Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Do Eco-Labels Really Influence Young Nigerian Consumers? A Literature Review

Submitted:

20 June 2026

Posted:

22 June 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Eco-labels are a central tool of green marketing, used to communicate the environmental quality of products to consumers. This review asks whether they actually influence the green purchase behaviour of young Nigerian consumers, drawing on work on trust, greenwashing awareness, digital education, price sensitivity and product availability. Reading the evidence through the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Signalling Theory, the paper argues that eco-labels can shape purchase intention when consumers understand and trust them. However, intention rarely converts into purchase among young consumers facing limited label awareness, weak certification trust and price pressure. Evidence from South Africa, Ghana and Kenya points to the same pattern across African markets. Eco-labels work, in short, when they are clear, trusted and attached to affordable products. The paper calls for stronger consumer education, clearer certification, digital explanation, and regulatory action against misleading green claims.
Keywords: 
eco-labels
;  
young Nigerian consumers
;  
greenwashing
;  
green purchase behaviour
;  
green marketing
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Marketing

Introduction

Eco-labels have become common in green marketing as they allow producers to communicate environmental claims that customers cannot check for themselves (ISO, 2018; Spence, 1973). At the point of sale, a customer cannot test for a product’s environmental footprint, therefore the label serves as a signal between seller and buyer (Spence, 1973; Kumar et al., 2021). Whether that signal impacts behaviour, however, is disputed. Consumers often see labels but do not understand, trust, or act on them (Taufique et al., 2019; Riskos et al., 2021).
The question is important for Nigeria as claims of green products are spreading across consumer marketplaces even as awareness of official environmental certification remains thin (Ojiaku et al., 2018; Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Abel, 2024). Young consumers are a very revealing group to examine because they are exposed daily to these claims, through social media, influencers, online commerce and brand advertising (Panopoulos et al., 2023). But digital exposure does not equal purchase. Factors such as price, trust, access, and genuine product need continue to determine what actually ends up in the basket (Dorsamy, 2023; Sharma et al., 2023; Mabaso, 2025).
This review suggests that eco-labels affect young Nigerian consumers under certain conditions: when labels are trusted, understood, visible and associated with true product value (Taufique et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2022). Their influence fades when buyers suspect greenwashing or cannot afford the goods (Kumar et al., 2021; Mabaso, 2025). Although Nigerian research has looked into green purchasing intention, environmental concern and consumer attitudes, only a few studies directly explore eco-label trust and greenwashing awareness among young customers (Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Ojiaku et al., 2018; Abel, 2024).
This research fills that gap, by defining the main concepts, investigating trust, digital education, pricing, access and the intention-behaviour gap, and comparing Nigeria with selected African and global evidence (Struwig, 2018; Traoré et al., 2023).

Conceptual Clarification

Eco-labels are environmental labels that communicate the environmental performance of a product or service (OECD, 2016). Type I eco-labels are optional, third-party approved, and based on agreed criteria that are stronger than self-declared green claims displayed on packaging (ISO, 2018; Taufique et al., 2019). The difference is practical: many green symbols on the shelves in Nigeria are not validated environmental labels at all (Kumar et al., 2021).
Green purchase behaviour refers to the real purchase of products, which are seen as less damaging to the environment (Ajzen, 1991; Sharma et al., 2023). It is not green purchasing aim. Green purchase intention is simply a person’s expressed interest or intention to acquire such products (Ajzen, 1991; Sharma et al., 2023). The difference between the two is the heart of the problem, since consumers frequently claim to prefer green products but then purchase the less expensive choice (Mabaso, 2025). The true test of whether a label works is behaviour, not intention (Riskos et al., 2021).
The term “young Nigerian consumers” here refers to students, young adults, early-career workers, and the Gen Z and millennial cohorts who are active in consumer markets (Ojiaku et al., 2018; Abel, 2024). These are not a single group; income, education, location, product type, and digital access all influence their choices (Dorsamy, 2023; Traoré et al., 2023).
Greenwashing is the practice of making false or exaggerated environmental claims, and greenwashing awareness is the ability to recognise weak, ambiguous or unsupported ones (Kumar et al., 2021; Vilaça, 2022). Lack of verification might even dismiss a legitimate label for brands, thus awareness can cut both ways, protecting consumers while also eroding trust in honest claims (Taufique et al., 2019; Abel, 2024). Digital consumer education includes movies, QR codes, social media posts and product pages that explain environmental claims online (Panopoulos et al., 2023; Rosário & Dias, 2025). This is important since most of these claims are being viewed by young consumers on digital channels. They are not infrequent to find long before on store shelves (Panopoulos et al., 2023; Rosário & Dias, 2025).

Theoretical Framework

The Theory of Planned Behaviour explains behaviour as a function of attitude, social influence and perceived control (Ajzen, 1991). Eco-labels can have a positive effect on the perception of a product’s environmental responsibility (Riskos et al., 2021). Social impact is also a big factor. Friends, family, influencers and online communities can all affect consumer choices (Xiao et al., 2023; Panopoulos et al., 2023). Perceived control is important as well because a consumer may support green products but may not have the money or access to buy them (Dorsamy, 2023; Mabaso, 2025). The benefit of the concept is that it explains why intention so often stalls before purchase. While a young Nigerian customer might enjoy an eco-labelled product, they might not buy it if it is expensive, unavailable, or not well explained (Ojiaku et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2023; Abel, 2024).
Signalling Theory provides a second lens (Spence, 1973). Signals reduce information gaps between sellers and buyers. An eco-label is such a signal in particular, as the buyer cannot directly view the environmental quality (Kumar et al., 2021). The signal is only effective when the consumer thinks it to be honest and credible (Taufique et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2022). That is why greenwashing is also so destructive. When labels are read as weak or incorrect signals, they lose their persuasive power, a serious problem in Nigeria where many consumers cannot distinguish whether labels are legitimately authorised (Spence, 1973; Kumar et al., 2021; Abel, 2024).

Eco-Label Awareness and Consumer Understanding in Nigeria

Awareness is the baseline for influence, since consumers cannot respond to labels they do not identify or understand (Taufique et al., 2019). According to Taufique et al. (2019) eco-labelling works through awareness, meaning and perception. This format is suitable in Nigeria since shoppers may be aware of green phrases but not conscious of their value in terms of certification. Attractive but ambiguous terms such as “natural”, “organic” and “eco-friendly” without explanation merge into valid eco-labels (ISO, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021).
This is why awareness should be studied differently from general environmental concern. Studies from Nigeria indicate that concern is a driver of green purchasing intention (Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Ojiaku et al., 2018), however caring about the environment does not mean a consumer reads or trusts labels in a shop (Mabaso, 2025). Consumer education can bridge this gap. People need simple explanations of what each label signifies, who checks it, and how it differs from regular green advertising (ISO, 2018; Hossain et al., 2022; Rosário & Dias, 2025). When consumers understand these things, labels become more useful. They can then assist individuals in comparing items and making better purchasing selections at the point of buying (ISO, 2018; Hossain et al., 2022; Rosário & Dias, 2025).

Trust, Credibility and Greenwashing Awareness

Trust is the key to the power of eco-labels. Since consumers cannot directly verify if the product is produced with less environmental effect, they need to trust the organisation that issues or verifies the label (Spence, 1973; ISO, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2022). The legitimacy of an eco-label is therefore one of the most important factors in its success. When customers trust the label, they are more likely to believe the environmental statements and utilise them to make purchasing decisions (Spence, 1973; ISO, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2022). That trust is unstable in Nigeria anywhere the certifying authority is unknown: a label with no obvious origins seems like regular advertising and loses its value as a buying recommendation (Taufique et al., 2019; Abel, 2024). So firms need to name and explain their certification in straightforward language (ISO, 2018; Rosário & Dias, 2025).
Greenwashing makes the situation worse by getting consumers to not believe green claims in general (Kumar et al., 2021). This mistrust shields purchasers from fraudulent claims but may spill over into rejection of real labels, especially among young consumers who suspect brands of dishonesty (Vilaça, 2022). Proof is the cure, not promises. QR codes, information about certification, product traceability, and clear online explanations allow young customers to verify claims prior to purchase, thus alleviating scepticism and restoring the label’s utility (ISO, 2018; OECD, 2016; Panopoulos et al., 2023; Rosário & Dias, 2025).

Price Sensitivity, Product Availability and the Intention–Behaviour Gap

Price remains a major barrier in Nigeria. Young consumers may favour green products and still choose the cheaper option when paying at the cash register especially if green products are priced at a premium (Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Mabaso, 2025; Nguyen et al., 2025). This leads to an intention–behaviour gap: stated preferences are not matched by actual purchases and that gap is more marked where incomes are low or prices are unstabel (Ajzen, 1991; Dorsamy, 2023; Sharma et al., 2023). For many young Nigerians, affordability simply trumps environmental preference (Ojiaku et al., 2018; Abel, 2024).
A second barrier is availability, consumers cannot buy something they cannot find. Eco-labelled products are generally available in urban supermarkets and online stores. They are generally less available at open markets and low-income retail shop (Yusoff et al., 2023; Traoré et al., 2023; Abel, 2024; Sharma, 2021). This difference impacts the accessibility of these products to customers (Yusoff et al., 2023; Traoré et al., 2023; Abel, 2024; Sharma, 2021). Thus, eco-label strategy is not only important for advertising but also for ensuring that products are broadly distributed and available where people do their shopping (Yusoff et al., 2023; Traoré et al., 2023; Abel, 2024; Sharma, 2021).
These barriers also point to a methodological weakness. Most studies measure intention, as it is easy to record in a questionnaire but real behaviour varies when price, access and trust come into play (Ajzen, 1991; Yusoff et al., 2023; Mabaso, 2025). Future studies in Nigeria should assess actual purchase, repeat buying and willingness to pay (Yusoff et al., 2023; Mabaso, 2025).

Nigeria in an African and Global Context

The Nigeria-first focus is appropriate to the need for local relevance but the domestic literature is still thin so African comparison helps to fill the picture (Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Traoré et al., 2023). The closest parallel is South Africa, where the strongest regional work on eco-labels and young customers exists. According to Struwig (2018) South African customers care about the environment. But many still struggle to understand environmental designations. Mbokane and Modley (2024) also state that young adults are essential players in green consumerism. These are tendencies that are also anticipated to be shared by Nigeria (Struwig, 2018; Mbokane & Modley, 2024; Mabaso, 2025).
Ghana and Kenya provide earlier-stage evidence from other African markets. Ghanaian research on bottled water and packaging reflects increasing interest in labels and sustainable packaging (Bonney, 2024; Hamidu, 2025) while Kenyan research reveals environmental awareness influencing eco-conscious purchasing among Gen Z (Mwai, 2024). The picture across Africa is one of evidence that is growing but still scattered (Traoré et al., 2023).
Europe displays what a mature system looks like. The EU Ecolabel uses lifecycle standards and third-party verification to underpin customer trust (European Commission, 2026). Nigeria does not have to copy it, the market scenario is different, but the lesson is that eco-labels rely on clear standards and reputable institutions (ISO, 2018; OECD, 2016; Traoré et al., 2023).

Sectoral Evidence and Marketing Implications

Eco-labels do not act uniformly across product categories. Consumers already use labels to judge the safety and quality of food and beverages, so eco-labels on packaged food, water and drinks can carry weight, especially when they tie environmental claims to health and safety (Rana et al., 2026; Ojiaku et al., 2018; Abel, 2024). Brands here should clearly clarify labels and avoid vague green claims (Taufique et al., 2019).
Beauty and personal care rely significantly on claims of natural ingredients, clean production and ethical sourcing, which appeal to youthful customers but also raise worries about greenwashing (Synodinos, 2026; Kumar et al., 2021). These brands require clear certification and honest product information to maintain trust (Taufique et al., 2019; Vilaça, 2022).
Fashion is the hardest situation, since price and trends draw young customers to inexpensive quick fashion, even when they claim to care about sustainability (Panopoulos et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2023; Mabaso, 2025). In fashion, eco-labels are more effective when they are associated with durability, reuse and local manufacture, thereby making the message practical and not moral (Sharma, 2021; Rosário & Dias, 2025). The implication is the same for all three sectors, marketers need to adjust the eco-label message to the category rather than re-use one generic claim (Rana et al., 2026; Synodinos, 2026).

Synthesis of Key Findings

There are four findings. First, eco-labels only work if they are understood by young Nigerian consumers – they need label education before labels can guide behaviour; they work – as simply explained by packaging and digital content – and without explanation they are inert symbols (Taufique et al., 2019; Panopoulos et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2021; Abel, 2024).
Second, trust is more important than visibility. The label, if visible, nevertheless fails if the consumers mistrust the claim behind it. This puts certification, verification and source credibility in the centre and obliges Nigerian enterprises to provide their evidence (ISO, 2018; Taufique et al., 2019; OECD, 2016; Kumar et al., 2021).
Third, eco-labels translate intention easier than behaviour. Young customers may like eco-labelled items, but they will still choose cheaper ones, thus price and access are still the deciding factors with green marketing having to couple environmental claims with affordability and value (Riskos et al., 2021; Dorsamy, 2023; Ojiaku et al., 2018; Sharma, 2021; Abel, 2024).
Fourth, the evidence foundation for Nigeria is very thin. Existing work explains purpose and concern effectively but says little about eco-label trust, greenwashing and actual purchase, a gap that provides the topic an obvious value for future study (Karatu & Nik Mat, 2015; Yusoff et al., 2023; Traoré et al., 2023).

Recommendations

Firms need to not only show eco-labels but also explain what the label means, who certifies it, and why the product is better than traditional alternatives so that young consumers may compare with confidence (Taufique et al., 2019; ISO, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2022).
Digital education should do much of that work. Short videos, QR codes, product pages and influencer explainers match young consumers’ existing habits and ease label understanding, as long as the content is honest and evidence-based (Panopoulos et al., 2023; Rosário & Dias, 2025; Kumar et al., 2021).
Certification bodies and regulators need to improve eco-label requirements. Clear guidelines allow consumers distinguish between legitimate labels and weak claims, minimise greenwashing, and ensure fair competition, thus improving the credibility of labels in Nigerian markets (ISO, 2018; OECD, 2016; Kumar et al., 2021; Abel, 2024).
Finally, enterprises need to confront price and access directly. When green products are too expensive or difficult to obtain, they will be rejected, thus businesses need to integrate eco-labels with quality, safety, durability and long-term value to bridge the gap between green attitudes and actual purchasing (Dorsamy, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2025; Sharma, 2021; Ajzen, 1991).

Conclusion

Eco-labels can influence young Nigerian consumers but the effect is conditional, not automatic. They function if consumers understand, trust and can act on the label, and they fail with high pricing, inadequate access or greenwashing doubts (Taufique et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2021; Dorsamy, 2023; Mabaso, 2025). The two theories explain why. The Theory of Planned Behaviour shows that even with a positive attitude, purchase is not guaranteed without control. Signalling Theory shows that a label is worthless once consumers reads it as weak or dishonest (Ajzen, 1991; Spence, 1973; Kumar et al., 2021). The way forward is education, trust and market access together, and the research priority is to measure actual purchases not intention alone, only then will we know whether eco-labels change buying behaviour or just polish a brand’s green image (ISO, 2018; Yusoff et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2023; Mabaso, 2025).

References

  1. Abel, C. Assessing the impact of eco-labelling on purchase intentions of young consumers in Enugu State, Nigeria. Preprints 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50(2), 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bashar, A.; Alkadash, T.; Nyagadza, B.; Muposhi, A. Sustainable digital marketing: Review, taxonomy, conceptualisation and future research avenues mapping. In Quality & Quantity; 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bonney, E.N.N. Eco-labeling and its influence on consumer purchase behavior in Ghana’s bottled water industry. Undergraduate dissertation, Ashesi University, 2024. Available online: https://air.ashesi.edu.gh/items/89495c15-6e15-4c2f-a43f-12e971dccab6.
  5. Dorasamy, B. Factors influencing the consumer decision-making process regarding green fast-moving consumer goods in the greater Durban area. Doctoral dissertation, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  6. European Commission. EU Ecolabel; European Commission, 2026. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamidu, I.; Rahman, A. Sustainable packaging: Consumers’ evaluation of eco-labels in the Ghana’s packaging sector. Sustinere J. Environ. Sustain. 2025, 9(2), 146–161. Available online: https://sustinerejes.com/index.php/a/article/view/483.
  8. Hossain, I.; Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M.; Alam, S.S. How do environmental knowledge, eco-label knowledge, and green trust impact consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour for energy-efficient household appliances? Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. ISO. ISO 14024:2018 Environmental labels and declarations: Type I environmental labelling: Principles and procedures; International Organization for Standardization. 2018.
  10. Karatu, V.M. H.; Nik Mat, N. K. Predictors of green purchase intention in Nigeria: The mediating role of environmental consciousness. Am. J. Econ. 2015, 5(2), 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kumar, P.; Polonsky, M. J.; Dwivedi, Y. K.; Kar, A. Green information quality and green brand evaluation: The moderating effects of eco-label credibility and consumer knowledge. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55(7), 2037–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mabaso, B.; Osakwe, C. N.; Jibril, A. B. Exploring the green purchase intention-behavior gap among South African millennials using an expanded planned behavior model. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2025, 12(1), 2538715. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311975.2025.2538715. [CrossRef]
  13. Mbokane, L.; Modley, L.-A. Green consumerism in young adults: Attitudes and awareness in university students in Johannesburg, South Africa. Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mwai, L.K. The influence of environmental awareness on eco-conscious purchasing behavior among Generation Z consumers in Kenya: An empirical study. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2024, 9(11). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nguyễn, T. N.; Phan, M. D. T.; Nguyet, P. T. A. The impact of environmental factors on green purchase intention and green purchase behavior: The moderating role of price sensitivity. Management 2025, 2025(1), 597–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. OECD. Multiplication of environmental labelling and information schemes; OECD Publishing, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ojiaku, O. C.; Achi, B. E.; Aghara, V. O. Cognitive-affective predictors of green purchase intentions among health workers in Nigeria. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8(10), 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Panopoulos, A.; Poulis, A.; Theodoridis, P.; Kalampakas, A. Influencing green purchase intention through eco labels and user-generated content. Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rana, M. S.; et al. Assessing the effectiveness of eco-labels on consumer purchase intentions in the food and beverage industry. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 13 2026, 102422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Riskos, K.; Dekoulou, P.; Mylonas, N.; Tsourvakas, G. Ecolabels and the attitude-behaviour relationship towards green product purchase. Sustainability 2021, 13(12), 6867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosário, A. T.; Dias, J. C. The role of digital marketing in shaping sustainable consumption: Insights from a systematic literature review. Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sharma, A.P. Consumers’ purchase behaviour and green marketing: A synthesis, review and agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45(6), 1217–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sharma, K.; Aswal, C.; Paul, J. Factors affecting green purchase behavior: A systematic literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32(4), 2078–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Spence, M. Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87(3), 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Struwig, M. Consumers’ perception of eco-labels in South Africa. Afr. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2018, 4(2), 163–177. Available online: https://savearchive.zbw.eu/bitstream/11159/1856/1/1018382682.pdf. [CrossRef]
  26. Synodinos, C. The influence of eco-labeling in green beauty products: Shaping attitudes and driving purchase intentions. Sustainability 2026, 18(7), 3348. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/7/3348. [CrossRef]
  27. Taufique, K.M. R.; Polonsky, M. J.; Vocino, A.; Siwar, C. Measuring consumer understanding and perception of eco-labelling: Item selection and scale validation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43(3), 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Traoré, L.; Belinga, B.; Lescuyer, G. A systematic review of the scope and patterns of green consumption in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vilaça, C.A.P. Green or greenwashing? The influence of eco-labels on eco-conscious consumers and their purchase intentions. Master’s dissertation, IPAM, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  30. Xiao, J.; Yang, Z.; Li, Z.; Chen, Z. A review of social roles in green consumer behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2023, 47(6), 2033–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yusoff, N.; Alias, M.; Ismail, N. Drivers of green purchasing behaviour: A systematic review and a research agenda. F1000Research 12 2023, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated