Ad description
A radio ad for Virgin Atlantic, heard on 24 November 2023, stated, “On the 28th of November, Virgin Atlantic’s Flight 100 will take to the skies on our unique flight mission from London Heathrow to JFK to become the world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel. When they said it was too difficult, we said: challenge accepted. Virgin Atlantic Flight 100. See the world differently.”
Issue
Five complainants, who believed the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” gave a misleading impression of the fuel’s environmental impact, challenged whether it was misleading and could be substantiated.Response
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd t/a Virgin Atlantic explained that the background to the flight referenced in the ad was that in December 2022 they were announced as the winner of a competition run by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) to “support industry to achieve the first net zero transatlantic flight on an aircraft using 100% sustainable aviation fuel within one year”.
The aim was to build on previous research and to further the understanding of the technical and operational feasibility of using 100% sustainable aviation fuel in a commercial passenger aircraft. The standards currently in place allowed only for a maximum of 50% sustainable aviation fuel to be used, blended with fossil derived fuel. Flight 100 demonstrated that sustainable aviation fuel could be used as a full replacement for fossil derived jet fuel in existing aircraft, supported by existing fuel infrastructure. Virgin said that an element of their competition bid to the DfT was the intention that the flight would improve transparency and understanding around sustainable aviation fuel and its environmental impacts for both the wider industry and the public.
Virgin Atlantic emphasised that the ad’s wording “… become the world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic, on 100% sustainable aviation fuel” mirrored the terms used by the DfT in its competition invitation, as quoted above. They believed consumers would understand the term “100% sustainable aviation fuel” in the context of the ad to be a reference to a type of fuel which was made from sustainable sources, rather than being fossil fuel based, and which reduced but did not necessarily completely eliminate greenhouse gases. They did not think listeners would understand the ad to mean that the fuel used for Flight 100 was derived from completely sustainable sources, did not generate CO2 or other emissions that had an adverse environmental impact during use, and that over its full lifecycle had no adverse environmental impacts. The ad did not claim that the fuel was 100% sustainable, nor did it give a misleading impression about the absolute or relative environmental nature, impact or credentials of sustainable aviation fuel (as compared to other aviation fuel). Rather, it factually described how the flight was powered exclusively by sustainable aviation fuel.
They referred to a survey they had undertaken, after receiving notification from the ASA about the complaint, to see what people understood from the ad. They said the key outcomes were that: overall, listeners considered it was easy to understand; the majority understood that the claim related to the proportion of sustainable aviation fuel used; and the majority (68%) understood from the ad that sustainable aviation fuel was better for the environment than traditional jet fuel, but that it was not without any adverse impact. They said the ASA recognised that most consumers understood aviation’s carbon emissions due to fossil fuel use and that they would infer that “sustainable aviation fuel” had a lesser environmental impact. They therefore believed the ad did not omit or present information unclearly, because the ad accurately stated that Flight 100 was powered solely by sustainable aviation fuel.
They said that even if relevant information had been omitted from the ad, it was not ‘material’ information as referenced in the Code: that was information that consumers needed in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. The ad did not advertise Virgin Atlantic’s products or services. It was instead showcasing a one-off research and development flight that did not operate as a normal commercial service. It therefore could not be said to lack any information that was necessary (rather than information that would assist, or be relevant) to enable the average consumer to take an informed transactional decision. They said that in any event, a further survey they had conducted since receiving notification from the ASA identified that sustainability factors influenced only around 1.5% of consumer’s overall choice about long-haul airlines.
They said the term “sustainable aviation fuel” was used universally by governments, regulators, industry bodies, fuel companies, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), airlines, academia, aircraft and engine manufacturers and mainstream media. The ad therefore accurately referred to the type of fuel by its universally recognised and used definition. The term was used for synthetic aviation fuel that was not derived from fossil fuel. It encompassed fuel made from waste or renewable feedstocks. There were various feedstock sources and technology pathways that could be deployed to produce it.
Differing criteria for sustainable aviation fuel existed, but the most widely used was the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) sustainability criteria established by the ICAO, a United Nations agency. The primary criteria were: (1) greenhouse gas reductions of at least 10% compared to the baseline lifecycle emissions values for aviation fuel on a lifecycle basis; (2) the fuel was not made from biomass obtained from land-aquatic systems with a high biogenic carbon stock; and (3) emissions reductions attributed to CORSIA sustainable aviation fuel should be permanent.
Sustainable aviation fuel was certified by independent certification entities. The most common certifications were issued by the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) and Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). Methodologies to calculate the lifecycle greenhouse gas savings of sustainable aviation fuel compared to conventional fossil derived fuels were in accordance with those stipulated by the UK government, the European Union and industry bodies. They compared the greenhouse gas lifecycle emissions of biofuel sources to the extraction and processing of raw fossil feedstocks into crude oil and subsequent refinement into fossil jet fuel. The methodological approach was not specific to aviation, and full lifecycle assessments were used globally and across industry to establish baseline emissions and reductions from alternatives to fossil derived fuels.
Virgin Atlantic said that under current fuel standards it was not permissible to blend different types of sustainable aviation fuels together, but they had received permission to do so for Flight 100, which combined two types. The first, Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK), was made using waste oils and lipids from animal fats. Those animal fats were deemed unfit for human consumption, and so converting them into biofuels represented the only viable means of reusing an otherwise wasted resource. SPK comprised 87.6% of the fuel used for Flight 100. The lifecycle emissions for the SPK were calculated in compliance with the relevant EU Renewable Energy Directive and ISCC methodologies.
The other 12.4% of the fuel mix was comprised of Synthesised Aromatic Kerosene (SAK), a synthetic fuel derived from dextrose. It used sugars from isolated industrial corn starch, with the remaining portion of the corn’s oil, protein and fibre remaining available for the feed and food supply chains. SAK was at a developmental stage and was being produced in extremely small volumes until it had achieved approval under the International Standard which certified the safety of jet fuel. Once the fuel had achieved that certification a second process would be triggered for the manufacturing plant to be certified as CORSIA compliant. In the meantime, the methodology used to calculate the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for SAK was the methodology required under California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which was consistent with industry standards for the production of bio-based fuels.
Prior to the flight, a consultancy firm calculated the carbon emissions across the full lifecycle of a Virgin Atlantic flight using traditional jet fuel, on the same route and aircraft type as Flight 100. It indicated that 97% of the greenhouse gas emissions generated were derived from fuel use. Virgin Atlantic confirmed that sustainable aviation fuel produced the same level of CO2 emissions during flight as traditional jet fuel. However, because sustainable aviation fuel utilised carbon that had recently been captured from the atmosphere, the CO2 savings were relative to a net increase in atmospheric carbon that would have been emitted had fossil fuels been dug up and used. Additional savings could also be realised through a reduction in lifecycle emissions from extraction, processing, manufacturing, transportation of the fuel, and through improving operational efficiencies. Flight 100 had trialled various operational efficiencies, including fuel burn efficiencies. Overall, Flight 100 had delivered a lifecycle CO2 emissions saving of 64%. The deployment of sustainable aviation fuel therefore represented a significant reduction in emissions.In addition, Flight 100’s fuel produced around 40% lower non-CO2 emissions (particulates such as water, sulphur oxides, soot and nitrous oxides) compared to fossil derived fuels. They had also mitigated for the potential that Flight 100 would result in contrail formation, but on the day relevant software had indicated there was no likelihood of that happening. Finally, Virgin Atlantic would purchase carbon removal credits to mitigate the residual CO2 from Flight 100.
Radiocentre took advice from an independent external consultant, who said that “sustainable aviation fuel” was defined by the UK Government under the renewable transport fuel obligation. Radiocentre noted that the term was used by the World Economic Forum, International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the DfT to describe that category of aviation fuel. They were advised that commercial aircraft were already approved to use sustainable aviation fuel up to a maximum blend of 50% with conventional jet fuel, although typical blend rates were at between 10% and 30%.Radiocentre also considered the broader implications of the services being described as “sustainable”, and were careful to ensure the ad did not make or imply such a claim for the airline’s service. Instead, the ad focused solely on Virgin Atlantic’s claim that Flight 100 was the first commercial transatlantic flight to be powered only by sustainable aviation fuel.
Assessment
Upheld
The BCAP Code stated that unqualified claims could mislead if they omitted significant information. The meaning of all terms used in ads must be clear to consumers.
The ASA considered that while many listeners would understand from the ad that Flight 100 had, uniquely, flown transatlantic using only sustainable aviation fuel, a significant proportion would understand the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” to mean that the fuel used was 100% sustainable.
We understood that the term sustainable aviation fuel was widely used in the aviation industry and by governmental and other bodies to refer to biofuels and synthetic fuels – fuels which were not from fossil derived sources – and which had reduced impacts on the environment based on their resourcing and lifecycle emissions, compared to fossil derived aviation fuel. We considered most consumers were likely to be aware that aviation was a high carbon-emitting sector, due largely to its use of fossil derived aviation fuels, and would understand from the term sustainable aviation fuel that it had a less harmful impact on the environment than fossil derived aviation fuels. However, they were unlikely to be aware of the extent to which fuels described as sustainable aviation fuel still had negative environmental impacts, and in what ways. Those listeners who interpreted the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” to mean that the fuel was 100% sustainable were likely to expect that it had no negative environmental impacts at all.
We considered the consumer opinion survey Virgin had commissioned confirmed the limited knowledge and lack of clarity amongst consumers about the environmental impact of sustainable aviation fuel, both in general and specifically after listening to the ad. While 68% of respondents said they understood from the ad that sustainable aviation fuel was “significantly” or “somewhat” better for the environment than traditional jet fuel, a further 15% understood it had the same impact as jet fuel, and 6% understood it was “somewhat” or “significantly” worse for the environment; 11% understood that sustainable aviation fuel had zero environmental impact. There were therefore significant minorities of respondents who did not have an accurate understanding of the environmental impact of sustainable aviation fuel after listening to the ad. Additionally, in response to a further true/false question, roughly 30% of respondents believed a statement that sustainable aviation fuel had “zero impact on the environment” was true. A significant number of respondents therefore responded differently than they had to the previous question, which we considered further indicated consumers’ confusion.
We acknowledged that the specific sustainable aviation fuel mix used for Flight 100 was calculated to have delivered savings of 64% in greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil derived aviation fuel over its full lifecycle, but that was not stated in the ad.
Additionally, while that was a significant reduction, we nonetheless understood that sustainable aviation fuel still produced significant emissions over its lifecycle. This included significant CO2, nitrous oxide and other climate-impacting emissions during flight, and that its production was not without other potentially negative environmental impacts in the longer term. For example, this included the diversion of biofuels from other sectors which might then revert back to fossil derived fuels, and the impact of land use changes, both direct and indirect.
We therefore considered that in the absence of information in the ad which explained that sustainable aviation fuel produced reduced, but still significant, emissions over its full lifecycle, including in-flight emissions, and which explained the ways in which the fuel otherwise significantly adversely impacted the environment, a significant proportion of listeners were likely to overestimate its environmental benefits.
We acknowledged the ad specifically highlighted Flight 100, which was a non-commercial flight for which listeners could not purchase tickets. However, it had the effect of building the overall impression that Virgin Atlantic was committed to taking on a challenging, pioneering and continuing role in working towards reducing the environmental impact of aviation. We considered many listeners would be interested in seeking out airlines that were taking such action. The ad specifically highlighted the use of sustainable aviation fuel in Flight 100; a method by which a reduction in environmental impact could be achieved. We therefore considered that information about its limitations in that regard constituted material information that would have an impact on the transactional decisions of those listeners.
We therefore concluded that the unqualified claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” was misleading. The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 9.2, 9.3, and 9.5 (Environmental claims).
Action
We told Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd t/a Virgin Atlantic to ensure that future ads which referred to the use of sustainable aviation fuel included qualifying information which explained the environmental impact of the fuel.
