Gen Z Is Watching Corporate Sustainability Claims

Gen Z encounters sustainability messages everywhere. Businesses discuss sustainability, packaging promotes greener products, and advertising refers to carbon footprints, recycling and climate targets.

Yet words alone carry little weight. Consumers, particularly younger people, are scrutinising what companies actually do more closely, and many remain unconvinced.

A major international study indicates that Generation Z is closely monitoring how businesses behave on environmental matters.

They recognise when companies deliver on their promises, and they also see when corporate messaging conflicts with reality.

Gen Z is watching closely

Sustainability was once little more than a secondary point in corporate communications. That is no longer the case.

Environmental concerns, worldwide initiatives such as the UN’s 2030 Agenda, fresh regulations and a growing number of climate-conscious consumers have placed sustainability at the heart of corporate reputation.

Young people have played a substantial part in this change. Generation Z, comprising people born between 1995 and 2009, has grown up with climate change as a constant topic.

Throughout their lives, this generation has seen wildfires, severe weather and global debates about the climate crisis. For many, environmental responsibility is not an added extra but a fundamental expectation.

Gen Z evaluates more than the products it purchases; it also assesses the businesses that make them.

A generation alert to greenwashing

The study identifying these trends examined the views of 8,980 respondents across six countries: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Chile, Colombia and Mexico.

Elisenda Estanyol of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya led the research, with contributions from academics at Pompeu Fabra University and the MERCO Corporate Reputation Business Monitor.

Its results point to a generation that monitors corporate conduct carefully and reaches conclusions swiftly.

“The most striking thing is that Gen Z isn’t indifferent or complacent: they actively observe, assess and judge the companies’ behavior in terms of the environment,” said Estanyol.

“They don’t just consume; they construct a brand’s reputation, based on what it does or doesn’t do for the environment.”

“The study shows a generation that is especially sensitive to greenwashing and ready to hold companies accountable when they say one thing and do another.”

National differences in environmental expectations

The findings further showed that location makes a difference. European consumers are generally more severe when judging companies’ environmental pledges.

Spain emerged as the most demanding of the countries surveyed. Estanyol attributed this to several reasons.

“First, there is greater social and media awareness of the climate crisis. Second, there is a tradition of distrust towards institutions and large corporations, which leads young people to adopt a more sceptical and demanding perspective.”

“Gen Z in Spain does not take environmental commitment for granted: it demands evidence, transparency and tangible results.”

Sustainability has become an expectation

The situation in Latin America was different. Mexico and Colombia gave the most favourable assessments of corporate environmental action, although this does not automatically indicate that companies in those countries are more environmentally responsible.

“In countries where environmental regulation is less strict or there is less institutional pressure, any visible effort is perceived as a significant advance,” said Estanyol.

“In Europe there is an increasingly demanding regulatory framework, which raises people’s expectations.”

Estanyol observed that sustainability is no longer an extra benefit. “It has become a minimum expected standard, which explains a more critical and less forgiving public attitude to corporate behavior.”

Corporate reputation varies by sector

The data also revealed another clear trend: certain industries begin with a reputational disadvantage.

Businesses associated with tobacco, gambling, fossil fuels or sugary drinks frequently receive poorer scores when environmental responsibility is assessed.

These industries carry a social stigma, shaping the way consumers interpret their sustainability communications.

This does not make progress unattainable, but it does mean that companies in these sectors face a more sceptical public from the outset.

Gender is another influencing factor. In every country and generation included in the research, women generally gave higher ratings than men for environmental commitment and corporate reputation.

The gap was particularly marked among Generation X and Millennials, though it was still apparent among Generation Z.

Demanding, yet fair

Generation Z is often considered sceptical of corporations, but the evidence presents a more nuanced view.

Young consumers set high standards, expecting transparency and measurable action. At the same time, they acknowledge authentic efforts when they find them.

When businesses offer clear proof of environmental advancement, Gen Z reacts favourably. This reflects considered assessment, rather than instinctive mistrust.

“The message for companies is clear: Gen Z is watching and will not forgive inconsistency,” said Estanyol.

“Companies that incorporate sustainability in a real and verifiable way can gain reputation and legitimacy; those that merely feign commitment risk losing credibility.”

Gen Z sustainability expectations

Environmental communication has become a significant factor in how consumers assess brands. However, the research indicates that communication by itself is insufficient.

Companies require clear data demonstrating progress. Broad claims and marketing taglines can instead prompt suspicion.

Communications must also be tailored to different audiences. Sustainability expectations differ across countries and social groups, so a message that succeeds in one region may fail to resonate in another.

Gen Z also anticipates dialogue. Digital platforms allow younger consumers to question businesses, dispute their claims and request explanations.

Companies that simply send out messages without listening risk damaging their credibility. Most importantly, their actions must correspond with their words.

“The implication for companies is clear: neutrality is no longer an option,” said Estanyol. “For Gen Z, doing things right has a reputational reward, but doing them badly has an immediate cost.”

“Brands face a logic of reward or punishment in which coherence in terms of the environment directly influences trust, reputation and social legitimacy. It’s not enough to talk about sustainability: it must be demonstrated constantly.”

The complete study appeared in the journal Young Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers.