Advertising Standards Authority ruling not upheld on Shell UK’s green advert

Doing green claims right: case study

 A recent Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling on a Shell UK advert is an interesting illustration of how an ad can be compliant with the rules in relation to green claims. It's an unusual example of a “not upheld” decision on green claims and will be a significant win for Shell in light of the fact that only 5% ASA decisions into green claims have been not upheld in 2025.

It's also very much in contrast to recent rulings including Wessex Water and the decision against Lloyds bank where there was insufficient contextual information in the ad about the advertisers wider practices in relation to the environment. The ASA ruled that these ads were therefore misleading.

Background

Shell UK Ltd created an advert to convey to its customers its present and future position on ‘meeting the UK’s energy needs’. The ad visually took viewers on a journey through different aspects of Shell UK’s business, including EV charging but importantly also other aspects such as natural gas extraction. Included in the ad were a number of statistics about its current global investments and future environmental goals including installing EV charges and becoming a ‘net zero emissions business’ by 2050.  

There were several complaints that the advert was misleading in respect of Shell’s environmental impact. Shell UK disputed these complaints and claimed it had been made clear throughout the advert that it supplied and extracted gas, and this was one of its main current activities. Shell also argued the figures used in the ad complied with UK reporting requirements based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and gave explanations as to why EU taxonomy figures had not been included.

Shell also referred to a previous ASA ruling which stated it needed to include more information in adverts about its oil and gas activities. Shell argued it had aimed to do this and pointed to the voice-over and superimposed text which highlighted its oil and gas activities. This was in addition to the fact that viewers saw a range of aspects of Shell’s business, including those which are not necessarily good for the environment such as rigs to extract natural gas.

Clearcast had also approved the advert and said that the purpose of the advert was to focus on Shell’s environmental future goals rather than its environmental credentials.

Committees of Advertising Practice guidance (CAP)

CAP guidance highlights: 

• Where businesses refer to environmentally friendly initiatives, ads must also refer to its environmental harm to avoid being misleading; and  
• It's important for consumers to understand the proportion of green activities against total activities for high carbon businesses. 

Ruling

The ruling was not upheld for the following reasons:

• The ad didn't purely focus on Shell’s initiatives towards environmental benefits and included numerous references to its gas activities including a gas extraction scene which fairly represented Shell’s low and high carbon activities.
• This was supported by the statistics and text included in the ad, specifically that 68% of its activities were oil and gas, 23% were low-carbon energy solutions and 9% were other non-energy products.
• The use of ‘low carbon’ to describe certain activities (such as EV chargers) had been used appropriately across the ad.
• The statistics used complied with IFRS and Shell wasn't required to include EU taxonomy figures.

ASA therefore concluded that Shell had not been misleading in its advert and the information provided. 

Key takeaways

The ruling outcome does not follow the recent trend of the ASA decisions – the majority of these have been upheld and companies such as Lloyds Bank and Wessex Water have had to remove various adverts.

However, ASA have continued to follow the same reasoning in reaching this outcome:

• Did Shell UK falsely advertise that renewable energy formed a significant proportion of its investments? ASA decided that Shell UK hadn't advertised that renewable energy formed most of its investments.
• Was there readily available and accurate information about the true nature of Shell UK’s investments? Yes, Shell UK had included sufficient information about its investments which were clear and not hidden by a ‘show more’ button, for example.
• Were any broader claims on sustainability or environmental goals backed up by information and statistics? ASA concluded that the statistics and information used meant viewers would understand the ‘balance of Shell’s investments’ and was therefore not misleading. 

Finally, the ruling is a good reminder that having Clearcast approval does not prevent ASA or the Competition and Markets Authority investigating an advert and green claims continue to be at high risk of regulatory scrutiny. 

Our content explained