A survey of 8,980 consumers in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Chile, Colombia and Mexico has put numbers on what corporate communications teams feel in their gut: Generation Z punishes greenwashing faster than any preceding cohort.

Researchers led by Elisenda Estanyol of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) published the work this year in Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers. Co-authors come from Pompeu Fabra University and the MERCO Corporate Reputation Business Monitor.

Who sets the highest bar?

Spaniards top the scepticism table across every age and gender cut. Mexicans and Colombians give the most generous ratings. Italy, Portugal and Chile sit closer to the European median than to Mexico's softer scoring.

"The most striking thing is that Gen Z isn't indifferent or complacent," Estanyol said. "They actively observe, assess and judge the companies' behaviour in terms of the environment. They don't just consume; they construct a brand's reputation, based on what it does or doesn't do for the environment."

Spain earns its harshest-in-class label for three reasons, she added: sharper climate-crisis visibility in local media, a cultural distrust of large institutions, and tighter EU regulation that has lifted sustainability from a bonus feature to a baseline expectation.

Why are Mexico and Colombia gentler?

Less stringent regulatory baselines and lower institutional pressure create room for any visible effort to register as progress. Mexican and Colombian respondents gave companies credit that their European counterparts withheld.

"In countries where environmental regulation is less strict or there is less institutional pressure, any visible effort is perceived as a significant advance," Estanyol said. "In Europe, sustainability is no longer a bonus — it has become a minimum expected standard."

Which sectors start behind?

Companies in tobacco, gambling, fossil fuels and sugary drinks start from a credibility deficit in every market surveyed. Even strong environmental programmes earn muted credit in these stigmatised sectors.

Does gender change the verdict?

Yes. Women rated environmental commitment higher than men across every cohort, with the largest gaps in Gen X and Millennials and a clear, if narrower, gap inside Gen Z. The study flags this as a reason to build gender cuts into any reputational analysis.

What does Gen Z actually reward?

The data frame Gen Z's behaviour as discernment rather than blanket cynicism. Give this cohort credible, measurable action and they return positive scores. Slap a green label on a contradiction and they name it.

"The message for companies is clear: Gen Z is watching and will not forgive inconsistency," Estanyol said. "Companies that incorporate sustainability in a real and verifiable way can gain reputation and legitimacy; those that merely feign commitment risk losing credibility."

What should comms teams change?

The study's recommendations for corporate communication:

• Real and verifiable transparency, anchored in measurable objectives rather than slogans.
• Targeted messages, calibrated to each market's regulatory climate.
• Channels open to participation: Gen Z expects digital dialogue, not broadcast.
• Consistency between words and action — the single largest credibility driver among younger audiences.

Where does neutrality stand?

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

The full paper, Raising the bar? How Generation Z perceives corporate reputation and environmental commitment, appeared in Young Consumers in 2025 (DOI: 10.1108/YC-06-2025-2596).