Brands' 'Net Zero' Claims Are Nothing but Hot Air to Consumers

Terms like "net zero" and "carbon neutral" are becoming more commonplace in advertising as companies seek to promote their climate credentials. So much so that a recent pop song adopted 120 "green" slogans as lyrics to prove the point. Unfortunately—as evidenced by the growing number of greenwashing accusations leveled at businesses—brands can't always back up these claims. In fact, according to the European Commission, 42% are guilty of wildly exaggerating the impact of their sustainability initiatives. As part of a qualitative study, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) conducted in-depth interviews with 75 people across the U.K. from different demographics. Each had varying levels of engagement with the climate crisis (ranging from those detached from the subject entirely, to the mainstream populous and to activists). Overall, the research found that while consumers were aware of these terms, there was little to no understanding as to their meaning within the context of marketing. There was also a lack of awareness about the distinction between the two labels: where carbon-neutral refers to balancing out the total amount of carbon emissions, and net-zero carbon means no carbon was emitted at all. The Rise of the Chief Sustainability Officer as Brands Aim to Overcome Suspicions of Greenwashing The ASA reported that green claims didn't have too much direct influence over purchasing behavior. However, most participants said such language would likely boost their perception of a brand, which of course could have a longer-term impact on buying decisions. These insights come as brands continue to see their creative banned by the watchdog for breaking its recently tightened guidelines around greenwashing. Unilever, Oatly and Innocent are just some of the brands to have been put on notice over the last year. HSBC was the latest to fall foul of the rules, after its "Climate Change Doesn't Do Borders" posters were found to have clashed with the bank's significant investments in oil, gas and other high-emissions industries. In the U.S. and Europe brands are facing their own reckoning, too, with the likes of H&M being sued over allegations it engaged in false advertising about the sustainability of its clothing. Carbon confusion Companies purporting to "offset" carbon was a primary source of confusion for consumers, with some saying they believed this meant a business was directly cutting its own Co2 emissions. People reported feeling misled when they learned the use of this word simply meant companies were compensating for existing emissions by funding an equivalent carbon dioxide saving elsewhere. Those questioned agreed there was a need for transparency around the creative treatment of offsetting and argued brands—especially in carbon-intensive sectors like air travel, energy and automotive—should make it clear in the language they used that their net zero targets relied on offsetting. The ASA also questioned customers on terminology used in the electric and hybrid automotive sector. It found that the move to electric vehicles has made the car purchasing process more complex and more challenging for consumers. People said they wanted to see an independent trustworthy source of guidance for this industry which listed attributes such as fuel costs, resale value, green rating and sharing information for different car models. Simplified and standardized The ASA said the research highlighted the need for clearer, standardized definitions for carbon and net zero claims that brands could lean on. It will update its own guidance before 2022 is out to achieve this, but it will also present the findings to the U.K. government to press for further action. “Our research shows that there is consumer confusion about the meanings and the evidence behind carbon neutral, net zero and ad claims for hybrid and electric vehicles. It also suggests there is a need for them to be simplified and standardized," explained Miles Lockwood, director of complaints and investigations for the regulator. People Are Sick of Brands Promoting Products that Harm the Planet "All of which signals that while the U.K. public buy in to companies doing the right thing on the environment they remain wary of ‘greenwashing.’ We’ll act on these findings—updating guidance, sharing with government and partners, reviewing the evidence and taking enforcement action where necessary—to ensure environmental claims aren’t just hot air.” Andrew Terry, partner at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, is increasingly advising clients on this issue. He said many advertisers with good intentions are becoming unstuck because green terminology is "inconsistent." “So having clearer and standardized definitions for concepts such as carbon neutral and net zero—as well as around electric vehicles—would aid advertisers and consumers alike," he added. "The aim is admirable, but the range of interested parties in these issues will make reaching a consensus very challenging.”

Sustainability News

Your Brand's 'Net Zero' Claims Are Nothing but Hot Air to Consumers

Study shows the need for green terminology to be simplified

Rebecca Stewart

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Rebecca Stewart