Dear Committee,
I'm writing you as a concerned European citizen, worried about the climate impact of flying and the problem of greenwashing in the aviation sector.
Austrian Airlines has released an advertising that I would like to bring under your attention today. The CEO of Austrian Airlines, also shared a post on LinkedIn referring to the following online ad: https://www.austrianairlines.ag/en/2022/07/22/travel-carbon-neutral-to-the-biennale-arte-2022-together-with-austrian-airlines-and-the-airports-of-vienna-and-venice/
It's clearly an advertising article with a clear proposition to consumers: fly carbon neutral already today.
The content of the advertising (article) is misleading on several grounds. For an average consumer without much prior knowledge, the main message of the ad/article would imply that flying without a climate impact is already today.
Let's consider the header and the first line of the article: Header: ''Travel carbon neutral to the Biennale Arte 2022 together with Austrian Airlines and the Airports of Vienna and Venice" First line: ''Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) makes carbon neutral air travel already possible today.''
Let us now consider step by step what makes this advertising and article misleading:
• Firstly, the term Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) has not been clearly defined in the article. SAF is a broad term that can refer to several alternatives for fossile kerosine. Generally speaking, we're talking about biofuels with, depending on the feedstock being used, have different net savings or losses, or about synthetic fuels. Biofuels are not carbon neutral. Their net saving potential can vary greatly depending on the feedstocks being used, etc. For example, some biofuels might have a net saving potential of 60%, others of 80-85%. 'Bad' biofuels are actually worse, because they can result in a net loss. Both categories - biofuels and synthetic fuels - are generally labeled as 'Sustainable Aviation Fuel'. The article suggests that we're talking about a fuel which has a 100% net saving potential in itself, because the suggestion is made that a 100% SAF purchase can be made.
• Secondly, I'd argue that the term Sustainable Aviation Fuel is therefore misleading in itself. It should be considered as an absolute environmental claim, because the average consumer will asume that Sustainable Aviation Fuels must be sustainable by definition, no further questions asked. It can be compared with terms such as 'clean coal' or 'natural gas'. A clever form of framing, but not very helpful for consumers who have a right to know what they're purchasing exactly. Consumers have a right to know.
• Thirdly, Austrian Airlines isn't using SAF with an 100% net saving potential. Austrian Airlines uses biofuels with >80% saving potential. This means that the SAF itself cannot and does not result in carbon neutral flying. - Fourth: Austrian Airlines knows how to fix this problem with clever accounting. In fact, they admit that what they do is they 'overcompensate' by purchasing more SAF than is required to meet the fuel demand of one person purchasing the 100% SAF-option. This seems fair, but the problem here with regard to advertising is: none of this is properly explained to the consumer.
The consumer doesn't understand a) what SAF is; b) what the net saving potential of SAF is; and c) what 100% SAF means. Therefore, the average consumer might easily think that he/she is able to 'fix' aviation's climate problem by purchasing SAF. This is what the message 'fly carbon neutral already today' suggests. It's deeply misleading. In fact, it's clever accounting that simply isn't good enough to justify the use of claims such as 'fly carbon neutral today'.
I've studied the Code of Ethics of the Austrian Advertising Industry.
Based on the following articles I would like you to make a decision:
1.1.6. Advertising must not violate the principle of honesty and truthfulness.
1.1.7. Advertising shall not mislead by suggestive and imitative representations.
It was on these general principles that I decided to submitted a complaint at the Austrian Werberat.
In the chapter devoted to environmental claims I can find the following articles:
1.6.1. Advertising relating to the environment needs to be handled with particular sensitivity so as not to give rise to misconceptions.
1.6.2. There should be no representations and statements that cannot be substantiated by facts.
1.6.3. If it has been proven that products have not had any adverse effects on the environment, there should be no advertising and statements that could give the impression that the product has been made environmentally compatible through special technical production measures.
1.6.5. Scientific terms should not be used unless absolutely necessary or their use should not mislead.
1.6.6. The use of eco-labels should be avoided if these labels are not generally recognized - or if they can be used to mislead.
Terms such as 'Sustainable Aviation Fuel' (SAF) and 'carbon neutral' are scientic terms and/or terms that are used by experts in a particular field differently than can be expected from average consumers and/or members of the public.
I think this is a clear piece of misleading content. A lot of greenwashing we see nowadays is hard to spot because you basically need more editorial content to evaluate claims being made in advertising.
With high regards,
Entscheidung:
Der Österreichische Werberat spricht im Falle der beanstandeten Werbemaßnahme von Austrian Airlines (AUA) die Aufforderung in Zukunft bei der Gestaltung von Werbemaßnahmen sensibler vorzugehen aus.
Begründung:
Die Mehrheit der Werberäte und Werberätinnen sieht im Hinblick auf das beanstandete Werbesujet von AUA den Ethik-Kodex der Werbewirtschaft, vor allem des Artikels 1.6. „Umwelt“ und des Artikels 1.1. „Allgemeine Werbegrundsätze“ nicht ausreichend sensibel umgesetzt.
Die Werbemaßnahme von AUA bewirbt mit dem Slogan „CO2-neutral zur Biennale fliegen? Für uns keine Kunst!“ einen Flug nach Venedig, der durch den – wie im Text beschriebenen „nachhaltigen Flugkraftstoff SAF“ – möglich gemacht wird. Dabei verweist ein Störer, dass durch das Buchen von „100% SAF“ CAT Tickets und Viennale Tickets kostenlos erhältlich sind.
Die Werbemaßnahme beinhaltet Begriffe und Aussagen, die für Durchschnittskonsument-innen nicht geläufig sind, nicht näher erklärt werden und deshalb auch missverstanden werden könnten. So geht aus dem Sujet nicht hervor, wie die angegebene CO2-Neutralität genau erreicht wird bzw. dass Sustainable Aviation Fuels – kurz SAF – eine Emissionsreduktion von derzeit max. 80 Prozent ermöglichen. Auch wird im Werbesujet nicht näher erläutert um welchen regenerativen Kraftstoff es sich im Konkreten handelt, da es hier genauerer Unterscheidung bedarf.
Die Werberätinnen und Werberäte sind der Ansicht, dass Konsument*innen durch das Sujet der AUA suggeriert wird, der beworbene Flug sei CO2-neutral. Werbung, die Umwelt betrifft, benötigt im Sinne des Ethik Kodex der Österreichischen Werbewirtschaft, jedoch eine besonders sensible Handhabung, um Fehlvorstellungen zu vermeiden. In Zeiten, in denen Nachhaltigkeit und Klimaschutz in der Bevölkerung besonderer Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet sind, bedarf es insbesondere transparenter, klarer und sensibler Kommunikation. Da durch das Sujet eine Irreführung in Bezug auf klimaneutrales Fliegen entstehen könnte, dies jedoch (noch) nicht möglich ist, wird eine sensiblere Gestaltung und vor allem präzisere Ausformulierung betreffend des Werbesujets empfohlen.
Im Detail wird der Ethik-Kodex nachfolgenden Kriterien nicht ausreichend sensibel umgesetzt:
Artikel 1.6. „Umwelt“ kommt unter folgendem Aspekt zur Anwendung:
1.6.1. Werbung, die Umwelt betreffend, bedarf einer besonders sensiblen Handhabung, damit nicht Fehlvorstellungen hervorgerufen werden.
Des Weiteren wurde eine Verletzung des Ethik-Kodex in Artikel 1.1. „Allgemeine Werbegrundsätze“ erkannt:
1.1.3. Werbung muss den Grundsätzen der Lautbarkeit, wie sie im Wirtschaftsleben allgemein anerkannt sind, entsprechen.
1.1.6. Werbung darf nicht gegen den Grundsatz der Redlichkeit und Wahrhaftigkeit verstoßen.