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.