ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

In November 2023, Virgin Atlantic ran a radio ad, informing listeners it was about to conduct ‘Flight 100’, the first commercial transatlantic flight to use “100% sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF). Listeners complained to the ASA that the ad gave a misleading impression of the fuel’s environmental impact.

Virgin Atlantic argued that listeners would understand that SAF reduced, but did not eliminate greenhouse gases. It pointed to a survey undertaken after the complaints were raised, according to which a majority of listeners understood that SAF was better for the environment than traditional jet fuel, but was not without any adverse impact.

It argued that SAF was widely understood to be defined by sustainability criteria that the International Civil Aviation Organisation had established. The primary criteria were:

1. at least 10% greenhouse gas reductions compared to baseline aviation fuel emissions;
2. sourcing that excludes biomass from high carbon stock ecosystems; and
   3. permanent emissions reductions.
3. Flight 100 blended different types of fuels together, comprising waste oils and lipids from animal fats, and sugars isolated from industrial corn starch. The flight delivered a lifecycle CO₂ emissions saving of 64%, and its fuel produced around 40% lower non-CO₂ emissions compared to fossil-derived fuels.

The BCAP Code specifies that “advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so”. Advertisements must also not mislead consumers by omitting “material information”. Virgin Atlantic argued that the ad did not omit “material information” because it did not advertise its products or services.

The ASA upheld the listeners’ complaints. A significant portion of listeners would understand the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” to mean that the fuel used had no environmental impact at all.

The survey taken by Virgin Atlantic confirmed only the lack of clarity among consumers. While the majority of those surveyed understood that SAF was better for the environment than traditional jet fuel, a significant minority thought that the fuels had the same impact, or that SAF was worse for the environment, or that SAF had zero environmental impact.

Although Flight 100 made greenhouse gas emissions savings of 64%, this is not what was stated in the ad. Additionally, while 64% was a significant reduction, SAF still produces considerable emissions over its lifecycle, including during its production. The absence of this information from the ad meant that a significant proportion of listeners were likely to overestimate its environmental benefits.

Tickets may not have been advertised for Flight 100, but the ad contributed to the overall impression that Virgin Atlantic was committed to reducing the environmental impact of aviation, and many listeners would be interested in seeking out airlines taking such action. In that sense, information concerning the limitations of SAF in reducing environmental impact constituted “material information” that would influence listeners.

Ultimately, the unqualified claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” was misleading. The ad breached rules in the BCAP Code on misleading advertising and on environmental claims.

The ASA told Virgin Atlantic to ensure that future ads which referred to the use of sustainable aviation fuel included qualifying information explaining the environmental impact of the fuel.