The UK advertising watchdog today dismissed a complaint against a series of ads for Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, 16 months after climate campaigners filed it.
The New Weather Institute think tank had argued that the ads “spread disinformation on the role of ‘advanced’ fuel in decarbonising the transport sector”, because they promoted Saudi Aramco’s research into cleaner fuels for F1 motorsport while failing to reflect the climate impact of burning the billions of barrels of oil pumped each year by the world’s biggest oil company.
But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the ads did not require clarifying information because they did not include an environmental claim.
Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute, said the amount of time it took to arrive at a ruling on the 16-page complaint he had submitted in February 2024 showed the ASA was “not fit for purpose.”
“It has taken a year and a half of an incredibly slow, opaque, flip-flopping investigation for advertising’s self-regulator — the ASA — to absolve one of the world’s biggest polluters of misinformation”, said Simms.
The adverts originally appeared on Google, LinkedIn, and Instagram between 2023 and 2024 as part of Saudi Aramco’s “Powered by How” campaign. They featured pictures of an Aston Martin F1 race car and referred to Saudi Aramco’s “work in ultra-efficient hybrid internal combustion engines and advanced fuels”.
In one ad, a voiceover asked climate-related questions such as, “How can we pioneer fuel that could lower emissions? How can we help with global net zero targets?”
Saudi Aramco’s “Powered by How” campaign associated its sponsorship
of F1 racing with its research on low-carbon fuels.
The New Weather Institute’s complaint also included reference to similar wording in a series of advertorials — ads designed to mimic journalistic content — created by the Financial Times’ in-house advertising studio for Saudi Aramco, but the ASA did not include this campaign in its ruling.
The ASA’s decision follows a parliamentary debate on Monday on whether to ban fossil fuel advertising across the UK, as well as sponsorships of museums, sport, and other organizations or events. The debate was triggered by a petition launched by TV presenter and environmentalist Chris Packham, which gathered more than 110,000 signatures in support of such a ban.
In his opening remarks in the debate, Labour MP Jacob Collier underscored the challenge facing the ASA in ruling on ads by oil and gas companies.
“We are in an era of compliant deception: An ad can be accurate but also misleading. A message can be truthful in parts but dishonest in tone,” said Collier.
Collier told the parliamentary debate that the ASA had made it clear to him that it “has no official position on a ban and that it is for Parliament to decide”. Collier also said the ASA told him it is “cautious about stepping into territory where it might be seen to regulate brand image rather than specific advertising claims”.
Some within the advertising industry said the ASA’s ruling raised questions about whether the regulator’s current approach was sufficient to prevent oil and gas companies presenting a green image.
“I don’t think the way the ASA approaches these issues is actually going to solve the problem”, said an employee at a UK communications agency owned by New York-based Omnicom, one of the biggest advertising holding companies in the world.
“As it stands, major polluters will continue to misrepresent and greenwash their business until they’re properly prevented through a fossil fuel advertising ban”, added the employee, who asked not to be named for fear of professional repercussions.
Saudi Aramco did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
