ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

In December 2021, the JDP received complaints that sustainability claims made by airline Flying Green as part of an advertising campaign promoting its new fleet of aircraft on LinkedIn and on its website were misleading and constituted “greenwashing”.

In February 2022, the JDP gave its opinion.

While the JDP held that it was not competent to rule upon separate statements made in an article by a journalist published on an independent website on the basis they did not consist of advertising because it could not be established that Flying Green was responsible for them, it was competent to rule upon promotional claims on the company’s own website and LinkedIn as these constituted advertising messages, and it upheld the following complaints.

First, the JDP found that claim that Flying Green was the “first eco-responsible airline” (supported by statements referring to the use of 5% aviation biofuel and the latest generation of aircraft which consumed less fuel) contravened section 5.1 of the SDR (“Advertising must not attribute to a product or an advertiser the exclusivity of virtues with regard to sustainable development when those of competitors are analogous or similar”) because it implied that other airlines would not be “eco-responsible”, while there was no evidence provided that at the time of the planned launch of the company in 2023 it would be the only airline to use 5% aviation biofuel on its flights and the latest generation of aircraft.

Second, it found the use of the term “eco-responsible” constituted a general statement which was not based on any justification taking into account the environmental impact of the company’s planned activity, and therefore did not conform with section 7.3 of the SDR (“In the event that it is impossible to justify global formulations (e.g. ecological, green, ethical, responsible, preserve, fair, sustainable, etc.), advertising must put them into perspective by using formulations such as ‘contributes to’”).

Third, a claim that “A passenger travelling with Flying Green will reduce their CO₂ emissions by 16% on average” made without further explanation or evidence provided in the advert or the company’s submissions was found to contravene section 4.6 of the SDR (“Any argument for reducing impact or increasing efficiency must be precise and accompanied by detailed figures, indicating the basis of comparison used”). It was also noted that the statement could give the impression that travelling with Flying Green would reduce a passenger’s own emissions.

Fourth, the JDP found the statement that the company “Wants to be the quietest airline and has the ambition to be the first ‘net zero CO₂ emissions’…” while presented as a long-term objective rather than an existing fact, should be made only on the basis of sound, objective and verifiable evidence supporting the credibility of the implied trajectory in order to avoid the risk of misleading consumers. However, the measures the company was taking, such as using new-generation aircraft, the incorporation of 5% biofuel and other actions mentioned in the communication appeared insufficient to achieve the announced target.

The JDP considered that the allegations taken as a whole were likely to mislead the public as to the reality of the advertiser’s actions and were contrary to the applicable provisions of the SDR. Flying Green applied for a review of the opinion by the Advertising Ethics Reviewer (Réviseur de la Déontologie Publicitaire) but the opinion of the JDP was upheld.