The Global Landscape of ESG Greenwashing: Comparative Mapping of Chinese and English Literature and Governance Challenges

The Global Landscape of ESG Greenwashing: Comparative Mapping of Chinese and English Literature and Governance Challenges

Introduction: The Cognitive Gap from Concept to Practice

Since the 2004 UN "Who Cares Wins" report, the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles have evolved from peripheral concepts into mainstream paradigms in capital markets and corporate strategy. However, with the global adoption of ESG, a systemic risk—greenwashing—has also become prominent. Greenwashing, defined as the practice of companies shaping a positive image by exaggerating or misleading disclosures about their environmental performance, has become a core challenge in maintaining sustainable financial trust. It not only erodes investor and public confidence but also exposes structural contradictions in global governance systems, such as information asymmetry and regulatory lag.

This systematic review aims to go beyond a simple enumeration of ESG concepts to deeply explore the differences in perception, research hotspots, and governance strategies of ESG greenwashing across different research contexts. Through bibliometric analysis of English and Chinese literature from 2017 to 2025, we attempt to paint a complex picture of global ESG governance practices.

Methodology: Constructing a Cross-Context Knowledge Graph

This study employs bibliometric analysis to systematically review 652 papers (2017-2025) from the Web of Science Core Collection and China National Intellectual Property (CNKI) database. The focus of the research is to compare the thematic clustering, keyword co-occurrence, and characteristics of the knowledge evolution stages (emerging, growth, expansion) in the study of ESG greenwashing in English and Chinese literature. This cross-contextual comparison perspective helps identify the similarities and differences in the driving factors and coping strategies of greenwashing under different cultural and institutional backgrounds.

Core Findings: Context-Driven Logic of Greenwashing

The literature analysis reveals a significant divergence in focus between English and Chinese literature, which is not merely a linguistic difference but is driven by their respective institutional environments and practical needs.

1. English Literature: The Transition from Marketing to Institutionalization

The trajectory of research in English literature shows a shift from early focus on the superficial description of "green marketing" and "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR) towards deeper theoretical frameworks of "institutional legitimacy" and "impact perception." Research hotspots are concentrated on how to integrate ESG into capital market performance evaluation and how companies construct a "green narrative" through selective disclosure. The evolution of research indicates that academia is moving from describing phenomena to building more structural theoretical models, attempting to explain the underlying driving mechanisms of greenwashing and identify the institutional pressures behind it.### 2. Chinese Literature: Focusing on Practical Dilemmas and Financing Constraints In contrast, the later surge in Chinese literature has focused more on the "practical implementation" issues of greenwashing. The research focus often centers on "operational level" challenges such as financing constraints, barriers to green finance access, the fragmentation of information disclosure standards, and the actual execution pressures faced by enterprises. This indicates that at the practical level, the focus in the Chinese context is more on "how to comply" and "how to obtain green funding," rather than purely on theoretical construction. This reflects the significant gap faced in developing countries and rapidly industrializing markets as ESG requirements transition from a macro concept into actionable, financed practical pathways.

Long-Term Trend Judgment: The Urgency of Governance System Reconstruction

From the evolution of knowledge structures, the trend in current ESG greenwashing research has shifted from purely "descriptive research" to "intervention research." Future research hotspots point towards attention on AI governance, corporate perception of institutional pressure, and the coordination of policy tools. This suggests that the global governance response to greenwashing must shift from internal corporate self-regulation to more forward-looking and mandatory external institutional design.

Sustainable development should not merely rely on corporate claims of "greenness," but rather on a global governance system capable of effectively identifying, punishing, and unifying disclosure standards. This demands that international cooperation focus on establishing binding, quantifiable ESG disclosure frameworks to eliminate the space for competitive greenwashing arising from information asymmetry between different jurisdictions. This is not just a financial issue; it is a litmus test for global sustainable development capacity and long-term governance resilience.

Conclusion: A Governance Paradigm for Long-Term Sustainability

The issue of ESG greenwashing is a microcosm of the interplay between global capital flows, corporate operations, and international cooperation mechanisms. To achieve true sustainable development, we need to move beyond short-term compliance thinking and build a long-term institutional framework capable of effectively internalizing green governance logic. This requires not only the empowerment of fintech but also stronger policy interventions from international organizations and national regulators in terms of information transparency and cross-border standard harmonization to ensure the authenticity of green commitments, thereby laying the foundation for the long-term resilience of the global economy.

SEO Description Systematic review of ESG greenwashing research from 2017-2025, comparing knowledge hotspots and governance challenges in Chinese and English literature. Discusses context-driven greenwashing logic and proposes long-term policy recommendations for building a cross-cultural ESG governance framework.