Environmental organizations are warning 71 airlines flying from Schiphol about possible ‘greenwashing’.

The European Commission and EU consumer protection authorities have already approached 20 airlines over potentially misleading environmental claims.

Environmental organizations have warned 71 airlines flying from Schiphol about possible ‘greenwashing’.

The Dutch court ruled that 15 of KLM’s 19 advertising campaigns were “based on vague and general statements about environmental benefits”.

‘Greenwashing’ is generally understood 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 concerned about sustainability.

Environmental groups have warned 71 airlines flying from Schiphol to Amsterdam of possible greenwashing, following a new legal precedent set by a ‘landmark’ case against Dutch airline KLM earlier this year.

In an era where consumers are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious, airlines in particular need to change the narrative and promote the sustainability initiatives they are involved in to help the industry achieve its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.

However, airlines need to be careful and show substance when promoting these environmental initiatives. We are seeing an increase in both greenwashing claims against airlines, alleging that their environmental campaigns are misleading, and calls from consumer groups to urge courts and regulators to take tough action against airlines over their environmental campaigns.

Most of the greenwashing claims we have seen before the national courts of the EU Member States derive from the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. 2005/29/EC (the “UCPD”)which has been implemented in all EU Member States.

ClientEarth, Fossil Free and Fossil Free Advertising have sent a legal letter to airlines including Lufthansa, Ryanair, Delta, American Airlines, British Airways, Easyjet, Etihad, Cathay Pacific, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Turkish Airlines warning against using terms such as “sustainable aviation fuels”, “offsetting” and “net zero by 2050” as they are “likely to be unlawful”.

Earlier, the European consumer organisation BEUC, led by regulators in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, had already expressed concerns, but it was not disclosed in a statement which 20 airlines were involved.

In addition, a Dutch court ruled in March that national airline KLM had made misleading claims about its sustainability actions in previous advertising campaigns.

The court ruled that KLM’s suggestions that flying can be or will become sustainable, as well as its statements that purchasing compensating products reduces or compensates for part of the climate impact of flying,

“is misleading and unlawful and that KLM is therefore acting in violation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Act”.

The Dutch court ruled that KLM’s advertisements violated both the Civil Code and the UCPD, ruling that 15 of the 19 advertising campaigns “based on vague and general statements about environmental benefits, misleading consumers”.

KLM’s initiatives only appeared to reduce the impact on the environment slightly. Furthermore, the positive effects of these measures, including the benefits of SAF, were overemphasized in the environmental commercials.

Based on that statement, the three environmental organizations are warning 71 airlines that fly to Schiphol about the ‘red lines’ of aviation advertising, in which they describe alternative fuels as a ‘promising solution’ and label such fuels as ‘sustainable’.

ClientEarth Attorney Johnny Whitesaid:

“The misleading sustainability claims put forward by KLM, which have been found to be unlawful by the Dutch courts, come straight from the broader industry’s greenwashing playbook to grow air travel as the climate crisis escalates.

“Airlines that continue to promote these misleading messages are doing so in violation of the law. The Dutch ruling has set clear red lines for the aviation sector’s climate advertising. If airlines fail to comply, they will be exposed to legal action from various actors, from civil society to consumers, regulators and even competitors.”

The 10-page letter, sent on Thursday, July 18, also made it clear that, in accordance with KLM’s ruling, airlines are prohibited from making “compensation” claims that suggest customers can contribute to a tree-planting project or the cost of biofuels as a way to reduce or offset the climate impact of a flight.

“Airlines that follow a similar path to KLM and fail to achieve substantial emissions reductions due to continued growth should not make statements that suggest they are acting in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, moving towards a more sustainable future or on a path to ‘net zero’ by 2050,” the letter said.

“In addition, airlines must not exaggerate the environmental impacts of proposed measures, such as fleet renewal, operational improvements or the use of alternative aviation fuels.”

In the KLM case, the court ruled that these measures reduce CO2 emissions and the negative environmental aspects of flying ‘only marginally’, and that ‘substantial future improvements are uncertain“.

The letter also points to the EU’s ongoing investigation into 20 airlines for possible greenwashing and warns that the growth of the aviation industry “not consistent with limiting dangerous climate change”.

Carbon Offsetting Programs: How Effective Are They?

Airlines around the world have programs where they offer customers the option to purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the emissions from their flights. While this may seem like a good way to reduce environmental impact, these schemes can be misleading and place the responsibility on the individual rather than the company.

Budget airline Ryanair introduced carbon offset programs in July 2021, such as a “Carbon Calculator” and a “partial contribution” option, which gives passengers the opportunity to offset their flight emissions.

However, in January 2023, the low-cost carrier had to revise its CO2 compensation scheme after the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) ruled that the airline’s sustainability claims were misleading.

The changes include clarifying that CO2 compensation does not necessarily make flying more sustainable, providing explicit calculations for the CO2 emissions that are offset, and providing more transparency about the projects that are financed with CO2 compensation.

Hiske Arts, activist at Fossil Freesaid:

“Aviation is a highly polluting, fossil fuel-driven industry. Pursuing growth inherently undermines action to address the climate crisis, which requires caps on air travel. Airlines cannot tout their empty climate promises to gain public and political favor while planning to continue polluting our planet with more fossil fuels burned in the air.”

Environmental groups are calling for a ban on tobacco advertising on airplanes and on all other products that use fossil fuels, pointing to the significant damage these products cause to people’s health and livelihoods, as they contribute to dangerous climate change.

Rosanne Rootert, campaigner at Fossil Free Advertisingadded:

“Tackling greenwashing is currently a cat-and-mouse game. You can only respond once the damage has been done and people have already seen the ads. A complete ban on fossil fuel advertising, such as for air travel, is the only way to truly eliminate the sophisticated greenwashing by these companies.”

For the aviation industry, this focus on transitioning away from fossil fuels is a welcome opportunity to promote the development of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which have been hailed in recent years as the answer to aviation’s environmental challenges.

These concepts are global, despite the efforts of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (the “CAA”) and the UK government to work with the 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 higher airfares, which would be problematic for consumers.

Show image credits: Peter Bakema

You may also find this interesting: