'Greenwashing' is commonly regarded as the practice of making unclear, unsubstantiated and misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a service, company and/or product in order to appeal to customers who are concerned about sustainability.
Environmental groups have warned 71 airlines operating out of Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport of potential greenwashing, following a new legal precedent set by a 'landmark' case against Dutch carrier KLM earlier this year.
In an era where consumers are becoming more environmentally conscious of their actions, airlines in particular need to change the narrative and promote the sustainability initiatives they are involved in to help the industry reach its target of being carbon net zero by 2050.
However, carriers must be careful and show substance while promoting these environmental initiatives, as we have seen an increase in both greenwashing claims against airlines alleging that their environmental campaigns are misleading, and calls from consumer groups for action by the courts and regulators to take a hard line against airlines in respect of their environmental campaigns.
Most of the greenwashing claims that we have seen in the national courts of EU Member States are derived from the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (the "UCPD"), which has been implemented across EU Member States.
ClientEarth, Fossielvrij and Reclame Fossielvrij have sent a legal letter to carriers including Lufthansa, Ryanair, Delta, American Airlines, British Airways, Easyjet, Etihad, Cathay Pacific, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Turkish Airlines to warn against the use of terms such ‘sustainable aviation fuels’, ‘offsetting’ and ‘net zero by 2050’ as these are “likely to be unlawful”.
Earlier, concerns were raised by European consumer organisation BEUC and was led by watchdogs in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, but the 20 airlines were not identified in a statement.
Also, a Dutch court in March ruled that national carrier KLM had made misleading claims about its sustainability actions in past advertising campaigns.
The court ruled that KLM's suggestions that flying can be or is becoming sustainable, as well as statements suggesting that the purchase of offsetting products reduces or compensates for part of the climate impact of flying are
"misleading and unlawful and that KLM thereby contravenes the Unfair Commercial Practices Act".
The Dutch court found that KLM's advertisements breached both the Dutch Civil Code and the UCPD and held that 15 out of the 19 advertising campaigns were "based on vague and general statements about environmental benefits, thereby misleading consumers".
KLM's initiatives were found to only slightly reduce its environmental impact and the environmental advertisements overemphasised the positive effect of these measures, including the benefits of SAF.
Based on that ruling, the three environmental groups are warning 71 carriers operating at Schiphol of the “red lines” of aviation advertising, in particular, describing alternative fuels as a “promising solution” and labelling such fuels as “sustainable”.
ClientEarth lawyer Johnny White, said:
“The misleading sustainability claims pushed by KLM and found unlawful by the Dutch Court come straight from the wider industry’s greenwashing playbook to keep air traffic growing as the climate crisis escalates.
“Airlines continuing to promote these misleading messages do so in breach of the law. The Dutch ruling set clear red lines for the aviation sector’s climate advertising. Failing to abide by them exposes airlines to legal action from a range of actors, from civil society, to consumers, regulators and even competitors.”
The 10-page letter, sent on Thursday 18 July, also made clear that, in line with the KLM ruling, airlines are prohibited from making ‘offsetting’ claims that suggest customers can pay towards a tree planting project or the costs of biofuels as a way to reduce or compensate the climate impact of a flight.
“Airlines which are on a similar path to KLM, and are failing to realise substantial emissions reductions because of continued growth, should not make statements in which they give the impression that they are acting in line with the Paris Agreement, are on their way to a more sustainable future, or are on a path to "net zero" by 2050,” the letter stated.
“Furthermore, airlines cannot exaggerate the environmental impact of the proposed measures, such as fleet renewal, operational improvements or the use of alternative aviation fuels.”
In the KLM case, the court found these measures are “only marginally” reducing CO2 emissions and the negative environmental aspects of flying, and that “substantial future improvements are uncertain”.
The letter also points to the EU’s ongoing investigation into 20 airlines over potential greenwashing and warned that growth of the aviation industry is “not consistent with limiting dangerous climate change”.
Carriers globally have programs where they offer customers the option of purchasing carbon offsets to compensate for the emissions generated by their flights. While this might seem like a good way to counteract the environmental impact, these schemes can be misleading and place the responsibility on the individual rather than the company.
Budget carrier Ryanair introduced carbon offsetting schemes in July 2021, such as a “Carbon Calculator” and a “Partial Contribution” option, offering passengers an avenue to offset their flight emissions.
However, in January 2023, the low-cost air carrier had to revise its carbon offset scheme after the Netherlands Authorities for Consumers and Markets (ACM) found its sustainability claims to be misleading.
The changes included clarifying that carbon offsetting does not inherently make flying more sustainable, providing explicit calculations for carbon emissions being offset, and offering more transparency about the projects funded by carbon offset compensations.
Hiske Arts, campaigner at Fossielvrij, said:
“Aviation is a highly polluting, fossil-fuelled industry. Pursuing growth inherently undermines action to tackle the climate crisis, which demands a limit on air traffic. Airlines cannot tout their empty climate promises to win public and political favour while planning to keep on polluting our planet with more fossil fuel burned in the skies.”
The environmental groups are calling for a tobacco-style ad ban on air travel and all other fossil-fuel based goods, citing the significant harm these products cause to people’s health and livelihoods through fuelling dangerous climate change.
Rosanne Rootert, campaigner at Fossielvrij Reclame, added:
“Tackling greenwashing is currently a cat-and-mouse game. You can only react when the harm is already done and people have already seen the ads. A complete ban on fossil advertising, such as for air travel, is the only way to truly eliminate sophisticated greenwashing by these companies."
For the aviation industry, this focus on transitioning away from fossil fuels is a welcome opportunity to advance the development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), which have been heralded in recent years as the answer to aviation's environmental concerns.
These concepts are global, despite the efforts of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (the "CAA") and UK Government to work with the aviation and aerospace industry to support the development and use of SAF, the fact remains that SAF is an expensive and limited resource. For airlines, this is likely to result in increases to air fares which would be problematic for consumers.
Display Picture Credit : Peter Bakema
You may like to read...
.jpg)
