Greenwashing in Aviation: Recent ASA Rulings

What the ads said and the ASA’s rulings

Lufthansa’s ad claimed that consumers could "fly more sustainably", allegedly without providing supporting evidence. The airline explained to the ASA that their “green fares” offering involves the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) to reduce 20% of flight-related CO2 emissions and carbon offsetting for the remaining 80% of emissions. Lufthansa argued that this 80/20 offering was unique and that their advert was therefore an admissible comparative claim as it differed from general fare options available on the market. They also explained that the character limit of Google Callouts prevented them providing the basis for the “fly more sustainably” claim in the ad itself and that this limitation would be understood by consumers. However, the ASA concluded that the basis of the claim was likely to be material information which consumers would need in order to make an informed decision. It concluded that even if space in a search result advert is limited, crucial information like this could not be excluded.

Air France-KLM and Etihad’s ads were also found by the ASA to lack substantiating information. Air France-KLM’s ad stated, "Air France is committed to protecting the environment: travel better and sustainably". Etihad’s ad claimed, "Total Peace Of Mind With Etihad Airways. Environmental Advocacy". The ASA ruled both ads misleading, as they gave consumers a false impression of the companies' environmental impact. Crucially, the ASA stated in both rulings that “there were currently no initiatives or viable technologies in operation within the aviation industry that would adequately substantiate absolute green claims.” This assessment, coupled with the requirement in the CAP Code that absolute environmental claims be supported by a high level of substantiation, indicate that any attempt to make absolute green claims in the aviation industry is likely to fall foul of existing advertising standards.

The ASA's recent rulings highlight the increasing scrutiny on environmental claims more generally, and in the aviation and travel industry in particular. This puts airlines which have invested substantially, and will continue to do so, in newer, greener aircraft types and sustainable aviation fuel technologies and production in the invidious position of being essentially unable to advertise that fact to the consumer and distinguish themselves from airlines that have made no such investment. This view of the regulatory may by some be considered to be an act of “Greenhushing”: With regulation so strict, companies may decide to invest less because they cannot talk about it, defeating the policies of governments that have been progressive in this field.

What this means moving forward

The CAP has recently updated its guidance on misleading environmental claims and social responsibility. These updates clarify that advertisers should include accurate information about whether (and to what extent) they are actively reducing carbon emissions or basing claims on offsetting. Claims based on offsetting must meet required standards of evidence for objective claims and provide information about the offsetting scheme used.

The trend is clear; airlines will need to ensure their green claims are substantiated and transparent or face potential regulatory consequences.

Whether these developments drive an even stronger commitment to sustainability within the aviation industry or whether it will hinder investments remains to be seen. The ASA's rulings show that regulators will remain tough on the environmental impact of aviation and the wider travel industry and this must be reflected in advertising.

If you have any queries or concerns regarding these issues please don’t hesitate to get in touch with members of our expert green claims team, Constantin Eikel, Amy Cole and Hadrien Espiard.