On 10 September the Advertising Regulatory Board (FAB) confirmed that three fossil-fuel companies had breached the country’s advertising code by presenting unverified environmental benefits. The board’s decision follows complaints lodged by FAB against TotalEnergies, Shell Oil and CNG Holdings, each of which had used language that suggested their fuels were “green”, “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”.
In the TotalEnergies case the company advertised its Excellium Diesel D10 fuel with the claim “Lower CO2 emissions: Reduce polluting emissions by improving the performance of your engine”. FAB pointed out that the claim was based on a single test that showed a 3.6% reduction in CO2 on a Volkswagen T-Roc Euro 6 vehicle under specific conditions. The board ruled that the claim was communicated in a way that would cause a consumer to overestimate the environmental benefit and that there was no evidence the result could be applied to other vehicles. TotalEnergies appealed the decision, but the board upheld its original ruling.
A previous complaint against TotalEnergies, filed in May 2024, concerned a claim that the company’s support for South African National Parks (SANParks) amounted to “sustainable development”. The board found the claim misleading because the core business, extraction and sale of fossil fuels, directly contradicts the principles of sustainable development. That ruling was also upheld on appeal.
Shell Oil faced a separate complaint over website claims that it offered “sustainable fuels” and “innovative fuels and lubricants”. During the board process Shell voluntarily withdrew the disputed claims. FAB argued that the language created a misleading impression by portraying fossil fuels as environmentally beneficial without acknowledging their full climate impact.
The third case involved CNG Holdings, a Johannesburg-based 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 concluded that the description was misleading because it omitted material lifecycle impacts. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is 84 to 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period, making its reduction essential for climate goals.
What this means for small and medium enterprises
For SMEs that market products or services, the FAB rulings serve as a concrete reminder that any environmental claim must be backed by verifiable data. The board can order advertisers to withdraw non-compliant ads, require pre-approval of future ads and publish the names of defaulters in its “ad alerts”. While FAB cannot levy fines, the reputational damage from being listed as a greenwasher can be significant, especially for businesses that rely on trust-based relationships with customers.
SME owners should therefore audit their marketing copy for statements such as “green”, “sustainable” or “low emissions” and ensure they have independent, third-party evidence to support them. If a claim is based on a single test, a limited vehicle type or a specific operating condition, the advertisement must clearly disclose those limits. Failure to do so could trigger a board investigation, a forced withdrawal of the ad and negative publicity.
The broader context is that greenwashing has attracted global attention. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called it a “toxic cover-up” and urged a “zero tolerance” approach. While the UN does not enforce South African advertising rules, its stance adds pressure on regulators and companies to be transparent about climate-related claims.
For businesses that sell fuel, lubricants or related equipment, the rulings also highlight the growing scrutiny of lifecycle emissions. Even if a product reduces tail-pipe emissions, the board expects advertisers to consider upstream impacts such as extraction, processing and distribution. Ignoring these factors can lead to a claim being deemed misleading.
In practice, the safest route for SMEs is to keep environmental messaging simple and factual. Statements like “our product meets South African emission standards” are permissible, whereas claims that suggest a product is “overall better for the planet” require robust, independently verified evidence covering the entire product lifecycle.
Overall, the FAB decisions reinforce the principle that advertising in South Africa must not exaggerate environmental benefits. For small and medium enterprises, compliance is not just a legal requirement but a way to protect brand credibility in a market where consumers are increasingly aware of climate issues.
What makes an environmental claim in advertising unlawful here
South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board applies a code that requires any environmental benefit claim, terms like green, sustainable or eco-friendly among them, to be capable of independent substantiation and not to create a materially misleading overall impression, even where the underlying test result is technically accurate. A claim built on a single laboratory test measuring one narrow metric, such as a specific percentage emissions reduction under specific test conditions, can still breach the code if it is presented in a way that implies a broader environmental benefit than that single result actually supports.
This is the same underlying concern regulators elsewhere have been tightening rules around under the banner of greenwashing: the UK’s own Green Claims Code applies an almost identical substantiation test. It matters commercially because a successful complaint requires the advertiser to withdraw the campaign and can attach reputational cost well beyond the specific advertisement, particularly for companies in a sector already under scrutiny over its environmental record. For related coverage of a South African regulator taking action in a different sector, see this site’s report on the Capitec and Ninety One FICA sanctions.
