behaviours. The results show that introducing compensation structures tied to sustainability metrics reduces greenwashing, suggesting that well-designed incentive systems can curb managerial opportunism and promote authentic environmental engagement. This study fills an important gap in the literature by linking executive pay design to the reliability of sustainability disclosures within the banking sector.The next paper, “Differentiating between a genuine environmental strategy and greenwashing: evidence from the cooperative banking sector”, investigates the consequences of greenwashing on brand-related outcomes in cooperative banks. Neves Proença et al. (2026) analyse how corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices shape brand community commitment, and how greenwashing moderates this relationship. Their findings show that sincere CSR efforts foster loyalty, trust and positive brand image, whereas greenwashing erodes these outcomes, threatening the relational capital that is particularly important for cooperative banks. This study highlights the critical importance of authenticity in sustainability communication, especially in financial institutions where customer trust is essential.The behavioural implications of greenwashing are also examined in “From greenwashing to brand avoidance: the roles of perceived risk, trust and negative word-of-mouth” by Mohammed et al. (2026). Drawing on expectancy violation theory, the authors investigate how perceived greenwashing triggers negative reactions among consumers, such as reduced trust, heightened risk perception, negative word-of-mouth (NWoM) and ultimately brand avoidance. The findings confirm that greenwashing can severely damage brand equity and long-term consumer relationships, reinforcing the idea that misleading environmental claims may backfire dramatically in markets where sustainability awareness is increasing.An important financial perspective is offered in the paper “Painting or glossing my brand? Revealing greenwashing practices through the ESG impact on banks brand value”. Using a longitudinal dataset of more than 120 banks, Cuomo et al. (2026) analyse the relationship between ESG ratings and brand value. Their results indicate that while ESG commitment does not directly increase brand value, significant moderating effects arise from bank size and risk profiles. Larger and riskier banks seem to derive greater brand benefits from sustainability engagement, suggesting that contextual factors must be considered when assessing the impact of ESG practices on intangible assets.The public-sector angle on greenwashing is explored in “The role of Green WACC in reducing greenwashing: assessing financial and environmental integrity in municipal waste management” by Bužinskė et al. (2026). Focusing on Lithuanian municipalities, the study introduces Green WACC as a tool for evaluating both environmental performance and financial sustainability. The findings show a clear relationship between environmental integrity and financing conditions: municipalities with stronger waste management outcomes face lower costs of capital, while weaker performers incur higher ones. This innovative framework offers a practical approach for identifying greenwashing risks in local governments and aligns sustainability with financial incentives.Finally, the Special Issue is enriched by the contribution “Greenwashing in banking: exploring the interplay of strategic ambidexterity, public policy, and customer orientation”. Through a mixed-method design combining surveys, interviews and analysis of ESG reports, Salwan et al. (2026) investigate how exploration and exploitation capabilities, regulatory enforcement and customer advocacy shape greenwashing in multinational, private and public banks. The findings show that banks' internal capabilities, external regulatory constraints and market pressures jointly determine whether sustainability communication is symbolic or substantive. This contribution provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the drivers of greenwashing in the banking sector and highlights the need for integrated strategies to enhance credibility and accountability.Taken together, the papers included in this Special Issue provide an extensive and multifaceted examination of greenwashing, exploring its antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences across managerial, financial, behavioural, and policy domains. Collectively, they demonstrate that greenwashing is not merely a communication issue, but a complex strategic phenomenon shaped by institutional pressures, macroeconomic uncertainty, managerial incentives, technological capabilities, and stakeholder dynamics.The insights offered in this Special Issue hold significant implications for regulators, managers, investors, and scholars. They highlight the need for more refined measurement tools, stronger governance mechanisms, enhanced verification systems, and more transparent disclosure practices. They also call for further research to uncover how sustainability commitments evolve across different institutional contexts, how stakeholders interpret environmental claims, and how deceptive practices can be effectively mitigated.We hope that this Special Issue will stimulate further scholarly debate and inspire future research at the intersection of sustainability, finance, governance, and organisational behaviour. We express our deepest gratitude to the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Bank Marketing, Prof. Dr Hooman Estelami, for the opportunity to lead this Special Issue, to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback, and to all the authors whose contributions have enriched this collection and advanced our understanding of greenwashing in contexts of uncertainty.