Yesterday a group of over 100 advertising organisations sent a joint letter to the UK Government, calling for a nationwide ban on advertising by fossil fuel companies. The letter calls fossil fuel companies “the cigarette companies of the 21st century,” arguing that the businesses deploy “advertising and sponsorship to greenwash their image and sell products that are harmful to human health.”
The move follows a petition launched in April by British TV presenter and naturalist Chris Packham, which garnered more than 110,000 signatures, pushing the issue to a parliamentary debate next week.
But now the call is coming from inside the house, with advertising groups themselves pushing for laws restricting activity within their own industry. Fossil fuel advertising has long been a thorn in the side of agencies, due to all the major holding companies having fossil fuel business on their books, according to research from campaign group Clean Creatives.
“The industry calling for itself now to be regulated, with an end to fossil fuel advertising, tells us that there are people within it who properly understand the dangers of fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, and the need to act,” comments Andrew Simms, Director of co-operative think tank the New Weather Institute, and co-founder of the Badvertising campaign. “They also realise that the industry needs the level playing field that only proper regulation can provide.”
No more half measures
Since 2021, when the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) first implemented rules and published guidance related to environmental claims, the UK has had a policy of self-regulation over greenwashing in advertising. Since the beginning of 2021, the ASA has upheld complaints against 42 ads for making misleading environmental claims.
But the signatories believe the system is insufficient, and fails to deter advertisers from greenwashing, as the same types of misleading claims appear in ads within weeks of rulings against them being published.
“Few realise how toothless and ineffective is the current model of advertising self-regulation funded by the industry itself,” says Andrew Simms. “Only a tiny minority of environmental complaints ever get investigated, and the even smaller number of rulings often come long after the particular campaign has finished.”
However, advocates for self-regulation argue that overly restrictive laws could have a “chilling effect” on innovation by the energy and airline sectors. Brinsley Dresden, Partner and Co-Head of Advertising and Marketing at law firm Lewis Silkin, points to a Virgin Atlantic ad banned last year by the ASA as “a very harsh decision.” The ad promoted a flight that used “100 percent ‘sustainable aviation fuel'” (SAF), an industry term that the regulator said would be understood by “a significant proportion” of consumers as having no negative impact on the environment.
“I thought that was misconceived, because that plane was filled only with SAF,” comments Dresden. “You can have an argument about the reliability of that label, but it’s not a label that Virgin invented, that is the proper term for that kind of fuel. I think it has a chilling effect on innovation, and on encouraging airlines to transition over as quickly as possible to sustainable aircraft fuel. And there are some cases, certainly in the UK, where the self-regulatory system can do it better, because it can do it faster and with more nuance.”
HFSS2?
That question of companies promoting more sustainable products points to the broader issue of whether a ban should apply only to ads for fossil fuels, or to all advertising by fossil fuel companies. The letter sent to the government yesterday calls specifically for the latter, meaning the likes of Shell and BP would also be unable to promote their non-fossil fuel products, such as renewable energy and low-carbon options.
This distinction echoes the recent debate around advertising for products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), with initial proposals raising the possibility of banning brand advertising by fast food companies, before being clarified to only cover ads showing unhealthy products. Part of the aim of the legislation is to encourage companies to make their products healther – for example in October 2024, PepsiCo UK reformulated its Doritos portfolio so they are no longer classed as HFSS.
Brinsley Dresden believes similar transformation should be achieved by encouraging companies to market alternative fuels. “If you look at the advertising by BP and Shell in recent years, I never see advertising by those kinds of companies for petrol or diesel products, those days are long gone,” he says. “What you do see them advertise is various kinds of alternative fuels, electric charging for vehicles and green aviation fuel. If we want to see the green transition, it’s only going to happen if the major oil and gas companies have a role to play, because no one else has the technology, no one else has the scale, no one else has the distribution networks, no one else has the expertise.”
Yet the gulf between the activities a company communicates and those it practises also factors into the debate. Andrew Simms argues that as long as energy companies are promoting their “marginal activities in relation to renewable energy” while continuing to exploit fossil fuels, all their advertising is effectively greenwashing.
Lucy von Sturmer, Founder and CEO of non-profit group Creatives for Climate, agrees that fossil fuel companies have proven themselves unable to be trusted to advertise without misleading the public.
“This is an industry that’s actively showing there’s no goodwill left in terms of believing that they have an incentive to transform,” she comments. “It’s also recognised that advertising isn’t just used for driving growth, but for building a social licence, so for persuading and influencing audiences to believe that they have a critical role in our society.”
But Dino Myers-Lamptey, Founder of indie agency The Barber Shop, says that choice should be left to consumers. While he supports a ban on advertising fossil fuels, he considers a ban on all advertising activities by those companies “a step too far.”
“Companies shouldn’t be permitted to promote their harmful products, but they should be able to say when they’re investing in green programmes, and let the public decide about their choice over whether to support what it’s advertising,” says Myers-Lamptey. “I think a complete ban on the company advertising anything will just prevent people from looking to promote more positive things, which I think will have a net negative impact on behaviour change.”
Follow VideoWeek on LinkedIn.
