KLM Royal Dutch Airlines was in court in Amsterdam today because of its sustainability advertising and marketing. The case was brought by Fossielvrij NL and Reclame Fossielvrij. The court assesses whether these expressions are in violation of the EU Directive on unfair commercial practices. The case was brought by Fossielvrij NL and Reclame Fossielvrij with the support of environmental rights organization ClientEarth. They argue that KLM’s advertisements and marketing about sustainability are misleading. Rosanne Rootert of Reclame Fossielvrij: ‘There is no such thing as more sustainable flying. You also don’t advertise ‘healthier smoking’. The best we can achieve is to fly a little less polluting.’ ‘KLM says it is committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement, but at the same time lobbies against climate policy and remains committed to further growth. In order to achieve the climate goals, a reduction in aviation is necessary. The solutions offered by KLM are inadequate. KLM, for example, offers CO2 compensation, giving the impression that the climate damage caused by flying can be reduced, while the climate only benefits from fewer flights and more forests.’ Hiske Arts, campaigner at Fossielvrij NL: ‘During an earlier hearing, KLM announced that it would stop the ‘Fly Responsibly’ advertising campaign, but the company still makes similar misleading statements. KLM is flaunting false solutions while at the same time exacerbating the climate problem by opposing measures such as shrinkage. It is important that the court intervenes, so that KLM cannot keep telling its dangerous fairy tales in new advertisements. With their ‘green marketing’, KLM inspires the false confidence that you can fly with the airline without exacerbating the climate crisis. In this way, they lull the general public to sleep and government intervention is not forthcoming.’ Fossil Free argued today that KLM’s claims about how it is “contributing to a more sustainable future” and how it has “committed to Paris” are misleading and at odds with its plans for continued business growth. In its defence, KLM argued that consumers can be expected to know that flying is not sustainable and that they are indeed taking steps to make flying “more sustainable” than it is now. However, recent research by Paul Peeters of Breda University, among others, shows that both KLM’s sustainability goals and plans are nowhere near in line with Paris. In a response, KLM states that ‘committing to the Paris goals’ does not mean ‘acting in line with Paris’. The judge will rule on 21 February.
