Design Delight Studio

Nike, Lacoste, and Superdry Ads Banned Over Misleading Sustainability Claims

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned advertising campaigns from Nike, Lacoste, and Superdry for making broad and unqualified environmental claims deemed “misleading” to consumers. This marks a significant escalation in the ASA’s crackdown on greenwashing in marketing.

Nike’s “Sustainable Materials” Claim Under Scrutiny

A Nike search ad promoted tennis polo shirts with the headline: “Serve An Ace With Nike…Sustainable Materials”. These shirts were tagged as containing at least 75% recycled fibers. Although Nike defended this by highlighting product-level sustainability details and internal thresholds, the ASA found the overarching claim implied a general sustainability benefit for the products as a whole.

• Key Issue: Nike did not provide evidence proving lower environmental impact throughout the entire product lifecycle (manufacture, usage, disposal).
• Result: The ASA ruled the ad overstated sustainability, leading to a ban of the ad in its current form.

Lacoste’s “Sustainable Clothing for Kids” Ad Falls Short

Lacoste’s paid Google ad for children’s clothing claimed “Sustainable Clothing for Kids”, applying to a line made with GOTS-certified organic cotton, recycled fibers, and responsibly sourced wool. Despite submitting lifecycle assessments indicating a 19% improvement in raw-material impact and a 17% manufacturing impact reduction compared to 2022, these efforts did not fully support the unqualified sustainability claim.

• ASA Findings: Consumers would interpret the ad as meaning the entire kidswear range was sustainable, whereas only 78% of the line met the criteria.
• Conclusion: Lack of qualification risked misleading consumers, prompting removal of the ad and a directive for future ads to include precise information.

Superdry’s “Combining Style and Sustainability” Ad Challenged

Superdry’s paid search ad promised a “wardrobe that combines style and sustainability” linking to womenswear featuring both sustainable items and others with no environmental claims. Superdry argued this was a general corporate ambition, but ASA ruled it as a broad environmental claim requiring substantiation.

• Issue: Mixed product range without clear differentiation misled consumers into believing all items were sustainable.
• Outcome: The ad was banned due to lack of evidence proving an overall environmental benefit and inadequate clarification.

ASA’s Clear Message on Sustainability Claims

The ASA reaffirmed that sustainability claims must be:

• Clear and Specific: Avoiding vague or sweeping statements.
• Evidenced Across Full Lifecycle: From material sourcing to product disposal.
• Not Aspirational or Selectively Framed: Ads must reflect verified impacts rather than future goals or partial improvements.

All three brands were instructed not to repeat the banned claims without sufficient substantiation.

Implications for Organic and Sustainable Product Marketers

This regulatory stance highlights the growing importance of transparency and rigorous evidence backing environmental marketing claims. Brands must ensure:

• Holistic Lifecycle Impact Data: To substantiate claims internally and externally.
• Qualified Communication: Clearly distinguishing which products or collections are sustainable.
• Consumer Trust: Preventing greenwashing and building credibility in a marketplace increasingly attentive to sustainability.

This ASA crackdown signals a stricter era for sustainability marketing, crucial for advertisers and consumers demanding genuine eco-performance.

Design Delight Studio curates high-impact, authoritative insights into sustainable and organic product trends, helping conscious consumers and innovative brands stay ahead in a fast-evolving green economy.