Advertisements from major apparel brands Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste have been prohibited due to deceptive claims regarding their environmental practices.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s advertising regulator, challenged the veracity of the brands’ statements regarding “sustainable materials,” “sustainable style,” and “sustainable clothing” in paid Google ad campaigns, citing a lack of sufficient evidence.
The ASA scrutinized three separate advertisements, each making assertions about the eco-friendliness of the promoted products.
According to UK advertising regulations, all claims pertaining to environmental sustainability must be transparent and substantiated by robust evidence.
The ASA requested supporting documentation from each company to validate their sustainability claims.
Nike defended its advertisement, which featured tennis polo shirts with the tagline “serve and ace with Nike… sustainable materials,” asserting that it was presented “in general terms” and intended to highlight the broader sustainability efforts of the company.
The sportswear giant clarified that its claim regarding “sustainable materials” was meant to indicate the presence of recycled components in other products available on its website.
However, the ASA determined that Nike failed to provide adequate qualifying details or sufficiently explain the basis of its sustainability claims.
Superdry’s advertisement promoted a “wardrobe that combines style and sustainability,” which the brand argued would be understood by consumers as implying that its clothing was either stylish, sustainable, or both.
The retailer maintained that it did not suggest all Superdry products were sustainable.
Despite this, the ASA deemed Superdry’s environmental claims to be “ambiguous and unclear,” potentially leading customers to believe that all Superdry products were environmentally friendly.
The ASA stated in its ruling: “Superdry had not provided evidence to demonstrate that their products had no detrimental effect on the environment.”
Lacoste’s advertisement promoted its children’s range as “sustainable clothing,” and the company informed the ASA that it had been working for years to reduce the carbon footprint of its products.
Nonetheless, the regulatory body concluded that while there had been a reduction in the environmental impact of the products in its children’s range, Lacoste had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its clothing would have “no detrimental effect on the environment.”
In each instance, the advertisements were banned, and the companies were cautioned that future promotions must include “a high level of substantiation” for any environmental claims.
These three rulings are part of a broader crackdown by the ASA on brands making misleading environmental claims in advertisements. The agency has been employing artificial intelligence (AI) to identify advertisements that may violate its regulations.
A Nike spokesperson stated: “We have engaged with the UK Advertising Standards Authority on this matter and have taken the necessary required actions. We remain committed to providing consumers with clear information to help them make the choices that are right for them.”
Superdry and Lacoste have been contacted for comment.
Ads for Hilton, Travelodge, Booking.com and Accor are banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Adverts for cosmetic devices not registered with the medicines regulator must not make medical claims.
UK’s ad watchdog warns the betting companies not to include any character who has a strong appeal to viewers under the age of 18.
A Manchester bar’s advert featuring the children’s character is banned by the advertising watchdog.
The social media ads were withdrawn after complaints over the way they presented their alcoholic drinks were upheld.