Blow to airline environmental claims as Virgin Atlantic’s first transatlantic sustainable aviation fuel ad banned

An advert for the world’s first transatlantic flight to be 100% powered by so-called sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has been banned, as the advertising watchdog said it was misleading.

The radio ad, which promoted the transatlantic flight, was misleading in its unqualified “100% sustainable aviation fuel” claim, said regulator the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).

Future Virgin Atlantic ads referencing SAF must include information explaining the environmental impact of the fuel, the ASA added.

The decision strikes at airlines’ ability to promote a key plank of their emissions reduction goals.

The ASA agreed that the ad was misleading to customers, and banned it.

What did the ad say?

First aired in November, the ad informed listeners about the first long-haul commercial aircraft to fly across the Atlantic using 100% SAF, comprised of sugar from industrial cornstarch and animal fats unsuitable for human consumption.

“On the 28th of November, Virgin Atlantic’s Flight 100 will take to the skies on our unique flight mission from London Heathrow to JFK to become the world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel,” the ad said.

“When they said it was too difficult, we said: ‘challenge accepted.’ Virgin Atlantic Flight 100. See the world differently.”

No commercial passengers were on board for the journey. Previously airlines were only permitted to use fossil fuels and up to 50% SAF to power their flights.

What was the problem?

A significant proportion of listeners would understand that “100% sustainable aviation fuel” meant that the fuel used was 100% sustainable but that was not the case. Some could be led to believe that there were no negative environmental impacts at all, the ASA said.

In fact, Virgin Atlantic confirmed to the ASA that sustainable aviation fuel produced the same level of CO2 emissions during flight as traditional jet fuel.

While the production cycle of SAF produces less carbon than regular aviation fuel, the emissions created in flight are still “significant”, the ASA said.

And producing SAF can still have wider environmental costs and trade-offs, the agency added.

Warning to advertisers

The watchdog issued a warning to businesses seeking to promote their climate mitigation or environmentally friendly measures, saying it expected any claims to be backed up.

Businesses “need to be wary” of using statements like “100% sustainable” or “sustainable” when advertising products and services, Mr Lockwood said.

“Claiming that a product or service is sustainable creates an impression that it is not causing harm to the environment,” said Miles Lockwood, the ASA’s Director of Complaints and Investigations. “We all have a part to play in tackling climate change, and we want businesses to talk about their environmental credentials.”

Virgin Atlantic’s response

A Virgin Atlantic spokesperson said: “We’re committed to achieving net zero by 2050 and key to this will be using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which is one of the most immediate levers to decarbonising long haul aviation.

“SAF is a term used globally by industry and government for fossil-alternative aviation fuels that adhere to specific sustainability criteria.

“While we are disappointed that the ASA has ruled in favour of a small number of complaints, we remain committed to open, accurate and transparent engagement on the challenge of decarbonisation.”

Find out more about the eco-friendly credentials of some well-known brands in the beauty, cleaning, clothes and food industries, including Cafédirect, Ecover, Lush and Patagonia.

This article is written by Olivia Howes, Senior researcher & writer at Which?

Many of us keep an eye out for brands that appear to offer more sustainable choices when we’re shopping. But while the marketing often looks good, it’s difficult to know what’s genuine.

In February 2023 Which? asked over 4,000 Which? members about their perceptions of sustainable brands. Members who answered the survey told Which? the brands they consider to be more sustainable choices and gave their reasons why.

Some companies stood out as common choices from all sorts of retail industries, including beauty products, cleaning essentials, clothes and groceries.

While 57% of members told Which? they felt they only had a ‘fair’ understanding of sustainability, in practice they had a pretty sound idea of how brands were trying to be more sustainable.  

Some of the top reasons brands were viewed as more sustainable included their farming practices; the use of non-toxic ingredients; their approach to packaging and refills; certification such as Fairtrade or organic, and whether a company contributes to sustainability initiatives using its profits.

But Which? wanted to know whether these perceptions matched up with reality. Which? delved deeper into some of the brands that came out well in the survey to find out whether our members’ high expectations were justified.

Which? has focused on the beauty, cleaning, clothes and food brands that members highlighted as the most sustainable and looked behind the scenes at those brands’ sustainability initiatives and actions to give you an overview.

Read the full article here Green brands: how sustainable really are they? – Which?