Press release

Ryanair, Delta, Lufthansa, Easyjet among 71 airlines warned over potential greenwashing

18th July 2024

  • Legal letter sets out red lines for airline sustainability advertising 
  • Warning follows precedent-setting judgment against KLM’s green ads

Environmental groups have warned 71 airlines operating out of Schiphol airport that they must respect the greenwashing limits clarified by the legal precedent-setting Dutch Court ruling against KLM in March this year.

ClientEarth, Fossielvrij and Reclame Fossielvrij have sent a legal letter warning that airlines should not promote common industry claims about ‘sustainable aviation fuels’, ‘offsetting’ and ‘net zero by 2050’ as they are likely to be unlawful. 

In March this year advertising by KLM promoting similar statements was found by the District Court of Amsterdam to have broken EU consumer law, following a lawsuit filed by Fossielvrij.

Airlines receiving the warning included: Ryanair, Lufthansa, Delta, American Airlines, British Airways, Easyjet, Etihad, Cathay Pacific Airways, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Turkish Airlines among others.

Johnny White, lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “The misleading sustainability claims pushed by KLM and found unlawful by the Dutch Court come straight from the wider industry’s greenwashing playbook to keep air traffic growing as the climate crisis escalates.

“Airlines continuing to promote these misleading messages do so in breach of the law. The Dutch ruling set clear red lines for the aviation sector’s climate advertising. Failing to abide by them exposes airlines to legal action from a range of actors, from civil society, to consumers, regulators and even competitors.”

Red lines for aviation advertising 

A major finding from the Dutch Court judged to be misleading the industry’s description of alternative fuels – such as minor amounts of used cooking oil biofuel – as a ‘promising solution’ and ‘sustainable aviation fuel’.

The letter warns that airlines therefore cannot use the label ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ or the abbreviation ‘SAF’ in consumer-oriented communication, nor can they use other vague terms like 'more sustainable aviation fuel', as this gives the impression that it can make a substantial contribution to reducing the climate impact of aviation.  

It also makes clear that airlines are prohibited from making ‘offsetting’ claims. This means stopping schemes that suggest customers can pay towards a tree planting project or the costs of biofuels as a way to reduce, compensate or neutralise the climate impact of a flight. 

Overall, airlines that are failing to make substantial emissions reductions cannot claim they are committed to the Paris Agreement, are on their way to a more sustainable future, or are on a path to ‘net zero’ by 2050.   

Aviation growth

In the letter – sent by ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke, Reclame Fossielvrij CEO Femke Sleegers and Fossielvrij CEO Liset Meddens – the environmental groups also warn that aviation industry growth is not consistent with limiting dangerous climate change. 

Though the Dutch Court did not hold KLM’s decision to grow its business against the airline, judges nevertheless found that its other marginal or uncertain future measures meant it could not lawfully claim to be tackling climate change in line with global climate goals. 

The letter points out that KLM’s unlawful claims appear to be part of the industry-wide climate PR strategy to protect what KLM calls the industry’s ‘licence to grow’. The widespread nature of this strategy is confirmed by recent regulatory enforcement by the European Commission and the European network of consumer protection authorities, which are investigating 20 airlines across the European Union over potentially misleading sustainability claims.

Hiske Arts, campaigner at Fossielvrij, said: “Aviation is a highly polluting, fossil-fuelled industry. Pursuing growth inherently undermines action to tackle the climate crisis, which demands a limit on air traffic. Airlines cannot tout their empty climate promises to win public and political favour while planning to keep on polluting our planet with more fossil fuel burned in the skies.” 

The organisations are calling for a tobacco-style ad ban on air travel and all other fossil-fuel based goods, citing the significant harm these products cause to people’s health and livelihoods through fuelling dangerous climate change.

Rosanne Rootert, campaigner at Fossielvrij Reclame, said: “Tackling greenwashing is currently a cat-and-mouse game. You can only react when the harm is already done and people have already seen the ads. A complete ban on fossil advertising, such as for air travel, is the only way to truly eliminate sophisticated greenwashing by these companies."

ENDS

Notes to editors:
  • The legal letter was sent to airlines operating out of Schiphol airport in the Netherlands, Europe’s largest airline hub, because the judgment was issued by a Dutch Court. Find the letter here.
  • The aviation industry will source about 0.53% of its fuel from biofuels in 2024, according to the International Air Transport Association. 
  • The European Commission and national consumer authorities’ action against 20 (unnamed) airlines followed an EU-wide complaint by the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC).
  • For more detail on the case, the Dutch Court’s judgment and Schiphol Airport’s support for a standstill to air traffic growth, see ClientEarth’s announcement of the judgment here.
About ClientEarth

ClientEarth is a non-profit organisation that uses the law to create systemic change that protects the Earth for – and with – its inhabitants. We are tackling climate change, protecting nature and stopping pollution, with partners and citizens around the globe. We hold industry and governments to account, and defend everyone’s right to a healthy world. From our offices in Europe, Asia and the USA we shape, implement and enforce the law, to build a future for our planet in which people and nature can thrive together.