Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and three were Not upheld.
Ad description
A poster and three paid-for LinkedIn posts for Lloyds, seen in May 2024:
a. The poster featured an image of a person in a laboratory coat handling seaweed and text that stated, “Growing the business as fast as the seaweed used to make their packaging. Right now, good things are happening at [business name]”. Underneath that was boxed text that stated, “Lloyds Bank Business” followed by the Lloyds Bank logo. The business’s name appeared in small white writing in the top left-hand corner of the ad.
b. The first paid-for LinkedIn post featured an image of grass, wildflowers and butterflies with text that stated, “We’re partnering with Projects for Nature to support nature recovery and engage communities across projects in England”. The text “Projects for Nature” and “engage communities”. At the bottom of the ad was a link labelled “Find out more”.
c. The second paid-for LinkedIn post featured the same image as ad (b) and text that stated, “We’re teaming up with Projects for Nature to help protect our natural environment. Our funding will support three projects that include: Creation of a 100-mile natural recovery corridor along three rivers in Sussex, helping boost biodiversity, reduce flooding and enhance the rural economy; Natural flood management in Cumbria, including re-wiggling rivers, planting trees and restoring wetlands; Working with partners and tenant farmers in the Peak District to establish more trees, healthy peatlands, thriving wetlands and grasslands and improve soil health and water quality”.
d. The third paid-for LinkedIn post stated, “What are we doing to help accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy? We’re committed to supporting the energy transition, by continuing to […]”.
The rest of the caption, which was only viewable when consumers clicked a button labelled “see more” stated “[…] reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and putting the weight of our finance into clean and renewable energy. We use 100% renewable energy to power our buildings; We’re aiming to halve our own energy consumption by 2030; We’re also helping people and businesses across the UK to understand how they can be more sustainable”. A video embedded in the post featured an animation that showed electricity from a power station being used to power business and domestic buildings and an electric vehicle (EV). The EV then drove through agricultural land and a growing woodland. The video then cut to an image of Earth with superimposed text that stated, “Helping Britain Prosper”. The word “Prosper” was coloured green.
Issue
Adfree Cities challenged whether the ads were misleading because they omitted significant information about Lloyds’ contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Response
Lloyds Bank plc (Lloyds) provided copies of ads from the same campaign as ad (a), which had started in 2023, that focused on a number of different businesses – they included a bakery, a distillery and a pub. The featured business had been chosen for their innovation and would be understood by consumers as meaning Lloyds works with growing businesses such as the one shown. They said the ad made no claims in respect of the environmental or social credentials of the business or Lloyds, as they were not the focus of the campaign.
Lloyds said the claims in ads (b) and (c) were factually accurate, clear and intelligible. The ads detailed specific nature recovery projects to which Lloyds donated and used imagery relevant to those activities. The ads linked to a press release about the charity partnership. In their view the ads accurately represented the nature of the partnership and did not omit any material information. The content of the ads had been reviewed by both the relevant charity partners, and the UK government departments involved, to ensure accuracy and clarity.
Lloyds said claims in ad (d) were factually accurate and substantiable. The ad copy and accompanying animation gave a clear overview of the sectors with which Lloyds was involved, the support they offered clients and customers, and the steps they were taking to make their own operations more sustainable. The ad included balancing information that acknowledged Lloyds’ involvement with carbon intensive industries and stated they were “continuing to reduce [their] reliance on fossil fuels”. The ad linked to webpages detailing their sustainability activity, including a download link to their most recent sustainability report. The ad was prepared for Earth Day 2024, and so included an image of Earth in the closing frame. They explained that the Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) had used the colour green in its palette for many years, which was why the word “Prosper” appeared in green at the end of the ad, in-line with their brand guidelines.
Lloyds provided a copy of their 2023 Sustainability Report which showed the LBG had total financed emissions of 33 MtCO2e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2022. They had exited UK thermal coal power at the end of 2023, and did not directly finance retrofit activities that prolonged the life of existing thermal coal facilities. They planned to exit from all diversified mining companies that operated thermal coal facilities by 2030. They had set targets to reduce the emissions intensity of their power sector clients by 81%, and to reduce the absolute emissions from their oil and gas clients by 50%, by 2030.
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ad (d) only.
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear, and stated that unqualified claims could mislead if significant information was omitted.
The ASA first assessed ad (a). We acknowledged Lloyds’ comment that the ad had formed part of a wider campaign that included reference to businesses from a number of industries. Nevertheless, given that ads in such a campaign were likely to be seen in isolation, we assessed the ad as it would have appeared to consumers in situ.
The ad appeared on a bus shelter, where it would have been seen by both consumers and potential business consumers. It showed a person handling seaweed and included text that referred to the nature of the featured business – using seaweed to make packaging. It referred to “Growing the business”, which we considered would be interpreted as meaning the company was focused on expansion. In the context of the ad we considered that consumers would understand that Lloyds had financed the development of the featured business and could help other prospective businesses develop and expand theirs. While the ad featured a business which was developing a product that was likely to be seen as having an environmentally beneficial focus, we considered consumers and business consumers would understand it as a case study in how Lloyds supports businesses develop and expand, rather than being an example of Lloyd’s green business financing more generally. It was therefore unlikely to be interpreted as making wider environmental claims about Lloyds’ business practices.
We next assessed ads (b) and (c), both of which promoted a partnership between Lloyds and Projects for Nature, a platform that sought private sector funding for nature recovery projects. Ad (b) made a general statement about the partnership, whereas ad (c) detailed specific projects that Lloyds’ donation would go towards. Lloyds’ logo appeared alongside, and in an equal size to, the Project for Nature logo in both ads. We considered consumers and business consumers would understand from the ads that Lloyds had donated to Projects for Nature to support nature recovery projects. They would understand the ads as making a limited claim about Lloyds’ contribution to the platform. While ad (b) did not contain the same level of information as ad (c), we considered consumers would still understand the ad in that context, since the additional text in ad (c) only set out examples of projects to which Lloyds’ funding could be directed. They would therefore not interpret the ads as making wider environmental claims about Lloyds’ business practices.
We then assessed ad (d), which detailed steps Lloyds was taking to reduce its carbon footprint, which included reducing their operational (Scope 1) emissions and helping consumers and their business customers become more sustainable. A video in the ad showed an electric car driving through a suburban setting before entering a more rural area with haybales and a forest. A final scene showed Earth with the text “Helping Britain Prosper”, the word “Prosper” was shown in green.
Businesses and consumers were likely to have an awareness that many companies were in the process of reducing their operational emissions in response to the climate crisis, and as part of their transition to net zero and contribution to a net zero society. In that context, we considered they would understand from the ad that Lloyds was taking steps to reduce their operational carbon and GHG emissions by using renewable energy and halving energy consumption by 2030. However, the ad also made wider claims about Lloyds’ financing of clean and renewable energy, and contribution towards a low carbon economy, including by helping its customers become more sustainable. Specifically, the ad claimed Lloyds was putting the “weight of [its] finance” into renewable energy. We considered those claims and the imagery in the ad, in the absence of qualifying information, and along with the final scene of the embedded video, gave the general impression that renewable energy formed a significant proportion of Lloyds’ investments and the companies it financed. While we acknowledged Lloyds’ comments that the ad contained some balancing information that it was reducing its reliance on fossil fuels, that claim related to Lloyds’ operational use of fossil fuels rather than that of the companies it financed.
We understood Lloyds was taking steps towards net zero and promoting sustainability to its customers. However, according to Lloyds’ 2023 Sustainability Report, their financed emissions in 2022 stood at to 32.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which represented a large contribution to GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. Investment in and financing of areas of climate risk comprised a notable amount of the company’s activities and would continue to do so in the near future. We considered that meant, despite the impression given in ad (d), Lloyds was continuing to significantly finance businesses and industries that emitted notable levels of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. That was material information that was likely to affect consumers’ understanding of the ad’s overall message, and so should have been made clear. We therefore concluded ad (d) omitted material information and was likely to mislead.
Ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
We also investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under those rules, but did not find them in breach.
Action
Ad (d) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Lloyds Bank plc to ensure future ads featuring environmental claims did not mislead by omitting significant information which put the claims into context and helped with consumer understanding of the message, for example by including information about the proportion of their business activities that comprised lower carbon activities.
