<div id="readability-page-1">  <p><time datetime="2025-12-03T00:00:00+00:00">    Wednesday 03 December 2025 12:00 am  </time>      <span> | </span><span> Updated: </span>   <time datetime="2025-12-02T16:42:24+00:00">    Tuesday 02 December 2025 4:42 pm  </time></p>             <figure>    <div>       </div> <img width="742" height="495" src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://www.cityam.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/nike-57ed6b7239699-57ed6b7247cb3.webp/query-dz03NDI?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://www.cityam.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/nike-57ed6b7239699-57ed6b7247cb3.webp/query-dz03NDI"/>  <figcaption>Nike was one of three firms rapped by the advertising watchdog</figcaption> </figure> <p>Adverts produced by Nike, Superdry and Lacoste which claimed to promote sustainable clothing have been banned by the advertising watchdog as part of a major crackdown on corporate greenwashing.</p><p>The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints against the three fashion giants, assessing that environmental claims made in a series of search engine adverts were exaggerated and misled customers.</p><p>The rulings all related to the advertisers’ use of the word ‘sustainable’. Earlier guidance issued by the Competition and Markets Authority prohibits general or absolute claims about a product being sustainable, on the grounds consumers will assume consuming the goods or service would have “no adverse impact” on the environment.</p><p>All three adverts promoted clothing that the companies said was “sustainable” without providing information to substantiate their claims. In Nike’s case, the US sportswear behemoth stated its line of tennis polo shirts were made with “sustainable materials”, a claim the ASA ruled to be “misleading”.</p><h2 id="h-watchdog-clamping-down">Watchdog clamping down</h2><p>The rulings form part of a wider drive from the UK’s advertising watchdog to clamp down on greenwashing, where companies overstate their environmental and sustainability credentials for financial gain.</p><p>Innocent, the Coca-Cola-owned smoothie maker, became one of the first household name companies to have an advert banned for exaggerating the “total environmental benefits” of its drinks in 2022. Since then, ads produced by the likes of Wizz Air, Lloyds and Total Energies have also been banned, while craft ale producer Brewdog has fallen foul of ASA greenwashing rules several times.</p><p>Responding to the complaint, Nike argued that once consumers clicked on the Google advert, they would have been able to find more substantive and detailed information on the line’s sustainability credentials. They also claimed that the shirts contained “at least 75 per cent recycled materials”.</p><p>Superdry said customers would interpret the advert, which read ‘Superdry: Sustainable Style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability’, to mean the products in its collection were stylish, sustainable or both.</p><p>In its response, Lacoste acknowledged claims like ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ were difficult to substantiate and said it had removed its ad as soon as it became aware of the complaint.</p> </div>

SDRY

耐克

<p>廣告標準局禁止了耐克、Superdry 和 Lacoste 的廣告，原因是這些廣告對可持續性的聲明具有誤導性。這次打擊針對的是 “綠色洗滌”，即公司誇大其環保資質。耐克在網球 polo 衫中使用可持續材料的聲明被認為具有誤導性。廣告標準局的行動是確保關於環境影響的真實廣告的一部分更廣泛努力</p>

耐克和 Superdry 的廣告在 ‘綠色洗白’ 的打擊行動中被禁止