What Consumers Know
Photo by VH
People already sense something is off.
They just can't name it.
A consumer perception survey conducted alongside the Illumination Index research. What it found changes how you read every sustainability claim you've ever seen.
71%
of consumers are skeptical of corporate sustainability claims, but cannot explain why.
The Illumination Index exists to name what they are sensing.
Three Findings That Explain The Gap
81%
had little to no familiarity with ESG before the survey despite being exposed to ESG-driven marketing daily
95%
said if a company received a high failure label, they would want to see specific evidence, not just a number
52%
said independent verification is the single thing that would make them trust a sustainability claim
That last finding shaped the entire evidence architecture of the Illumination Index. Every value on this site is anchored to named evidence because that is what consumers said they needed.
Four things we learned about how people actually think about this.
Skepticism without language is not skepticism, but anxiety.
71% of respondents were skeptical but could not articulate why. That is not a consumer failure. It is a communication design problem. No tool existed to give that suspicion a name. The Illumination Index gives it a number.
1
ESG is a framework built for investors, marketed at consumers.
81% of survey respondents had never heard of ESG, yet ESG-driven marketing reaches them every time they pick up a product. The audience and the framework were never designed for each other. This is the asymmetry the Illumination Index was built to address.
2
People don't just want a score, they also want the receipts.
95% of respondents said they would want claim-level evidence alongside any high-failure label, rather than just a grade. They want to know the specific words the company said, and the specific data that contradicts it. That is exactly how every finding on this site is structured.
3
In a vignette experiment, respondents rated two versions of the same carbon commitment: one vague, one specific and verified. The gap was 1.5 points on a 5-point scale. Consumers are not cynical or careless. They are responsive to evidence, but they almost never receive it.
4
Specificity is the variable that moves trust.
The Vignette Experiment
Respondents were shown two versions of the same sustainability claim and asked to rate trustworthiness on a scale of 1 to 5.
Version A: Vague
"We have committed to reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions 50% by 2030 from a 2019 baseline, validated by the Science Based Targets initiative."
Trustworthiness: 3.9/5
"We are committed to reducing our environmental impact and building a more sustainable future for generations to come."
Trustworthiness: 2.2/5
Version B: Specific and Verified
When asked what would make them trust a claim, consumers were clear
52%
Would want independent third-party verification, which is the most-cited factor by a significant margin.
95%
Would want claim-level evidence alongside any transparency rating, not just a composite label.
Photo by Shutter Shock