ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

In December 2021, the JDP received a complaint relating to an online advert for cruise ship operator La Compagnie du Ponant, which promoted Arctic and Antarctic cruises on the ship Le Commandant Charcot. The advert stated: “Commandant Charcot, responsible polar exploration thanks to its hybrid propulsion”, while the company’s website also made claims of “sustainable tourism” and “environmental preservation”.

The complainant stated that these terms were inappropriate given the environmental impact of the overall package sold to consumers. The reference to “responsible” exploration related primarily to the design of the ship itself, which was “powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and equipped with the latest technologies in environmental preservation”. However, LNG was still a fossil fuel which emitted some CO2 and methane, the ship carried diesel as a backup, a helicopter was also used in an unspecified manner, and some of the packages offered included flights to Chile or Iceland, the starting locations of the expeditions.

The company highlighted its efforts to reduce the environmental impact of its services and its actions to advance sustainable development, also explaining the circumstances in which LNG and diesel were used and the limited role of the helicopter. It also explained that, having become aware of the challenges of environmental advertising following the complaint, it had sought advice and would publish a report on sustainable development and develop its decarbonisation strategy.

In its opinion of July 2022, the JDP, which acknowledged the company’s efforts and commitment to abide by advertising standards in the future, nevertheless considered that the advert, at the time of the complaint, contravened the SDR in a number of respects.

First, since the final product sold to consumers sometimes included air travel, this called for the environmental consequences to be communicated with particular care. Since the wording used in the advert at the time of the complaint was not accompanied by explanation or context, it did not reflect the ecological and environmental impact of the cruises. This was especially the case because of the air travel, the use of LNG, and of diesel in the alternative.

Second, while not questioning the significance of the company’s efforts to reduce the environmental impact of its operation, the JDP considered that the advert did not contain any explanation of when LNG or diesel engines would be used, or compare their effects with those of other ships without the same technology.

Furthermore, the company’s assistance to the development of local populations and the promotion of better working conditions, its method of preserving local natural resources, or the circumstances in which the helicopter would be used, were not explained. Therefore, the JDP considered that the company had not explained with sufficient precision, or supported with evidence, its claims regarding environmental impact and sustainable development.

Third, the JDP considered that the claims as a whole minimised the consequences of using the company’s services, misleading consumers about the “preservation of the environment” that would entail, and created an unjustified association between the advertiser’s general actions in respect of sustainable development and the nature of the cruises advertised.