Ads for Nike, Superdry and Lacoste have been banned in the UK for misleading consumers about the environmental sustainability credentials of their products.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said paid-for Google ads run by all three retailers used terms such as “sustainable”, “sustainable materials” or “sustainable style” without providing evidence proving the green claims.
An ad from Nike that has been banned in the UK for exaggerating the environmental benefits of their products and misleading customers. Photograph: ASA/PA
Nike’s ad, for tennis polo shirts, referred to “sustainable materials”. The company said the promotion was “framed in general terms” and argued consumers would interpret it as referring to some, but not all, products offered.
An ad from Superdry that has been banned in the UK for exaggerating the environmental benefits of their products and misleading customers. Photograph: ASA/PA
Similarly, Superdry, which urged consumers to “unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability”, said the purpose of the ad was to highlight that it manufactured, sourced and sold a wide range of products that have “sustainability attributes and credentials”.
An ad from Lacoste promoting sustainable kids clothing that has been banned in the UK for exaggerating the environmental benefits of their products and misleading customers. Photograph: ASA/PA
Lacoste, promoting sustainable kids clothing, said it had been working for several years to reduce the carbon footprint of all its products, but admitted that claims such as “green”, “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” were “very difficult to substantiate”.
The ASA said the UK code of advertising states that environmental claims must be clear and “supported by a high level of substantiation”.
It said that in each case the retailers’ use of the phrase “sustainable” was without any additional information, making the claim “ambiguous and unclear”.
“The claim was absolute and therefore a high level of substantiation in support needed to be produced,” the watchdog said. “We had not seen evidence to support it. We therefore concluded the ad was likely to mislead.”
The ASA also pointed to a lack of evidence to show the products were not detrimental to the environment when their whole life cycle was taken into account.
It banned each of the ads and told the retailers to “ensure that the basis of future environmental claims, and their meaning, was made clear, and that a high level of substantiation must be held to support absolute claims”.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we’ll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Separately, the ASA also banned an ad for gambling firm Betway featuring Formula One star Sir Lewis Hamilton because it was likely to appeal to under-18s.
The paid-for Facebook ad, which ran before the British Grand Prix at Silverstone in July, featured a video of three Formula One drivers standing in a grandstand watching a race with their backs to the viewer, with Hamilton’s name written on the back of his red driver’s uniform.
A complainant challenged whether the use of Hamilton broke UK ad rules, which do not allow celebrities who are likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s to appear in gambling ads.
Betway did not dispute that Hamilton has a strong appeal to under-18s, but claimed the way he was presented in the ad limited that appeal because it did not show his face or frontal view.
The ASA said consumers, including those aged under 18, would have clearly recognised the figure as being Hamilton, concluding that the ad was “irresponsible and breached the code”.
