Dutch national airline KLM made misleading claims about its
sustainability actions in past advertising campaigns, an Amsterdam court
ruled today following a ‘greenwashing’ complaint filed by environmental
organizations Fossielvrij and ClientEarth.
The court ruled that KLM’s suggestions that flying can be or is
becoming sustainable, as well as statements suggesting that the purchase
of offsetting products reduces or compensates for part of the climate
impact of flying are “misleading and unlawful and that KLM thereby
contravenes the Unfair Commercial Practices Act.”
In addition,
the court said the term ‘sustainable’ to describe alternative aviation
fuel—commonly referred to as SAF—was also misleading. “Although SAF
can contribute to reducing the harmful environmental aspects of flying,
the term ‘sustainable’ here is too absolute and not concrete enough,”
ruled the court.
“The statement that it is a ‘promising solution’
also paints too rosy a picture. At the moment, SAF’s share in total fuel
consumption is still very limited. A more substantial share can only be
expected in the distant future, and thus is uncertain. The expression
is therefore misleading.”
KLM had already ceased using the 19
adverts at the center of the lawsuit and the court, therefore, took no
further action other than ordering the company to pay the claimants’
costs. The court also found that a ban on future similar claims was not
feasible.
Hiske Arts, campaigner for Fossielvrij, which filed
the claim in July 2022, said: “Today’s judgment is a landmark victory in
the fight against greenwashing. The significance of the court’s
decision is clear: Companies are not allowed to claim they are tackling
dangerous climate change when in reality they are fueling the crisis.
“KLM’s
‘green’ marketing creates a misplaced trust that even if you are
worried about the climate crisis, you can board a plane reassured you
are not harming the planet. The judges have put an end to this harmful
strategy to lull the public and politicians to sleep.”
A poll within an article published by BTN Europe in January found that 71 percent of respondents said they had concerns about the veracity of travel suppliers’ sustainability claims.
Johnny
White, lawyer at ClientEarth, added: “Companies that publicly advertise
commitments to the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate must now
ensure that those claims are feasible and concrete, or risk losing in
court. This judgment is nothing short of a wake-up call for highly
polluting industries and companies that try to sell the image of
commitment to the Paris climate goals without having the plans to get
there. It leaves the airline industry’s climate PR strategy dead in the
water.”
White added: “The truth has always been that ‘sustainable
aviation fuels’ or ‘offsetting’ products risk justifying more emissions
than they can ever save. All airlines and other companies making claims
about their products’ environmental impacts that are based on
offsetting should take heed from this ruling.”
Responding to the
court’s ruling, KLM said in a statement provided to BTN Europe that it
was “studying the ruling and will return to it substantively at a later
date.”
It continued: “Our communication about sustainability must
be honest and transparent. We have already taken important steps in this
regard and have not used the 19 communications that were central to
this case for some time now. We are pleased that the court has ruled
that we can continue to communicate with our customers and partners
about our approach to making aviation more sustainable. We are
continuously learning how best to include them in this.
“We
consider awareness and communication about sustainability goals,
activities and dilemmas essential. In this way we reach governments,
fuel suppliers, knowledge institutions, NGOs, aircraft manufacturers and
customers, all parties who are needed to make flying less polluting. It
is good that the court gives us more clarity about what is possible and
how we can continue to communicate transparently and honestly about our
approach and activities.”
