Adverts for major high-street brands Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste have been banned in the UK after failing to provide adequate evidence of their environmental sustainability claims.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) deemed the ads misleading due to the use of terms such as "sustainable", "sustainable materials" or "sustainable style" without providing sufficient substantiation. The watchdog stated that for these types of claims, a high level of substantiation was required, but found none in the case of the three retailers.
Nike's ad for tennis polo shirts claimed to feature "sustainable materials". However, the company argued that consumers would interpret this phrase as referring only to some products and not all. This stance was deemed insufficient by the ASA, who ruled that the claim was ambiguous and unclear.
Similarly, Superdry promoted a range of products as having both style and sustainability credentials. The retailer claimed that their entire product line had "sustainability attributes and credentials", but failed to provide clear evidence to back this up.
Lacoste's ad for sustainable kids' clothing took a similar approach, stating that the brand was working to reduce its carbon footprint over several years. However, Lacoste admitted that substantiating such claims was difficult, and acknowledged that their environmental impact could be detrimental when considering the entire life cycle of their products.
The ASA has since issued bans on all three ads, instructing the retailers to ensure clarity in their future environmental claims and provide substantial evidence to support them.
Separately, an advert for Betway featuring Formula One star Sir Lewis Hamilton was also banned due to concerns that it would appeal to under-18s.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) deemed the ads misleading due to the use of terms such as "sustainable", "sustainable materials" or "sustainable style" without providing sufficient substantiation. The watchdog stated that for these types of claims, a high level of substantiation was required, but found none in the case of the three retailers.
Nike's ad for tennis polo shirts claimed to feature "sustainable materials". However, the company argued that consumers would interpret this phrase as referring only to some products and not all. This stance was deemed insufficient by the ASA, who ruled that the claim was ambiguous and unclear.
Similarly, Superdry promoted a range of products as having both style and sustainability credentials. The retailer claimed that their entire product line had "sustainability attributes and credentials", but failed to provide clear evidence to back this up.
Lacoste's ad for sustainable kids' clothing took a similar approach, stating that the brand was working to reduce its carbon footprint over several years. However, Lacoste admitted that substantiating such claims was difficult, and acknowledged that their environmental impact could be detrimental when considering the entire life cycle of their products.
The ASA has since issued bans on all three ads, instructing the retailers to ensure clarity in their future environmental claims and provide substantial evidence to support them.
Separately, an advert for Betway featuring Formula One star Sir Lewis Hamilton was also banned due to concerns that it would appeal to under-18s.
I'm all about living sustainably and supporting brands that share my values 
, but this whole situation with Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste is just wild 
! Like, I get it, they want to be seen as eco-friendly and all that jazz, but come on guys... if you're not gonna back it up with some solid evidence, then don't even try 
!
? It's like, we need more transparency in advertising, ya know? 
. Maybe this will be a wake-up call for them to up their sustainability game 
. Fingers crossed! 
I'm a bit surprised by this ban, but at the same time kinda get why they'd do it. As a consumer, you wanna know what you're getting into, right? But on the other hand, these brands are trying to make some changes and show that they care about the planet 
.
. like, come on guys, if you're gonna say something is sustainable, back it up with some solid proof! Nike's whole "sustainable materials" thing was just a bunch of vague marketing speak 
. And Superdry's claim that all their products have "sustainability attributes and credentials" without any actual evidence? sounds like just a fancy way of saying "we're trying, but we're not really sure" 
. Lacoste's attempt to address this by saying it's hard to substantiate claims is basically just giving up 
. the ASA is totally right to shut these ads down and make these brands prove their eco-friendly claims once and for all 
. gotta keep it real, folks! 
. It's about time we start seeing more accountability from brands on their environmental claims. Now, let's see how they all follow through! 
I think this ruling is kinda necessary tbh. All these big brands are trying to sound eco-friendly but aren't providing any real proof. It's not like they're just making stuff up and hoping people won't fact-check 
.
As a parent, it's my job to teach my kids about sustainability, but if they're being misled by big brands from the get-go, then I'll have to take extra time to educate them myself 
. I mean, who doesn't want to save the planet, right? But seriously, when companies start making claims about sustainability without actually providing proof, it's misleading 
.
. It's like, we need to be honest with ourselves and each other about what these brands are really offering. And let's be real, if a brand can't even get their own sustainability claims right, how do they expect us to trust them? 
.
.
. The ASA finally stepped in, but I'm sure these brands will just find another way to spin it in the future 
.
what's next, "our clothes will be 100% sustainable by the time we're out of business"? 
- I mean, what's the point of even having ads if they're just gonna be misleading, right? I've shopped at all these brands before and I know they care about their environment... or at least, that's what they say. The thing is, it's easy to just throw around some buzzwords like "sustainable" without actually putting your money where your mouth is. I mean, Nike's just trying to spin this so people don't worry about the actual materials used in those fancy tennis shirts... and honestly, I'm not buying it (pun intended) 
. I guess its good that the ASA is keeping an eye on things though 
... but at the same time, can we really trust any environmental claims from big corporations? 
Like, they're not exactly known for being eco-friendly in the first place 
.
I mean, it's not like these brands are just making it up as they go along... well, maybe some of them, but Nike and Superdry seemed pretty genuine in their attempts to be sustainable 
The ASA is right to crack down on this - we need more transparency and accountability from brands when it comes to their environmental claims