A deterrent from advancing sustainability agendas across retail?

What happened?

The ASA has banned adverts from Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste. All three adverts made claims about sustainability that the ASA found to be misleading: Lacoste claimed that its children's range featured "sustainable clothing", Nike advertised that its polo shirts were made from "sustainable materials", while Superdry suggested that customers could "unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability". The ASA ruled that the references to sustainability were not supported by sufficient evidence and were therefore misleading.

The Law

All advertising must comply with the CAP Code. The ASA concluded that the adverts had breached six provisions of the Code.

The first two provisions breached were provisions relating to misleading advertising:

• Paragraph 3.1 – that marketing communications must not be misleading, or likely to mislead.
• Paragraph 3.7 – that marketers must hold documentary evidence to support any claims that consumers may regard as objective, and that making a claim in an advert without this evidence may be misleading.

The remaining provisions all related specifically to sustainability:

• Paragraph 11.1 – the basis of any environmental claims must be clear and may be misleading if material information is not included.
• Paragraph 11.2 – the meaning of any sustainability-related terms used in adverts must be clear to consumers.
• Paragraph 11.3 – absolute claims (for example, claiming that a product is "sustainable") must be supported with significant evidence.
• Paragraph 11.4 – any environmental claims made must be true in relation to the whole life cycle of a product, unless the advert specifically says otherwise. 

Analysis of the rulings

Superdry and Nike tried to argue that the sustainability claims in their adverts were not "absolute claims" – in other words, that consumers would understand references to sustainability in the adverts to mean that both retailers had products with some sustainability credentials, and not that all the products had no environmental impact at all.

However, the ASA disagreed, ruling that the adverts amounted to absolute claims that all the advertised products were sustainable. As such, in line with CAP Code 11.3, 11.4, and 3.7, the adverts needed to be substantiated with a high level of evidence showing that the clothing had no negative environmental impacts across its entire life cycle. The adverts could not provide this, so the ASA determined that the basis of the environmental claims was not clear; this fell foul of CAP Code 11.1. Finally, the ASA also found that the terms used (such as "sustainable materials") were too vague and would therefore be unclear to consumers, contrary to CAP Code 11.2. As such, the adverts were misleading.

Lacoste's response to the complaint was slightly different – they had analysed their whole children's clothing range and calculated a "sustainability score", which was then compared against a similarly calculated score for its 2022 children's clothing range. Lacoste argued that this analysis was a sufficient basis to claim that its 2025 range was "sustainable". However, the ASA ruled against Lacoste along the same lines as Nike and Superdry. The sustainability score analysis was not explained in the adverts, and without this context the claims that the 2025 clothing range was sustainable were unclear to consumers and therefore misleading. 

These are further examples that pressure is mounting on retailers to communicate their environmental commitments clearly and accurately – a challenge made all the more complex by growing scrutiny and an increasingly digital landscape for retail. This follows on from the CMA's investigation which concluded in 2024 into misleading green claims by ASDA, ASOS and boohoo.

The bar that retailers must hit to claim that their products are sustainable or environmentally friendly has therefore been set very high. As Lacoste acknowledged in their response to the ASA complaint, it can be very difficult for retailers to obtain and provide sufficient information in their advertising to avoid being accused of misleading consumers.

The ASA’s latest crackdown on Nike, Lacoste and Superdry will likely sound as a warning bell to retail brands navigating this heightened regulatory environment. However, regulators must be careful not to deter retailers from progressing their sustainability agendas.

Sustainability is only climbing up the boardroom agenda for retail brands, and many have robust and ambitious sustainability strategies in place. Whilst compliance is important, a harsh regulatory environment risks discouraging retail brands from embarking on sustainability strategies altogether, and the ASA's clampdown could lead to unintended consequences.