Author: admin

Ads for Nike, Superdry and Lacoste have been banned in the UK for misleading consumers about the environmental sustainability credentials of their products.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said paid-for Google ads run by all three retailers used terms such as “sustainable”, “sustainable materials” or “sustainable style” without providing evidence proving the green claims.

Nike’s ad, for tennis polo shirts, referred to “sustainable materials”. The company said the promotion was “framed in general terms” and argued consumers would interpret it as referring to some, but not all, products offered.

Similarly, Superdry, which urged consumers to “unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability”, said the purpose of the ad was to highlight that it manufactured, sourced and sold a wide range of products that have “sustainability attributes and credentials”.

Lacoste, promoting sustainable kids clothing, said it had been working for several years to reduce the carbon footprint of all its products, but admitted that claims such as “green”, “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” were “very difficult to substantiate”.

The ASA said the UK code of advertising states that environmental claims must be clear and “supported by a high level of substantiation”.

It said that in each case the retailers’ use of the phrase “sustainable” was without any additional information, making the claim “ambiguous and unclear”.

“The claim was absolute and therefore a high level of substantiation in support needed to be produced,” the watchdog said. “We had not seen evidence to support it. We therefore concluded the ad was likely to mislead.”

The ASA also pointed to a lack of evidence to show the products were not detrimental to the environment when their whole life cycle was taken into account.

It banned each of the ads and told the retailers to “ensure that the basis of future environmental claims, and their meaning, was made clear, and that a high level of substantiation must be held to support absolute claims”.

Separately, the ASA also banned an ad for gambling firm Betway featuring Formula One star Sir Lewis Hamilton because it was likely to appeal to under-18s.

The paid-for Facebook ad, which ran before the British Grand Prix at Silverstone in July, featured a video of three Formula One drivers standing in a grandstand watching a race with their backs to the viewer, with Hamilton’s name written on the back of his red driver’s uniform.

A complainant challenged whether the use of Hamilton broke UK ad rules, which do not allow celebrities who are likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s to appear in gambling ads.

Betway did not dispute that Hamilton has a strong appeal to under-18s, but claimed the way he was presented in the ad limited that appeal because it did not show his face or frontal view.

The ASA said consumers, including those aged under 18, would have clearly recognised the figure as being Hamilton, concluding that the ad was “irresponsible and breached the code”.

NEW YORK, Dec 2 (Reuters) – An audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, a U.S.-based non-profit solely funded by the brand, found that it had deficiencies in financial controls and governance, according to Magnum, the Unilever unit set to be spun off next week that will own the ice-cream maker.

The audit also found deficiencies in other compliance policies such as conflicts of interest, according to the statement from the Magnum Ice Cream Co, an independent unit of Unilever.

Sign up here.

Magnum conducted the audit as a matter of good governance in preparation for the upcoming spin-off, it said.

A Unilever spokesperson echoed those reasons in a comment to Reuters, adding that Magnum is “taking appropriate steps” in response to the findings.

Ben & Jerry’s and the foundation did not respond to requests for comment, but its co-founder Ben Cohen said in October that he expects the conflict between the brand and its new owner to grow after the spin-off.

Magnum did not make public the details of its findings but said it has shared them with the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation and is trying to work with them on strengthening corporate governance by adopting a code of ethics, conflict-of-interest policy, term limits for trustees and due diligence and financial controls on grants.

Magnum said the trustees have not fully addressed the deficiencies. The Unilever subsidiary shared the statement in response to Reuters’ questions about the audit.

The trustees signed a code of ethics in recent weeks, according to two sources familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The sources added the audit did not find wrongdoing, ethical malpractice or violations.

Ben & Jerry’s annual revenue of 1.1 billion euros ($1.28 billion) accounts for almost 14% of Magnum’s global turnover, compared to just 1.8% of Unilever.

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield, who resigned as a “brand ambassador” earlier this year, is stepping down as trustee from the foundation, the sources said. Greenfield did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

LONG-LASTING FEUD

Ben & Jerry’s secured substantial leeway in its 2000 merger with Unilever that others who have sold to big corporations have not enjoyed, including an independent board.

The agreement also preserved the foundation, set up in 1985. It uses contributions from Ben & Jerry’s to make donations to other non-profit organizations focused on issues ranging from racial equity to environmental protection.

But the relationship soured in 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop selling in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which had financial consequences for Unilever as investors supporting Israel pulled out of the global consumer goods conglomerate.

The Ben & Jerry’s independent board has sued Unilever twice, most recently accusing its corporate parent of wrongfully muzzling it over statements it wanted to make on Gaza; Unilever has said the brand has evolved into one-sided advocacy on controversial topics.

Cohen has launched an effort to buy back the brand; Magnum has said the unit is not for sale.

He has said Magnum is censoring Ben & Jerry’s ability to speak out on progressive causes like Palestinian rights and U.S. immigration, a claim Magnum denies.

In a draft prospectus for its public listing, Magnum warned that actions by Ben & Jerry’s could result in reputational damage, boycotts or investor claims.

(This story has been refiled to fix a typo in paragraph 10)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab