A research-based analysis of the sustainable fashion influencer landscape

Green influencers: a paradox?

In November 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters to several influencers and the organizations that paid them, emphasizing the need to clarify financial connections in undeclared product promotions. Fines can reach up to $50,000 for each violation. Yet, an analysis of over 100 million tweets between 2014 and 2021 revealed that the vast majority of commercial content on social media is not adequately disclosed by the influencers who post it (source: VoxEU). Consumers are unable to distinguish commercial from non-commercial content in the absence of transparency labels.

A 2024 European study (European Commission) found that 38% of the 576 influencers examined do not use platform-provided tools such as the “paid partnership” button, but prefer vague terms such as “collaboration,” “partnership,” or “thanks to the brand.” Only 36% were registered as merchants nationwide, and 30% did not provide any business details in their posts.

When it comes to sustainability, this opacity becomes even more problematic. Influencers promoting sustainable fashion find themselves in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, they are called upon to educate and inspire ethical behavior, while on the other, they operate in an economic system that rewards them through commercial partnerships that could compromise their independence.

The role of regulations

Regulators propose using a hashtag like “#ad” to minimize potential confusion, but data shows the need for greater regulatory oversight of undisclosed online advertising.

In France, a law has been in effect since 2023 requiring influencers to explicitly disclose commercial partnerships, prohibiting the promotion of aesthetic medical procedures and nicotine-containing products, and requiring legal representation in the EU for foreign influencers targeting French audiences.

In the United States, the FTC finalized a rule in August 2024 prohibiting the creation or sale of fake reviews, including those generated by AI, and deceptive practices such as purchasing fake followers or views to misrepresent influence on social media.

However, enforcement remains limited.

What the numbers say

The influencer marketing market is expected to reach $32.55 billion in 2025, growing 33.11% annually over the past decade (Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report 2025). According to a 2023 Unilever study, influencers can effectively guide people toward a more sustainable lifestyle (75% of people say they’ve made them more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviors).

But there’s a price to pay: every minute spent scrolling on TikTok generates 2.63 grams of CO₂e (Greenly 2024). Given its user base (around 1 billion) and high engagement, some estimates suggest that TikTok’s total annual carbon footprint could exceed 50 million tons, as much as Greece’s annual emissions. A paradox is evident.

In the fashion industry, the data tell a complex story. One study highlights the effectiveness of influencer-led campaigns in promoting sustainable behavior, particularly in contexts where low awareness hinders the adoption of circular models in fashion (D.A., Lechuga-Cardozo, J.I., Areiza-Padilla, J.A. et al.). At the same time, according to the BoF-McKinsey State of Fashion 2024 survey, 68% of respondents are dissatisfied with the high volume of sponsored content on social media, and 65% rely less on fashion influencers than a few years ago. This shift signals the need for more authentic and transparent partnerships, as audiences seek trustworthiness over sheer volume.

Micro-influencers: Does authenticity come at a lower price?

An interesting trend emerges from the most recent scientific research. Studies from 2024-2025 show that influencers with a smaller number of followers generate significantly higher engagement rates than macro-influencers. On Instagram, nano-influencers appear to achieve an engagement rate above 2%, micro-influencers around 1.8%, while mega-influencers (over 1 million followers) hover below 1%.

Research published in the World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews in 2024 shows that nano-influencers achieve significantly better audience engagement than macro-influencers because consumers are more trusting and attentive towards those affiliated with a particular subculture or niche. 44% of brands prefer to collaborate with nano-influencers and 26% with micro-influencers, compared to only 17% for macro-influencers (Influencer Marketing Hub, The State of Influencer Marketing 2024: Benchmark Report).

According to a study published in Sustainability (2024), an influencer’s perceived authenticity is the critical factor in their ability to persuade followers, underscoring the importance of considering the role of credibility when designing effective influencer marketing campaigns aimed at promoting sustainable consumption. Posts featuring personal experiences on sustainable initiatives receive more engagement than branded collaborations.

However, the research also highlights a “greenwashing effect” that leads to negative attitudes when consumers perceive a discrepancy between sustainability claims and the influencer’s actual behavior.

Misleading marketing occurs when influencers, intentionally or through “content tuning,” combine or promote sustainable messages with brands that are not truly ethical.

Consistency is key: trust is undermined when influencers promote sustainability while simultaneously continuing to produce high-volume “hauls” or partner with fast fashion.

Brands should be careful to assess the potential risks of misinformation and miscommunication that can be spread by an influencer.

(Dis)trust in green influencers

A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Management Science identifies how digital greenwashing differs from traditional greenwashing because it operates in an unregulated environment with rapidly changing content, making it difficult to track and verify claims. The study highlights the greater difficulty in identifying greenwashing on platforms focused on aesthetic and emotional content, such as Instagram, especially when micro-influencers promote questionable “green” content. Short-form videos on such platforms appear to prioritize visual appeal over factual evidence, making it more difficult to challenge misleading messages.

Once greenwashing is identified, the research reveals that negative reaction patterns are more intense among younger, digitally literate consumers, who are also more active in sectors with a significant environmental impact, such as food and fashion.

According to research published in Studies in Media and Communication (2025), the trustworthiness and interactivity of green influencers does not significantly impact the intention to purchase sustainable clothing, contrary to previous studies. The researchers explain this finding by the fact that consumers in their 30s and 40s who are tech-savvy and familiar with eco-friendly products may not fully trust the words of green influencers due to the effects of greenwashing.

While influencers can serve as powerful catalysts for raising awareness of eco-friendly products and practices, many are accused of promoting unsustainable products under the guise of environmental sustainability to attract socially conscious consumers. The pursuit of lucrative partnerships can lead influencers to endorse brands that aren’t truly sustainable, using the “green” label as a marketing tool rather than a reflection of core values.

Furthermore, many influencers prioritize aesthetics over impact, focusing on the visual appearance of “eco-friendly” products rather than their life cycle or environmental impact.

Authenticity as a discriminant

A meta-analysis published in PMC (2024) that examined 74 studies with over 12,000 data points identifies “performative authenticity” as a defining characteristic of effective micro-influencers. It’s commonly said that influence arises from:

• likes
• comments
• engagement
• how much the audience “adores” the influencer.

This research takes a different approach:

• it looks less at engagement
• more at the deep mechanisms of trust and attachment
• it analyzes influence in a more “cold and objective” way.

Influence arises not only from interaction, but from how the influencer fits into the construction of people’s identities. The most important result is this: people buy because they want to build and communicate their own identities.

In particular:

• Followers use micro-influencers as mirrors
• They see products (fashion, lifestyle, objects) as a way to express who they are
• If the influencer is credible, present, and consistent, the product becomes a means of self-expression

I don’t buy for the influencer. I buy to tell my story, using the influencer as a reference.

According to a 2024 study published in Advances in Consumer Research, the alignment between an influencer’s brand and the eco-friendly products they promote is critical: mismatches can lead to perceptions of opportunism or greenwashing, undermining consumer trust. Influencers’ transparency regarding their endorsements and the sustainability claims of the products they promote is essential to maintaining credibility and encouraging informed consumer decisions.

The real impact: behavioral change or impulse buying?

A 2025 study published in the Journal of Production, Operations Management and Economics raises a crucial question: do influencer campaigns inspire genuine behavioral change or simply promote fleeting impulse purchases? The study finds that influencers can significantly impact consumer decisions by creating aspirational lifestyles that incorporate sustainable products, and that consumers are more likely to purchase eco-friendly products when they perceive them as trendy or desirable, often thanks to influencers’ push. Ultimately, however, influencers often leverage emotional appeals to encourage consumers to make unplanned purchases. Influencer culture often encourages a high-consumption lifestyle, incompatible with true sustainability, even when the products are marketed as “green.”

Conflict of interest or genuine advocacy?

The answer, supported by scientific research, is: it depends. There are influencers genuinely committed to sustainability, but the system creates structural incentives for conflicts of interest.

Studies identify three necessary conditions for genuine advocacy:

1. Full transparency: Clear declaration of all financial connections with brands, including free products
2. Behavioral consistency: Alignment between stated values ​​and the influencer’s personal lifestyle
3. Demonstrable expertise: Solid knowledge of sustainability issues, critical analysis skills, and references to verifiable sources

Modern consumers are adept at spotting greenwashing and severely punish companies (and influencers) that use sustainability as a mere marketing tool.

Deinfluencing: From Criticism of the System to Yet Another Trend

In 2023, the “deinfluencing” phenomenon exploded on TikTok, a movement that initially promised to subvert the culture of overconsumption fostered by traditional influencers. Early videos showed creators opening drawers filled with 50 unused red lipsticks, confessing they didn’t really need them. The hashtag #deinfluencing reached over 3.5 billion views by mid-2024, and according to the 2024 Consumer Buying Habits Report, 36% of consumers have avoided purchases due to negative or critical reviews from influencers—a figure that rises to 56% for Gen Z. At the same time, 77% of Gen Zers have made a purchase influenced by social media in the past six months (Sociallyin 2026).

As often happens on social media, the movement quickly transformed. “Deinfluencing” videos have simply become another form of influence: instead of saying “don’t buy this expensive product,” influencers have started saying “don’t buy this expensive product, buy this cheaper one instead”—often from Amazon or other retailers with questionable sustainability practices. What began as a statement against consumerism has become a way for influencers to call out products they don’t like, simply suggesting others.

The deinfluencing phenomenon demonstrates that consumers, especially younger ones, desire authenticity and transparency. But as long as sustainability information remains tied to commercial logic, the risk of greenwashing—conscious or unconscious—remains structural. True advocacy requires not only expertise and consistency, but also financial independence from the very companies being evaluated.

The future between real and virtual

The future of influencer marketing in sustainable fashion will depend on the ability to develop economic models that reward authenticity and expertise, rather than simply the ability to generate engagement and immediate sales. Those who succeed in living sustainability and transforming it into real value for the community will be crucial.

The emergence of virtual influencers (digital avatars, AI-generated, 3D characters) adds another layer to the landscape. The influencer is no longer a real person, but an intentional construct.

This breaks many assumptions of traditional influencer research, which is based on:

• perceived authenticity
• personal experience
• human experience
• coherence between real life and communication

With virtual influencers, all of this is simulated:

authenticity is designed
transparency is a choice, not a consequence
coherence is perfect, but artificial

This raises a key question for sustainable consumption: can we trust an ethical message if the person communicating it has no real responsibility?

The emergence of virtual influencers fully warrants dedicated research because:

• It redefines key concepts such as authenticity, trust, and responsibility
• It introduces new mechanisms of identification and self-branding
• It can have ambivalent effects on sustainable consumption, ranging from education to greenwashing

Studying the impact of their characteristics on sustainable consumption is not only relevant, but necessary to understand the ethical and cultural evolution of influence marketing.

Last month the EU finalized a new law aimed at curbing greenwashing, which will ban the use of terms such as “carbon neutral” or “eco” in product claims unless they can be proven.

In March this year, the European Union Commission presented a proposal for a directive to combat misleading advertising, which promotes products, services and corporate images as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. This practice misleads consumers and constitutes an obstacle to the real transition towards a sustainable economy.

Parliament and the Council have now reached a provisional agreement on new rules banning misleading advertising and calling for better product information to be provided to consumers.

The agreement updates the existing EU list of prohibited business practices and adds to it several problematic marketing habits related to greenwashing and premature obsolescence of goods. The aim of the new rules is to protect consumers from deceptive practices and help them make better purchasing choices.

In fact, according to a 2021 survey in four EU countries, 53% of consumers cannot identify greenwashing claims on product packaging. A recent Commission study assessed 150 EU-wide environmental claims across a wide range of product groups, finding that a considerable proportion (53.3%) provided vague, misleading or unsubstantiated information on the environmental characteristics of the product (in advertising as well as on the product itself).

In the fashion industry, several lawsuits involving misleading environmental claims have captured media attention. Prominent brands have been the subject of complaints or public scrutiny by consumer authorities or consumer groups due to misleading claims. Last year, we saw H&M revoke their “Conscious” label and Zara’s “Join Life” label. Similarly, Asos has opted to remove the “Responsible Edit” line and implemented filtering measures on its website. Additionally, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) has suspended its consumer transparency program (Higg Index) after the Norwegian Consumer Protection Authority deemed it “misleading.”

Greenwashing – What can’t be said?

Regarding greenwashing, negotiators from Parliament and Council agreed to proscribe the following:

• generic environmental claims, e.g. “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco”, without proof of recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim;
• claims based on emissions offsetting schemes that a product has neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment;
• sustainability labels not based on approved certification schemes or established by public authorities.

We will no longer hear slogans about carbon neutrality.

“There is no such thing as ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘CO2 neutral’ cheese, plastic bottles, flights or bank accounts”,

said to Financial Times Ursula Pachl, vice director of BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation).

“Carbon neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple. It’s a smoke screen giving the impression companies are taking serious action on their climate impact. The truth is that these claims are scientifically incorrect and should never be used. We are delighted to see that the EU has seized this legislative opportunity to ban carbon neutral claims.”

The terms the EU Parliament and Council agreed ban include:

Read also Greenwashing: i 7 peccati da evitare.

There are many words not to use. The rationale is to ban generic environmental statements unless companies can provide “proof of recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim”.Evidence could include compliance with official EU regulations or recognized eco-labelling schemes (e.g. ecolabel).

Statements should be based on reliable, independent, verifiable and generally recognized evidence, taking into account the latest scientific methods and results. Practitioners should have the necessary evidence to support their claims when using the claims, or be confident that they can obtain and submit it upon request. Truthful, complete and accurate news, as well as corroborated by credible and up-to-date scientific evidence. The scientific substantiation of green claims must be made available to the authorities who request it.

“Generic environmental claims are popping up everywhere, from food to textiles”,

explained Pachl.

“Consumers end up lost in a jungle of green claims with no clue about which ones are trustworthy. Thankfully, the new rules are putting some order in the green claims’ chaos. Companies will have to explain why a product is environmentally friendly. This is crucial if we are to guide consumers to make more sustainable consumption choices”.

The EU directives document explains that, for example, the claim ‘biodegradable’, referring to a product, would be a generic statement, while saying that “the packaging is biodegradable by home composting in one month” would be a specific statement, which does not fall within this prohibition. Furthermore, companies cannot make an environmental claim on the entire product when in reality it only refers to a specific aspect, as in this case the biodegradability claim refers only to the packaging: indicate that the product is biodegradable if it’s just the packaging is deceptive. Another example is the environmental claim that highlights only one of the product’s impacts on the environment, while overall the environmental impact is high. Indicating that “the product is low water consumption” when at the same time it consumes more energy than a similar product in the same category is one of potentially misleading statements regarding the nature of the product or its main characteristics.

Premature obsolescence of products 

Also durability claims in terms of usage time or intensity under normal conditions will be banned, if not proven. Companies will not be able to urge consumers to replace consumables, such as printer ink cartridges, sooner than necessary. Additionally, you may not promote products as repairable when they are not, or present software updates as necessary even if they only enhance functionality features.

A new extended warranty label will clearly show which products last the longest; therefore, it will be easier to purchase more durable products. Recent studies show that up to 80% of EU consumers say they struggle to find information on how easy it is to repair a product.

How far as we progressed?

In order to become law, the provisional deal will now have to get the final OK from both the Parliament and the Council, but it is rare for EU lawmakers to refuse such approval. The vote by MEPs is expected to take place in November. When the directive comes into force, member states will have 24 months to incorporate the new rules into their law.

Although the European Union’s favorable vote on this directive represents a step forward, progress on the two related laws covering environmental product declarations and citizen empowerment has remained stalled. These two laws include the “Green Claims Directive” and the “Carbon Removal Certification Framework”, both presented earlier this year.

Green Claims Directive

The Green Claims Directive is oriented towards the verifiability and transparency of environmental claims related to products. Its main purpose is to provide consumers with confidence that what is advertised as eco-friendly is actually reality. This initiative aims to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions based on clear and understandable information. Furthermore, the directive aims to support companies working to improve the environmental impact of their products and services, promoting their competitiveness. This initiative is in line with the objectives of the EU “Green Deal” to promote the transformation of the economy and society towards greater sustainability. The directive also integrates with existing European regulations, including those relating to consumer protection and environmental standards.

Parliament’s rapporteur Biljana Borzan commented on the agreement as follows:

“We are clearing the chaos of environmental claims, which will now have to be substantiated, and claims based on emissions offsetting will be banned. We have achieved an excellent deal for consumers.

60% of European consumers are not even aware a legal guarantee comes with all products. That changes today, with a reminder to be present in every shop in the EU and also in some cases on packaging”.

 

“Consumers have a crucial role to play in the green transition, so it’s good news they will have more information to make sustainable choices when buying food, new clothes or home appliances. The new EU rules will enable consumers to navigate through a sea of green claims and choose durable products that live up to expectations”,

declared Pachl.

We will continue to follow steps to crack down on companies that practice greenwashing.

Sources European Parliament; Commissione Europea; GreenQueen; Financial Times; Recover Fiber.

Se vuoi conoscere 6 modi per individuare il greenwashing, leggi qui.

Vuoi evitare il greenwashing nella tua comunicazione? Scrivici per sapere cosa possiamo fare per te

Fonte: TerraChoice

H&M and Norrøna received a warning from the Norwegian Consumer Authority (CA), an independent administrative body tasked with overseeing the market to enforce buyer protection laws.

On June 16, the CA sent a letter to Norrøna, H&M and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (supplier of the Higg Material Sustainability Index – MSI) to point out that the environmental benefits declared in marketing campaigns and linked to the Higg index must be true and not exaggerated.

The textile industry must be aware that the commercialization of environmental benefits, which is based on the sector MS index, can easily be considered misleading and illegal. When the apparel industry and other industries use environmental claims in marketing, it is important that the claims are correct. It is a basic principle that marketing must be truthful and give a more balanced and accurate impression of any environmental benefits. Otherwise, consumers risk making poor purchasing choices.

Trond Rønningen, Director of the Norwegian Consumer Authority

In order not to be considered misleading and therefore prohibited, marketing must be supported by documentation demonstrating the claimed environmental benefits. “Many consumers experience that there are environmental claims for products and services ‘everywhere’. At the same time, consumers themselves have a limited opportunity to verify whether or not those claims are correct. So it is important for the Norwegian Consumer Agency to verify these claims, so that consumers can be as confident as possible that they rely on environmental claims in marketing and make the right choices accordingly, ”Rønningen explains on the CA website.

Norrøna

Norrøna used data from the Higg MS Index to communicate the environmental benefits of organic cotton t-shirts. The promotional message gives the impression that since the t-shirt is made from organic cotton rather than “ordinary” cotton, the t-shirt has a significantly lower environmental impact. The Norwegian Consumer Agency cannot find that Norrøna has evidence for this claim.

The reason is primarily that the Higg MS Index does not document the environmental properties of a specific product. “The only thing the Higg MS Index says is the average environmental impact of a particular material. This average does not necessarily apply to the exact product being marketed with environmental benefits,” says Rønningen.

For cotton, for example, the actual environmental impact will vary depending on the country where the organic cotton of the product in question is grown. Furthermore, the Norwegian Consumer Agency pointed out that the research data on which the Higg MS Index is based are partly outdated and unsuitable for comparisons. For this reason its use in communication to consumers is considered misleading and therefore, in Norway, illegal. The CA therefore asked Norrøna to remove or modify the commercialization of environmental benefits based on the Higg MS index.

“We do not want in any way to mislead consumers, but on the contrary to ensure the best possible information on the products that can be purchased“, is the response of Norrøna’s marketing director, Martin Lien, in an email to NRK. The Norwegian brand acknowledges that the information on cotton production is not perfect, based on generalized figures, but according to them it is the best data available at the moment. However, the communication will change following the CA’s recall.

The warning to H&M

H&M has also adopted and plans to use data from the Higg MS Index to communicate the environmental benefits of its products to consumers. The warning from the CA reached the Swedish giant, giving time until 1 September 2022 to adapt the commercial communication.

H&M had already been taken up by the Norwegian Authority in 2019. The use of the term “sustainable” in the promotion of the Conscious collection, without sufficient data to demonstrate, triggered the intervention of the CA to avoid greenwashing.

The Higg MS index

It is a tool developed by the textile industry, by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, to provide a standardized measurement of the environmental impacts of different types of fabrics in apparel manufacturing.

According to the CA, the index “measures” only the environmental impact of fabrics up to the production of the fabric itself, therefore not the entire environmental impact of a finished garment that we buy in the store. The “measurement” is based on average data for the environmental impact of the various types of fabrics that have been purchased from different regions and countries around the world.

The letter sent by the Norwegian Authority urges SAC to avoid using the tool for commercial communication of environmental benefits for consumers.

More marketing surveillance

It is not the first time that the CA has intervened to stop greenwashing. Also in other countries it is desirable to have such a diligent control system increasingly active, in defense of consumers who have neither the way nor the technical knowledge to independently verify the veracity of the claims on the environmental impact of the products.

There are more and more indices, rankings and certifications in the field of sustainability, cited by companies in marketing campaigns to promote their products as “green”. We need evidence to support the claims made by producers, and authorities to supervise the use of greenwashing. It is the road to sustainability that is not a facade, but applied with professionalism by companies, to truly contribute to the fight against climate change rather than to profit growth.