10 September 2026
Fossil Free South Africa has won four victories over “greenwashing” in advertising by oil, coal and gas companies, write the authors. Graphic: Lisa Nelson
Fossil Free South Africa’s Fossil Ad Ban (FAB) has now gained four victories over “greenwashing” by oil, coal and gas companies, using the Advertising Regulatory Board complaints process.
We trust that fossil fuel companies will now think twice about making further unsubstantiated claims about fossil fuels being “green”, “sustainable” and “environmentally friendly” to legitimise their continued expansion and maximise profits.
On 10 September, the Advertising Regulatory Board upheld an earlier ruling against TotalEnergies.
FAB had complained about a claim on TotalEnergies’ website about its Excellium Diesel D10 fuel, which read: “Lower CO₂ emissions: Reduce polluting emissions by improving the peformance [sic] of your engine.”
FAB had pointed out that this was an environmental claim made without the necessary substantiation. The tests recorded a 3.6% reduction in CO₂ achieved under specific test conditions on a single Volkswagen T-Roc Euro 6 vehicle, but the result was presented as an unqualified and general environmental advantage, “amounting to greenwashing.”
The board ruled in FAB’s favour. TotalEnergies appealed. The board upheld its ruling, finding that “the claim was communicated in a manner which causes the consumer to overestimate the environmental benefits,” and that “there was nothing to suggest that the result can be extrapolated to other vehicles.”
Our first complaint, too, was against TotalEnergies in May 2024. In this case, the board found in August 2024 that TotalEnergies’ claim of “sustainable development” based on its support of South African National Parks (SANParks) was misleading and violated the Code of Advertising Practice.
The claim was published on a company web page promoting the #FuelYourExperience competition, which encouraged people to visit national parks.
The board acknowledged that TotalEnergies’ support of SANParks for over 60 years could be considered a commitment to environmental protection, but stated that the company’s core business — fossil fuel exploitation — directly contradicted the principles of sustainable development. TotalEnergies later appealed against the ruling, and this time, too, was overruled.
Our second complaint was against Shell Oil over a series of claims on its website promoting “sustainable fuels” and “innovative fuels and lubricants”. During the board process, the oil company voluntarily opted to withdraw the claims. FAB had argued that these claims created a misleading impression by depicting fossil fuels as environmentally beneficial without reflecting their full climate impacts.
The third complaint was against CNG Holdings, a Johannesburg methane merchant whose website described compressed natural gas (CNG) as “a cleaner, greener fuel option that promotes a sustainable future”, and “environmentally friendly”. The board found that the claims were misleading and breached the advertising code, as a reasonable consumer was likely to interpret the unsubstantiated descriptions as having “overall environmental benefits”, and because “material lifecycle impacts” were omitted.
These impacts were “particularly relevant where the product is a fossil fuel and the omitted information relates directly to climate-relevant emissions.”
Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is 84–86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO₂ over a 20-year period, making its reduction essential for addressing climate change in the near future.
CNG Holdings is not a board member, but voluntarily withdrew the claims. The board instructed its members not to publish any CNG Holdings adverts using such broad or unqualified environmental descriptors.
The implications of all this for advertising are far-reaching, as the board’s members include the National Association of Broadcasters (to which all major television and radio stations belong), the Marketing Association of South Africa, the Association of Independent Publishers, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau of South Africa.
The board can impose sanctions on its members, including ordering them to withdraw advertisements and insisting on viewing future advertisements before publication. While it cannot impose fines, it can cause significant reputational damage by publishing defaulters’ names and issuing “ad alerts”, advising members to refuse advertisements from them.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres believes we must have “zero tolerance” for greenwashing, which he says is a “toxic cover-up” and “rank deception” that could push the planet over the climate cliff.
To address a “surplus of confusion and deficit of credibility”, Guterres established a High-Level Expert Group that released the definitive report Integrity Matters: Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities. This explains the need to “draw a red line around greenwashing” to ensure that both private and state-owned fossil fuel enterprises take credible steps to help ensure the world gets to net-zero emissions no later than 2050. The United Nations has repeatedly warned that fossil fuel producers must be held accountable for the full costs of their emissions, including through stronger carbon pricing, removal of subsidies and liability for climate harm.
The total cost of the damage to society caused by carbon emissions is now evaluated at $1,200 per tonne, or about R19,400/tonne. This includes harm caused by floods, droughts, crop failures, heat stress, damaged infrastructure – and to jobs and wellbeing.
Last year, creative agency Alkemi Collective became the first African agency to take a stand against fossil fuel activities by signing the Fossil Ad Ban pledge, which calls for a ban on all coal, oil and gas companies’ advertising. The GOOD Party is the first political party to have done so.
Alkemi has also signed another pledge, promoted by the Clean Creatives campaign, to refuse any work from fossil fuel companies.
The reasoning behind the call for the ad ban is that nearly 90% of the world’s carbon emissions, and 68% of all greenhouse gases, come from the burning of fossil fuels; that the scientific consensus is that these emissions must be slashed dramatically and rapidly to avoid the worst consequences of climate change; and that despite this urgency, the world’s largest fossil fuel companies continue to expand their operations and increase their emissions.
A FAB report, “Smoke and Mirrors”, investigated advertisements by six of the largest fossil fuel companies in South Africa – BP, Engen, Sasol, Shell, Astron and TotalEnergies – from May to August 2024. Concentrating on a variety of mainstream media (outdoor, online, print, TV and radio), the authors found 200 advertisements, and used audience metrics to estimate total reach.
They found that fossil fuel greenwashing reaches up to 15 million people monthly with depictions of healthy natural environments, happy families and communities, and wind and solar projects.
Greenwashing works by creating public support for fossil fuels and normalising their expansion. It falsely convinces people that the continued extraction of coal, oil and gas is compatible with sustainability and action to address the climate crisis.
When companies advertise themselves as “sustainable” while increasing their carbon emissions, they are not just spinning words. They are shifting the real costs onto communities, workers, the environment, and future generations. Just as restrictions on tobacco advertising reshaped society’s views on smoking, stronger regulations for fossil fuel advertising can help to change our stance on energy.
Jo-Anne Smetherham is media manager for Fossil Free South Africa (FFSA); Kholwani Simelane is lead campaigner for FFSA’s Fossil Ad Ban campaign, and Patrick Bond is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg. Views expressed are not necessarily those of GroundUp.
