On January 6, 2010, the UK's advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA), issued a decision upholding complaints it received against a poster that promoted the Finnish airline, Finnair. The poster featured an image of an Airbus flying above Finland's coastline and stated, "Be eco-smart. Choose Finnair's brand new fleet."
Finnair supported its statement on the basis that it had a new fleet of planes and it structured its flight routes with an eye toward increasing fuel efficiency. The ASA did not find that support very compelling. ASA decided that readers were likely to interpret "eco-smart" as analogous to "environmentally friendly," implying that flying Finnair would have little or no detrimental effect on the environment. Furthermore, the ASA required robust substantiation for the fuel efficiency claims beyond Finnair's emissions data. ASA even questioned whether the ad was clear enough in defining the nature of the comparison: Was Finnair comparing its old fleet with its new fleet, or its new fleet with other airlines?
That general environmental claims lead to serious headaches at the ASA is nothing new. Consider the ASA's September 2009 decision upholding complaints against the Malaysian Palm Oil Council's "Palm Oil-The Green Answer" article. But, how specific do you need to go in order to be clear of a "general environmental claim"?
In a decision involving the carrier EasyJet, the ASA reviewed the claim "Because we operate Europe's most modern fleet, our planes emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines. So you can enjoy your holiday safe in the knowledge you'll have done more for the environment than Gordon's taxes ever could." Similar to the Finnair ad, to be sure, but in the case of EasyJet, ASA held that the ad did not mislead consumers into believing that traveling with EasyJet was environmentally friendly. According to ASA, consumers were likely to understand that all airlines would cause environmental damage. There had also been a great deal of press regarding the doubling of Air Passenger Duty by the British government, and the advertisement would likely be read in that context. However, EasyJet based its calculations for the "30% fewer emissions" claim primarily on the number of passengers they could carry in their planes. Because they could carry more passengers than most other airlines, it followed, according to EasyJet, that the CO2 emissions per passenger were 30 percent less. There was no evidence that supported the claim that EasyJet's younger planes had 30 percent fewer emissions per passenger mile. Thus, ASA found the ad to be partially substantiated and partially in breach of the CAP Code.
That ASA hates open-ended, general environmental claims is clear. But, it is too easy to conclude that "green" claims are impossible for industries that are inherently big contributors to greenhouse gases. As the EasyJet decision shows, careful casting of the claim can make a world of difference. In another example, ASA accepted the substantiation of EDF Energy, which promoted itself in conjunction with "Green Britain Day," using the advertising line, "Brought to you by EDF Energy, sustainability partner of London 2012." Even though this advertisement produced far greater public outcry than the Finnair advertisement (149 complaints versus 4), ASA found the promotional line to be permissible.
Why This Matters
Specificity and clarity is the key. All of the relevant guidance in the UK on environmental marketing – the CAP Code, the ICC Code, Clearcast Guidance and DEFRA's Green Claims Code, all of which are informed by the ISO's standard 14021 – make it very difficult to use broad, general "green" claims. Linking vague descriptions, such as "friendly" or "kind" with words such as "eco," "ozone" and "nature," is to be avoided according to the Codes, as is the use of terms such as "sustainable," "green" or "non-polluting." This is in line with the detailed guidance given on the use of some specific terms, such as "biodegradable" and "recyclable" by ISO 14021.
So, why did Finnair fail when EasyJet flew (in part)? Finnair's use of "eco-smart" was probably just too general and too vulnerable to multiple interpretations. Somewhat ironically, if Finnair had been more comparative in its advertising, comparing the age of its fleet with that of other airlines, and drawing a direct environmental benefit claim from that fact, ASA might have been less critical. The more hard-hitting but specific claim could have given Finnair the cover, whereas the general "eco-smart" claim did not. We often see comparative claims given more leeway than absolute environmental benefit claims, which can be misinterpreted as communicating a greater "green" message than may be intended. And, finally, as the EasyJet and EDF Energy cases suggest, placing an environmental message into a context that touches on current affairs can help to demonstrate that the public is cognizant of the limited environmental message.