Travel sector cruises into trouble with misleading ‘green’ claims

Earlier this month, the ASA ruled that four ads, each for cruise holidays, breached the CAP Code because they made environmental claims which either could not be substantiated, or were misleading because they painted a misleading overall impression of cruising’s overall environmental impact.

The ‘green’ statements ranged from broad claims such as “focus on sustainability” or “eco-friendly practices”, to more specific information about steps which were being taken to reduce the environmental impact of the relevant cruise ship, such as the use of Liquified Natural Gas, or changes to the ship’s design and technology.

One ad, for example, claimed that: “The cruise industry has made giant leaps over the past decade to reduce its environmental impact. Recycling, incinerating and waste processing are now the norm, not the exception. Green tech is also being installed on new ships and retrofitted on older ones [...] the MSC Virtuosa strives to protect marine life, reduce air emissions and optimise energy”. 

While those statements may have been true, the ASA took the view that cruise holidays have a high environmental impact. It was therefore misleading to present information about the steps being taken to reduce the impact, without also acknowledging the harm which would still be caused. In the case of cruising, that includes greenhouse gas emissions, the discharge of various grades of waste water, and the impact of noise on marine life.

This obligation to be transparent about environmental harms is consistent with the approach taken by the ASA when green claims are made by other high-impact industries, such as airlines and energy companies. 

Overarching principles when making green claims

It is incredibly difficult for advertisers to make environmental claims which comply with the CAP Code (which largely mirrors the CMA’s Green Claims Code).

The provisions which trip up advertisers the most are those which relate to the following:

Absolute environmental claims (e.g. “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”) must be supported by a high level of substantiation. The regulators are likely to expect evidence that the advertised product causes no environmental damage, which is almost impossible.

Claims about a product’s impact on the environment must consider the full life-cycle of the product (unless it is clear that you are only discussing one aspect of it). This means addressing the impacts caused from everything from the raw materials, manufacture, transport, use and disposal (and everything in between).

If the advertiser operates in a sector which is deemed to have a high impact on the environment (such as energy, travel, food) there is an obligation to balance out positive steps being taken to reduce environmental impacts with information which acknowledges the continuing environmental harm which is caused by the product.

An obligation to monitor third parties who advertise your products to the public? 

Another interesting aspect of this series of ASA rulings is that, in each case, the relevant ad was created and published by an independent travel agent, rather than the cruise operator.

A number of the travel agents said in their response to the ASA that the problematic claims were in fact taken from the cruise company’s ‘official sources’ (perhaps sustainability reports or press releases).

The cruise operators had no control over the ads, but this serves as a good reminder that it is prudent to monitor what others are saying about your products, particularly in relation to sustainability efforts. While it is the advertiser who is reprimanded by the ASA, it may be the reputation of the underlying brand which is tarnished.

The challenge to overcome 

As the ASA says, consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of activities...and so increasingly interested in seeking out businesses that are making a meaningful effort to reduce their impact.

Not for the first time, the ASA has shown that advertisers who want to speak about good initiatives need to do so in a balanced way.

In the ASA’s words, this means including “straightforward, prominent copy in ads that acknowledges the less-climate-positive aspects of their activities, that indicates how early in their journey they are, or that provides summary details of their future planned activities”.¹ Achieving that in a way which does not detract from the positive overall messaging is a huge challenge for marketing teams.

The risk, of course, is that brands feel it is not worth taking steps to reduce their environmental impact if there is no appealing way to shout about them in marketing.

The other factor which advertisers need to bear in mind is that the CMA now has the power to sanction advertisers for misleading advertising, including in relation to environmental claims, using its powers under the DMCC Act.

Given the CMA's previous activity in relation to green claims, and its promise to focus on areas where the legal position is said to be clear, it seems likely that an advertiser will soon find itself in the CMA’s crosshairs for making misleading environmental claims. 

You can read more here about this topic, as well as getting your business ready for the CMA’s new enforcement powers.