Purpose Greenwashing accusations are rising in hospitality, yet organizations often rely on misleading crisis communication. Drawing on Situational Crisis Communication Theory, the purpose of this study is to examine how misleading greenwashing crisis communication influences consumer brand avoidance. This study further examines the impact of perceived response sincerity and brand trust as sequential mediators and perceived crisis severity as a moderator. Design/methodology/approach Two scenario-based online experimental studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Analysis of variance and PROCESS macro were used to assess direct, indirect and moderated mediation effects. Findings The results of this study indicate that misleading crisis communication significantly increases consumer brand avoidance, with omission being more damaging than paltering in shaping negative consumer responses. Perceived crisis severity functions as a moderator in the indirect pathway linking misleading communication to brand avoidance, with the difference in impact between omission and paltering emerging only when lower levels of crisis severity are perceived. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study underscore the value of integrating misleading tactics and sincerity-based pathways into Situational Crisis Communication Theory in greenwashing crises. Practical implications Hospitality firms should avoid omission, communicate transparently and gauge perceived severity early, as sincerity and trust restoration are crucial for reducing brand avoidance. Originality/value This research contributes to the greenwashing and crisis management research by focusing on crisis response strategies rather than prevention. This study contributes to the hospitality field by providing empirical evidence on how misleading communication impacts consumer behavior. The findings also offer practical insights for businesses to effectively manage greenwashing crises.
Ding et al. (Tue,) studied this question.