Executive Summary
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued three rulings against travel companies loveholidays, Thomas Cook, and DialAFlight, concerning the use of unqualified environmental claims in their advertising. In each case, the ASA found that the advertisers used terms such as “Eco Resort,” “Eco Hotel,” or “eco-conscious resort” without making the basis of those claims sufficiently clear to consumers.
All three ads were identified by the ASA itself using its Active Ad Management system as part of the ASA’s wider piece of work on environmental claims in the travel agent sector. Each ad was ultimately found to breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
These rulings underline the ASA's continued close scrutiny of environmental claims. Businesses in the travel sector and beyond should ensure that any environmental claim made in their advertising is clearly explained and substantiated, and should avoid relying on vague or unqualified terms such as "eco" when promoting its holiday packages.
Background
Under the CAP Code, the basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims can mislead consumers if they omit material information. As discussed by the ASA in all three rulings, the term "eco" does not have a standardised meaning, and its basis is likely to differ between providers. Accordingly, consumers must be given sufficient information about the specific basis of any such claims in order that they may assess the real-world environmental characteristics or benefits being referred to before making a purchase.
Issues
The ASA considered the following key issues across the three rulings:
- Whether the use of terms such as “Eco Resort,” “Eco Hotel,” and “eco-conscious resort” in the advertisements constituted environmental claims, notwithstanding that the terms formed part of the accommodation's name or were supplied by third parties; and
- Whether the advertisers had made the basis of the environmental claims sufficiently clear, including by taking adequate steps to provide consumers with the information needed to understand the environmental characteristics or benefits being referred to.
Whether the Terms Constituted Environmental Claims
In all three cases, the advertisers argued that the terms were not environmental claims of their own making. However, the ASA found in each case that consumers would interpret the terms used as meaning the advertised accommodation had some environmental characteristics or benefits - even where, as in the Thomas Cook and loveholidays rulings, the terms formed part of the accommodation's name.
Whether the Basis of the Claims Was Made Sufficiently Clear
The ASA found that none of the three advertisers had made the basis of their environmental claims sufficiently clear. In each case, the advertised accommodation had, in fact, taken genuine steps/actions to improve their environmental credentials (e.g. via the use of sustainable energy sources, the elimination of single-use plastics, recycling initiatives, etc). However, none of this information had been clearly explained in the ads themselves. The Thomas Cook and loveholidays ads were short-form and subject to space limitations, but neither marketer had taken steps to provide the information by other means, such as on the linked landing page.
Outcome
All three complaints were upheld and each ad was found to breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
Comment
A key practice point from these rulings is that advertisers cannot shelter behind the argument that a term such as “eco” is simply part of a brand or product name, or is a name supplied to them by a third party. Where such a term also functions as a description of the advertised product or service (whether or not it forms part of that product's or service's name) the ASA will treat it as an environmental claim that must comply with the CAP Code. Ultimate responsibility for compliance therefore rests with the advertiser, regardless of where the term originated.
Businesses should consider the following practical steps:
- Avoid unqualified environmental claims. Terms such as “eco,” “green,” or "sustainable" should not be used in advertising without a clear explanation of the specific environmental characteristics or benefits being referred to.
- Provide supporting information. Where space is limited (for example, in short-form search ads), ensure that, at the very least, the basis of any environmental claim is clearly and prominently set out on the linked landing page, though the lowest-risk option will always be to explain the meaning of terms clearly in the ad copy itself.
- Carefully review third-party content. Travel agents and retailers who display accommodation names containing environmental terms should be aware that they may be held responsible for the impression created by those terms, even where the names originate from third-party suppliers.
Article co-authored by Hareni Ayadurai (trainee in the IP Team).
