Why the Advertising Standards Agency clamping down on misleading “carbon neutral” and “net zero” claims will benefit us all in the long run

In early February, the Advertising Standards Agency published new guidance on the use of environmental, sustainability, carbon neutral and net zero claims within the world of marketing and advertising. For many stakeholders in the environmental space keen to ensure that the hard work being done to legitimately tackle climate emergency wasn’t being hijacked for corporate gain, this step represents a timely intervention.

 

For some time, there has been growing concern about the scope for “greenwashing” within advertising. As society has become increasingly conscious of its duty to the environment, many brands have seized on the opportunity to shout about their own green credentials from the rooftops – no matter how tenuous they may be.

This process of updating regulation started back in 2021, when the ASA’s Climate Change and the Environment project determined that research into consumer understanding of “carbon neutral” and “net zero” claims in advertising was warranted. This, the project overview stated, was due to the increasing prevalence of consumers being misled.

From the research, it was established that although these now well-known terms were being used widely within an advertising context, there was little consensus as to their meaning by consumers.

Research participants believed that where the term “carbon neutral” was used, there was the implication of an absolute reduction in carbon emissions, rather than the offsetting that often takes place. This misinterpretation caused many consumers to assert they had been misled and ultimately feel a sense of disappointment.

Importantly, this research made it clear that a simplification and standardisation of definitions was needed – both in order to aid consumer understanding and to help policing by official government bodies. It was also established that marketers should include accurate information as to whether their organisation was actively reducing carbon emissions, or were instead utilising offsetting as a mechanism.

In the updated ASA guidance published in February 2023, a number of key directives were issued to cover these points. In addition, where organisations made claims relating to future goals regarding net zero or carbon neutrality, it was asserted that these should be based on a verifiable strategy to deliver them.

Further guidelines also identified the requirement to account for the entire lifecycle of a product or service before making assertions such as “environmentally friendly”, “good for the planet” or “the greenest” product on the market.

To me, the ASA’s research touches on a few interesting points that environmental and sustainability specialists have been wrestling with for some time. Firstly, we still have a long way to go before the general public truly understands the detail behind many of the climate buzz words that have become common parlance over recent years.

The scientific community has done a fantastic job in calculating and capturing data that lays out the full extent of the climate emergency. But translating that into easy-to-digest messaging that people not immersed in this world can understand hasn’t been entirely successful.

In my own work with a range of organisations across a host of different sectors, it has become apparent that education is going to be essential if we really want to meet the targets that have been set for 2050. We can’t simply tell people that there’s a problem and they need to take action; we must help them to become informed so that they become advocates and are driven to make the necessary changes we need in society.

Secondly, the ASA’s research demonstrates that not all “green” initiatives are born equal. In fact, many of them are cooked up to elevate brand reputations rather than raise environmental standards.

I should be clear that there are many organisations out there which are working incredibly hard to reduce their emissions over the coming years. I could list a substantial number of businesses that are driven by an authentic desire to tackle the climate emergency.

But I am also entirely aware that sustainability credentials can be used for kudos and to build emotional connections with customers. For that reason, there will always be companies out there looking to incorporate green messaging for all the wrong reasons.

My belief is that ,as we raise standards of education surrounding the climate emergency and global warming, we must also hold organisations to account – not just in what they are doing but how they are portraying their actions.

I also think that by making it more difficult to mislead or bend the truth through opaque or vague messaging, organisations will ultimately work harder to make the right choices and deliver genuine, meaningful changes. In this way, they will be better placed to help the world tackle its greatest challenge, whilst also meeting the evolving demands of their customer base.

And that is surely the goal we should all be working towards.