WELCOME
For over 15 years, SimpliFlying has been a trusted partner to airlines, airports, and technology firms worldwide. We have been on a mission to help build trust in aviation. To empower the industry to soar to new heights through digitalisation, innovation, and a steadfast commitment to sustainability.
We're not just sought after strategy consultants, we are passionate advocates for meaningful change. Headquartered in Singapore, our global team based out of Canada, India, Spain and the UK is dedicated to equipping aviation and technology executives with the tools, insights, and strategies needed to navigate the complexities of sustainable aviation.
From major airlines and airports to aircraft manufacturers and travel technology companies, our extensive client base underscores our reputation as a trusted partner in the aviation industry since 2008.
HOW CAN WE HELP?
At SimpliFlying, we're committed to helping you navigate the complexities of sustainable aviation and thrive in an ever-changing landscape. Here are some ways we can help you in your sustainability journey:
Share your vision with a global audience
Like 80+ other CxOs in the industry, enlist your CEO or Head of Sustainability to be interviewed by Shashank Nigam. Share your vision for the future of travel on the world’s best-known sustainable aviation podcast "Sustainability in the Air". Find out more on becoming a partner.
Grow your brand in aviation
SimpliFlying has helped a multitude of technology firms scale up in aviation – from launching an airplane to marketing an Airbus A380 engine. We can help you amplify your brand and help build awareness with key decision-makers.
Stay informed, stay ahead
We deliver in-depth monthly or quarterly briefings to the senior leadership teams on a topic/issue of your choosing. You can also sign up for a series of briefings that cover key aspects of the present and future of sustainable aviation.
Discover the next wave of sustainable travel technology
The SimpliFlying Launchpad brings ready-to-scale technologies that can help accelerate sustainable travel to decision-makers in aviation. We curate the best startups and scaleups, help them build an aviation-specific brand strategy, and introduce them to airlines and airports ready to put a pilot in place.
Connect sustainable tech startups with investors and industry
SimpliFlying Immersions pioneer a new era of real-life connections through immersive experiences, deep learning, and cutting-edge innovation exchange. We do this by facilitating site visits and bringing aviation leaders to startup facilities to offer a platform for tangible collaborations to take shape.
Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.
green.simpliflying.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aviation industry faces increasing scrutiny and reputational risk due to its perceived contribution to climate change, with activists targeting airlines' sponsorships and advertising claims.
The industry's credibility is undermined by a history of missed sustainability targets and recycled PR headlines that often fail to deliver meaningful progress, leading to distrust among environmentalists.
Aviation is seen as a privileged and unequal activity, with a small group of frequent flyers accounting for most emissions, raising concerns about climate justice.
Greenwashing lawsuits against airlines aim to shift public opinion and pressure regulators to take action, potentially impacting the industry's growth and profitability.
EXECUTIVE
Climate activists draw parallels to the shift in attitudes towards smoking on planes, aiming to erode aviation's "social licence" to operate in its current form through publicity and legal challenges.
Surveys indicate growing public concern about climate change worldwide, with support for policies to combat it, including restrictions on aviation.
Airlines heavily invest in sports and arts sponsorships, which drive ticket sales and emissions, making them a likely future target for climate activists.
To address these pressures, airlines should avoid "green hushing", instead focusing on transparent, credible, and contextualised sustainability communications backed by independent third-party verification.
LESSONS FOR AVIATION FROM A SCOTTISH INVESTMENT FIRM
For over twenty years, Scottish investment firm Baillie Gifford had a productive relationship with the United Kingdom’s literary scene. This included sponsoring most of the country’s book festivals and a major literary prize.
The Baillie Gifford brand benefited from its association with literature. Meanwhile, the festivals benefited from funding, which allowed them to run events and keep ticket prices manageable.
That changed in August 2023 at the Edinburgh Book Festival when the headline speaker and author, climate activism icon Greta Thunberg, announced that she would be boycotting the show.
Thunberg’s decision followed a report in the Scottish journal The Ferret claiming that Baillie Gifford benefitted from fossil fuel investments.
Thunberg's stance was unambiguous:
“Greenwashing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, including sponsorship of cultural events, allow them to keep the social licence to continue operating. I cannot and do not want to be associated with events that accept this kind of sponsorship."
As the most prominent figure in the climate activism movement, Thunberg's absence from the festival garnered significant attention. It prompted an open letter from over 50 authors urging the festival to sever ties with Baillie Gifford.
Source: IG | @fossilfreebooks & @yararodriguezfowler
This incident then set the stage for challenges in the 2024 Literary Festival Circuit, with both the Hay Festival and Edinburgh Book Festival ultimately “suspending” Baillie Gifford as their headline sponsor due to pressure from the group Fossil Free Books.
That, along with further pressure from Fossil Free Books, led to Baillie Gifford ending its association with every UK book festival, leaving many of them with considerable funding gaps.
While this may seem like a story far removed from the aviation industry, it’s one that airline executives need to internalise.
It serves as a stark warning of the potential consequences of being associated with fossil fuels in an era of heightened climate awareness.
Notably, Baillie Gifford’s exposure to fossil fuels isn’t even that large. It represents only 2% of its investment portfolio, a figure far lower than most of its peers. In fact, it is dwarfed by its investments in clean energy and climate tech.
As Nils Pratley in the liberal/left Guardian newspaper pointed out, in a list of “climate villains”, Baillie Gifford would feature pretty far down the list. Pratley felt that the demands being made of the firm were “absurd.”
Yet, it found itself in the crosshairs of groups that adopt an all-or-nothing position – believing that in the current climate emergency, even a $1 profit from fossil fuels is $1 too many. That pressure, from the perspective of the groups involved, ultimately ended up working.
If a company like Baillie Gifford can face this level of scrutiny with relatively minor fossil fuel investments, what does this portend for the aviation industry?
After all, the aviation industry is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels, with alternative fuels (SAF) projected to account for at most 0.5% of the total jet fuel consumption in 2024.
As a result, it is almost inevitable that airlines that extensively sponsor sports, arts, entertainment, and cultural events will increasingly find their partnerships under intense scrutiny.
There will come a time when activists use a mixture of boycotts, protests and social media pressure to make the reputational cost of being linked to a 'polluting' airline outweigh the financial benefits of sponsorship. Indeed, there are already signs of this happening.
This report examines the aviation industry's reputational challenges due to its perceived contribution to climate change.
We will analyse recent greenwashing cases against airlines, explore the reasons behind the industry's targeting, and provide an overview of what the industry can expect in the future. Mounting pressure on sponsorships is one key development on the horizon.
Dirk Singer Head of Sustainability, SimpliFlying dirk@simpliflying.com
“WHY US?”
“WHY US?”
The Baillie Gifford case serves as a stark warning for the aviation industry. But why is the industry facing such intense scrutiny? In this section, we'll explore the reasons behind the targeting of aviation by climate activists.
Last year, Forbes published an article titled "Flight Shaming Will Return", written not by a climate activist but by Ben Baldanza, former CEO of Spirit Airlines and a veteran of the US airline industry.
In the piece, Baldanza attributed the focus on the aviation industry to an "availability bias," suggesting that people concerned about climate change are turning to a highly visible target: air travel.
Baldanza expressed a sentiment often heard at the senior level in the industry. Namely, the focus on aviation is unfair, given that other industries contribute more to global warming.
Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary, for instance, claimed,
"Airlines account for 2% of CO2 emissions. Shipping accounts for 5%, but nobody ever posts a picture of a boat chugging out of a harbour and goes: 'There you go: the globe is warming up'."
Of course, O’Leary’s statement is not entirely accurate – aviation likely accounts for more than 2% of CO2 emissions, and the maritime industry, particularly the cruise sector, has faced questions about its emissions.
However, to answer the question of whether the focus on aviation is unfair, let’s look at some news stories that we unearthed.
Photo by Maria Tyutina
Each suggests in different ways that significant progress is being made in industry decarbonisation.
• The Daily Mail reported that Finnair used cooking oil on an A330 flight from Helsinki to New York’s JFK Airport, with the headline ‘Now that’s a high fryer!’ The Mail said, "Finnair said it will be able to reduce its net carbon dioxide emission by 50 to 80 per cent by switching to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly fuel source.”
• A piece in International Airport Review told us that Virgin Atlantic is partnering with HSBC and energy company LanzaTech to prepare for a ‘world first’ flight using lowcarbon fuel.
Source: Shell Aviation
• Airbus and KLM operated a ten-hour flight partially powered by biofuels from Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport to the Caribbean Island of Aruba.
• Over in the USA, LCC Southwest Airlines announced that it would purchase three million gallons of biofuels annually from 140,000 dry tons of woody biomass feedstock to at least 12 million gallons per year of renewable jet diesel. Sustainable Brands magazine told us this will help decarbonise aviation and reduce the risk of destructive wildfires. The report said deliveries were expected to be made to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) in around two years.
• Several efforts have been made to use new and novel feedstocks for alternative jet fuel. For example, Boeing has been researching using a new tobacco strain called Solaris, along with SkyNRG and South African Airways, which could be used as a biofuel source.
• In the UK, British Airways made a $550 million commitment to purchase all the fuel produced by a new ‘trash to SAF’ plant in an 11-year period after it opens in three years' time.
• Finally, progress has also been made in showcasing next-generation propulsion systems. Airbus wow-ed crowds by flying a near-silent aircraft powered only by batteries over a major airshow. Media reports say that this new zero-emission aircraft will be put into service in 2030 and have 80-90 seats.
These impressive stories depict an industry working very hard to reach net zero.
There’s just one problem. All these stories come from ten years ago – from 2014.
Looking at the sustainable aviation news from a decade ago was like Groundhog Day.
The headlines from back then bear a striking resemblance to those we see today. In particular, we saw stories about:
• Biofuels test flights over the Atlantic
• Major SAF orders from promising new startups
• ‘Trash to SAF’ initiatives
• New and novel feedstocks, especially in the so-called global south
• New electric aircraft that we will soon see in our skies
• For good measure, we even saw repeated claims of “it’s only 2%”
Yet most of these initiatives from ten years ago came to nothing. Often with good reason, of course. For example, the ‘GreenSky London’ facility that was going to use landfill waste for British Airways’ SAF needs went under for financial reasons, with BA saying that it ran out of money due to “low crude oil prices, jitters among investors, and a lack of policy engagement from 10 Downing Street.”
Meanwhile, Airbus researched electric aircraft and demonstrated a prototype at the 2014 Farnborough Air Show, but it is now focusing on hydrogen. The aim is to have a hydrogen aircraft in the skies by 2035.
But taken together, they answer one of the reasons why aviation is in the spotlight from environmentalists.
Source: 'Bristol Airport is big enough'
Reason #1: The industry lacks credibility
They just don’t believe us. They see the same PR-worthy headlines repeatedly come around and then fizzle out into nothing in a few years' time. Then, the cycle starts again.
Headlines from 2014:
In fact, a 2022 study by climate charity Possible reviewed 50 airline climate targets from 2000-2022 and found that "astonishingly, all but one of their targets have either been missed, abandoned or just forgotten about."
This comes as the industry focuses on growth, which campaigners argue is inconsistent with meeting net-zero targets. Cirium forecasts nearly 45,000 aircraft deliveries by 2040, compared to today's commercial fleet of around 25,000.
Speaking on SimpliFlying's Sustainability in the Air podcast, Dutch climate activist Hiske Arts addressed the issue of runaway growth:
Source: Possible
"They are not meeting climate goals as long as they are growing. A climate goal is not about a far future. A climate goal is about now. It's about what we are doing right now. It's not about 2050. Let's forget about 2050. It has been a lie we invented to postpone action."
Consequently, groups like Possible advocate for what they call "a progressive tax on flying in order to fairly reduce demand for flights, rather than relying on the industry to cut its emissions on a trajectory of perpetual growth in passenger numbers.“
Source: Reclame Fossielvrij
Reason #2: Flying is perceived as a highly unequal and privileged activity
Source: X | @ScientistRebel1
Flying is seen as a carbon-intensive practice enjoyed by a relatively small, affluent group of flyers. Not only has the vast majority (~80%) of the world not flown, but even among those who do, a small group of frequent flyers accounts for most aviation emissions – a hefty amount.
NASA scientist and Scientist Rebellion member Peter Kalmus states,
"Hour for hour, there's no better way to warm the planet than to fly in a plane. If you fly coach from Los Angeles to Paris and back, you've just emitted three tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, 10 times what an average Kenyan emits in an entire year. Flying first class doubles these numbers."
Activists like Kalmus highlight that 1% of the world's population accounts for 50% of emissions.
Source: X | @ScientistRebel1
Statista data (sourced from the BBC and Possible) reveals that in the UK, 15% of the population accounts for 70% of flights, while in the United States, 12% account for 66% of flights. Even in a country like the USA, which lacks the extensive rail infrastructure of Europe, most flying is occasional – vacations or holiday visits to relatives.
Small Numbers Of Frequent Flyers Dominate Air Travel
· Estimated share of the population who take the largest total share of flights*
* Selected countries (prior to Covid-19)
Campaigners argue that this constitutes a case of second-hand emissions, where a frequent flyer's actions result in global warming that disproportionately affects populations worldwide, particularly in the so-called Global South.
They classify these as 'luxury emissions,' non-essential to everyday life, unlike 'subsistence emissions,' such as lighting and heating.
The lack of credibility and concerns about climate justice has put the aviation industry in the spotlight. This increased scrutiny has manifested in the form of greenwashing cases, which we'll examine in the following section.
Sources: BBC and Possible
WHY GREENWASHING CASES ARE ON THE RISE
How is this pressure manifesting against airlines? One of the most high-profile ways is through greenwashing cases.
Over the past two years, the aviation industry has faced a storm of lawsuits alleging "greenwashing". In a nutshell, greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product or practice. In aviation’s case, this refers to unprovable statements about green practices or climate-friendly flying.
These cases, generally brought by environmentalists and climate groups, have been filed with countries' advertising regulators or, in some instances, directly with the courts, posing significant reputational and financial risks for airlines.
Europe has emerged as a key battleground. In a landmark case, Dutch environmental group Fossielvrij NL sued KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, arguing its 2019 "Fly Responsibly" campaign was misleading.
The group claimed that the term "sustainable" couldn't apply to an industry heavily reliant on fossil fuels and that KLM's focus on growth contradicted genuine climate action.
In March 2024, a Dutch court delivered a first-of-its-kind verdict, ruling that KLM's advertisements were misleading and illegal. The ads in question implied that flying is an environmentally sustainable activity and that purchasing carbon offsets completely negates the impact of the emissions produced by air travel.
Source: c/o Client Earth
Advertising regulators have also responded to complaints about allegedly misleading environmental claims in airline ads.
In the UK, Lufthansa’s online advertising that made sustainability claims was struck down by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Etihad has faced greenwashing claims in Australia and the UK, while in the Netherlands, Ryanair had to change how it described its carbon offsetting program.
In Austria, Austrian Airlines' ads were found to be misleading, telling consumers they could offset flights to Venice by buying SAF.
Beyond Europe, the movement is gaining traction as well.
• North America: In the United States, lawsuits have targeted airlines like Delta for claims of "Carbon Neutral" status and "100% green." Critics argue that these assertions downplay the significant environmental impact of air travel and that airlines' reliance on traditional jet fuel and potentially dubious carbon offsetting programs don't justify such claims, putting them at risk of legal action and reputational damage.
• Asia-Pacific: Australia has also seen greenwashing complaints against airlines. Etihad Airways faced accusations regarding its environmental marketing in Australia.
The reach of these cases extends beyond specific airlines and countries.
• Scrutiny of carbon offsetting: The KLM case particularly highlights the growing scepticism towards carbon offsetting programs. Airlines are being held accountable for the validity and effectiveness of these programs used to justify sustainability claims.
• Focus on SAF: While seen as a promising green technology, misleading claims about SAF use are also being targeted. The Austrian Airlines case, where offsetting was linked to SAF that wasn't readily available, demonstrates this growing area of scrutiny.
Source: The Drum
What is the aim of these cases? Is it actually about greenwashing, or is it about something else? It’s important to understand the bigger picture.
Let us examine the comments made by Hiske Arts of Fossil Free Netherlands, that won the case against KLM. Some have argued that the case against KLM will have little effect, given that it is about an ad campaign that is no longer running and that, independent of the court case, certainly wouldn’t be seen as suitable today.
In response to this, Arts commented:
"Civil cases, in particular, are extremely important. European regulators [...] will now take action against 20 European airlines, including KLM, and demand an end to greenwashing.
"The regulators can also issue fines. There are obvious parallels between what the regulators now demand and what the court has ruled in our KLM case."
"These
kinds of civil cases help to shift norms; they incite debate, they shift the picket lines, they shake up regulators. Change never starts in a vacuum."
According to Arts, change never happens in a vacuum, and neither do these greenwashing cases.
They are a means to an end, slowly shifting public opinion via headlines associating aviation with emissions and, in turn, pressuring regulators to take action, which could have significant implications for the industry's growth and profitability.
We can already see this in the European Commission opening an investigation into 20 airlines.
The probe centres on practices that downplay the environmental impact of flying, which could erode consumer trust and damage brand reputation.
• This could include airlines suggesting carbon offsetting programs fully negate emissions or using terms like "sustainable" without clear justification, practices that may not stand up to legal and regulatory scrutiny.
• Meanwhile, some countries in Europe are considering banning short-haul domestic flights altogether.
Source: iStockphoto
May 2023 saw France implement a ban on short-haul domestic flights where a high-speed train alternative exists with a journey time of under two and a half hours. This policy aims to shift passengers towards a more environmentally friendly mode of transport, reflecting public support for greener options.
Proponents hail it as a necessary step in halting aviation growth. However, airline group IATA has argued that the environmental impact has been negligible, with the only real impact being restricting travel options for consumers.
Even though it currently impacts only a handful of routes, the French ban has sparked a global conversation. Therefore, the ban's symbolic nature is more important than reducing actual carbon emissions.
This conversation has now extended beyond French borders. Spain has proposed a similar ban, targeting domestic flights with train alternatives.
THE THREAT TO AVIATION'S SOCIAL LICENCE TO OPERATE IS REAL AND GROWING
In the not-so-distant past, smoking on aeroplanes was a common sight, with passengers lighting up in designated sections while others nearby sat in purportedly "non-smoking" areas.
Today, the notion of allowing smoking on a flight seems utterly absurd. This shift in public perception and the eventual ban on in-flight smoking serve as a poignant analogy for the current battle being waged by climate activists against the aviation industry.
Just as the dangers of secondhand smoke led to a sea change in attitudes and regulations, environmental advocates are now working to erode the airline industry's "social licence" to operate in its current form.
Source: Journey Unknown
They aim to raise awareness about the significant carbon footprint of air travel and the disproportionate impact of frequent flyers, hoping to make flying less socially acceptable.
As Arts outlined, greenwashing lawsuits brought against airlines play a crucial role in this strategy. By challenging the industry's environmental claims in court and through advertising regulators, activists seek legal victories and headline-grabbing publicity that ties aviation to emissions and climate change.
Each case, regardless of its immediate outcome, adds to a growing narrative that questions the sustainability of the industry's current practices and expansion plans. As public consciousness evolves and attitudes shift, regulators are more likely to respond with heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter regulations.
Former Eviation CEO Greg Davis aptly noted,
"Where culture leads, regulators follow."
This could result in measures such as increased taxes on frequent flyers, restrictions on airport growth, or requirements for using sustainable aviation fuels, as is already the case in the EU and UK – all of which would significantly impact the industry's profitability and future prospects.
WHAT DO CLIMATE ACTIVISTS REALLY WANT?
The activists' goals are multifaceted, covering:
1. Limiting advertising and publicity
Climate activists seek to limit how the aviation industry can advertise, with many advocating for a complete ban on fossil fuel advertising. By fossil fuel companies, they don’t only mean oil giants like Shell and BP but also fossil fuel-dependent industries like aviation.
This call has garnered support from UN SecretaryGeneral António Guterres, who drew a direct parallel between tobacco and fossil fuel ads, arguing that the same restrictions should apply given the proven detriment to health and the environment.
In arguing for this ban, Stay Grounded claims that every €1 spent on advertising or sponsorship leads to emissions of between 35-60 kg CO2e through increased flight ticket sales.
Activists also demand an end to frequent flyer programs and the implementation of a frequent flyer tax.
In an article for the Independent newspaper, travel editor Helen Coffey (who herself does not fly) claimed that:
“Frequent Flyer Programmes (FFP) incentivise travellers to spend more, take unnecessary flights, and plump for the most expensive class of airline seat (with the biggest carbon footprint) to keep their elite status.”
In her piece, Coffey mentioned a report by climate NGO Possible called “Pointless: The Climate Impact of Frequent Flyer Status”. This assessed British Airways and Virgin Atlantic’s FFPs and the carbon footprints needed for an individual to attain tier status. The claim is that to qualify for elite status, one must have a carbon footprint between seven and 112 times higher than the average UK travel footprint.
The idea of a frequent flyer levy has gained traction beyond just activist circles.
The International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) believes that a worldwide frequent flyer tax could fund 80% of the costs needed for industry decarbonisation. We examine the ICCT’s proposals in more detail in our book, Sustainability in the Air.
2. Imposing frequent flyer taxes
3. Advocating for Degrowth
Climate groups universally call for a halt to aviation growth and airport expansion, with some even advocating for flight limits, particularly on short-haul and domestic routes, as is the case in France.
As Stay Grounded stated in a paper on "degrowth," "The most effective way to reduce aviation is to limit the amount of flights." Higher carbon taxation is also on the agenda.
4. Stifling sponsorships
The next frontier in this battle is sponsorships.
According to sponsorship expert Brent Barootes, airlines invest heavily in sports and arts sponsorships, costing $4.41 billion across 295 active deals. Qatar and Emirates lead the pack, followed by Delta. These high-profile branding opportunities drive ticket sales and, consequently, emissions.
Climate groups are starting to take notice. A report by Badvertising, The New Climate Institute, and Possible calculates the snow erosion caused by fossil fuelbased sponsors of European ski teams, including airline SAS. They claim that every €1 of SAS's sponsorship could increase 23kg of CO2 emissions.
Football (soccer) receives the lion's share of airline sponsorship. While it may take time for climate protests to disrupt these deals significantly, the first rumblings of pressure are already evident.
Pressure group Fossil Free Football recently released a report around the European Champions League final in May 2024, labelling the tournament a "playground for big polluters," including airlines.
The report argues that the airline industry incentivises flying through heavy sponsorship of UEFA and participating clubs, quantifying the emissions linked to each euro and pound spent on sponsorship.
According to the Sportsbusiness Sponsorship Database 2024, these deals have a combined annual value of at least €366 million, with a total value of over €1.2 billion.
As mentioned in our introduction, companies with far less exposure to fossil fuels than airlines have seen their sponsorship investments successfully targeted by activists. Therefore, it doesn’t take much imagination to predict that the aviation industry will face the same sponsorship-related pressure in the future.
The potential loss of these lucrative sponsorship deals and the erosion of the industry's social licence could have farreaching consequences.
As public opinion shifts and the demand for climate action grows, airlines may face regulatory challenges and a diminished ability to market themselves.
Source: Orbits Hub
WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC THINK?
WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC THINK?
Sometimes, when we post about climate change pressures on professional networks like LinkedIn, we’re met with accusations that this topic is only of interest to the so-called “laptop class” – urban, demographically better-off professionals – and not to the larger global populace.
So what does the evidence say?
EUROPE
With far-right climate sceptic parties gaining ground in countries like France and Germany during the June 2024 European elections, there was some talk of a climate backlash among voters more concerned with bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living and worried about the cost of green policies.
On the contrary, in the European Parliament elections, parties in favour of climate action won a large majority of seats, as in 2019, though the centre of gravity switched from the centre-left to the centre-right, where parties are often more inclined to emphasise innovation over mandates – the carrot over the stick.
Admittedly, the Hertie School and Jacque Delors Institute found that a sizable minority (30%) of voters in Poland, France, and Germany opposed climate policies. However, most respondents in each country still wanted more ambitious climate policies.
Regarding aviation, the survey found support in all three countries for a ban on private jet flights and support in Germany and France (but not Poland) for a ban on domestic flights within the country.
Source: European Union
Meanwhile, research commissioned by the European Union shows that two-thirds of EU citizens feel their governments are not doing enough to combat climate change. Crucially, most feel it is up to governments and businesses (e.g., airlines and airports in aviation) to effect change, not individuals.
REST OF THE WORLD
Data released by Hannah Ritchie from Our World in Data punctures the myth that concern about the climate is a European obsession.
According to the data Ritchie reproduced (in turn taken from a study that surveyed 59,000 people in 63 countries), people worldwide think climate change is a serious threat, and humans are the cause. Concern was high across countries: even in the country with the lowest agreement, 73% agreed.
There was also broad support for climate-positive policies - even in so-called petro states in the Middle East.
These results show that concern about the climate is shared worldwide, and there is an awareness that policies need to be implemented to combat climate change.
This comes as the effects of climate change are becoming ever more real in large areas of the world. For example, as we were writing this, the Acropolis in Athens closed to tourists as the earliest-ever heatwave that Greece had experienced swept the country.
As a result, what Rome Airport’s boss Marco Troncone said last year is now more relevant than ever:
“Chances are high that in five years time, the level of attention [on polluting industries] will be higher than exists now. At that time, there will be zero tolerance. If there is tolerance, it will only be given in exchange for a promise [to cut emissions], which must be credible.”
Photo by Alex Qian
HOW TO MOVE FROM GREENWASHING TO GREEN FLYING
In response to these pressures, we are seeing an increase in so-called “green hushing” –the belief, especially among senior executives, that it is best to say nothing at all, rather than be put in the climate activist spotlight or face greenwashing accusations.
BEGIN BY SHUNNING “GREEN HUSHING”
We believe that this is a mistake. The pressure on your airline won’t suddenly vanish just because you’ve chosen to say nothing. Instead, you will lose the chance to make the case for what you are actually doing.
Photo by Jpatokal
THREE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATIONS
At SimpliFlying, we believe that sustainability communications should follow these principles:
• Don’t mark your own homework. All data and claims should be supported by a credible third-party source.
• Make the story yours. Move away from generic advertising style slogans like ‘green flying’, or ‘guilt-free flying’, which can and will be struck down. Instead, talk about what it is that you are actually doing. Paint a picture and tell a story about your different initiatives.
• Contextualise, contextualise, contextualise. There’s nothing wrong with (e.g.) recycling. But the reality is that the aviation industry's biggest problem is greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t make it look like an on-board recycling scheme is the centre-piece of your sustainability programme.
1. Don't mark your own homework
Any sustainability claim you make should be backed by an independent third party with scientific credibility.
This is becoming a given, especially in Europe. A recent study by the European Commission examined 150 environmental claims and found that 53.3% of them provided "vague, misleading or unfounded information on products' environmental characteristics."
As a result, under the Green Claims Directive, all claims about a product's sustainability now need to be backed up by evidence. In the words of Blanca Morales, senior coordinator for EU Ecolabel at the European Environmental Bureau, “No data, no claim.”
As we showed, the industry has missed targets in the past, so there is some scepticism whenever these are published. Again, to get around this, bring in a third party to audit what you are doing.
The best known, which has participation from several dozen airports and airlines, is Science Based Targets (or SBTi), where you commit to a medium and a long-term (2050) net zero target, but there are other auditing bodies.
Whoever you choose, get them on board to report on how credible your targets are and to what extent you are meeting them on a year-by-year basis.
2. Make the story yours
In March 2023, United Airlines announced that Sesame Street character Oscar the Grouch would become its new “Chief Trash Officer.
The context is that United Airlines worked with alternative fuels company Fulcrum Bioenergy. Fulcrum uses household waste as the basis for sustainable aviation fuels.
Source: United
As a result, the link is clear. United is turning trash into SAF. What better character to talk about it than someone who lives in a trash can?
Oscar has been used by United to talk about sustainable aviation fuel in a fun, accessible way. This includes videos where United staff members talk to Oscar about how his trash can power planes and a user-friendly microsite with graphics showing how the process works.
Note that United is obviously very aware of greenwashing accusations. Hence, the “Oscar” microsite states in small print that only 0.1% of United’s fuel is SAF. This makes United appear honest and makes it clear that this campaign is aspirational and forward-looking.
In fact, it is a great example of how to communicate a sustainability initiative for the following reasons:
Recommendation: The importance of sustainability storytelling
Here is why the United campaign makes for a great case study:
It is real. Since it is based on something that United is actually doing: working with a company that converts landfill waste into fuels.
It is interesting. Who knew that (as one of the videos says) your old banana peel could be turned into jet fuel?
It’s accessible. It’s a reasonable assumption that more than 90% of people outside of aviation have no idea what SAF is. United introduces them to the concept in a fun way.
It is proactive. It shows how United is actually doing something to decarbonise aviation.
It is realistic. United makes no inflated environmental claims about Oscar's ability to allow passengers to fly “green” or “guilt-free.”
In summary, through Oscar, United uses various content tools, including video, over vague, fact-free aspirational slogans.
Note: In 2024, Fulcrum ran into financial problems, raising questions about its long-term future. We’ve nevertheless included Oscar the Grouch's example, as it’s still an excellent way to show what you are doing in sustainability in a fun and interesting way without making dubious claims.
The bottom line: a lot of airlines with a sustainability programme have interesting, real things they can talk about.
For instance, are you working with an electric or hydrogen aircraft maker? You can discuss what flights on these new, next-generation aircraft might look like.
You could even sell tickets for the first electric aircraft flight for when they are expected to enter into service. This is what SAS Scandinavian Airlines – an investor in the electric aircraft company Heart – did.
Source: SAS
In 2023, it unveiled a website that allowed residents of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to reserve seats on the first SAS flight using Heart’s ES-30 Aircraft.
Again, the site was truthful. SAS genuinely is an investor in Heart, and Heart is working towards having a 30-seat hybrid-electric aircraft in service by the end of this decade.
The website makes no claims that are not true and doesn’t use terms like ‘green flying.’ Indeed, the terms and conditions even make clear that 2028 is an ambition for electric flight, but that this depends on the development and certification of Heart’s aircraft and that the actual date could be later.
3. Contextualise, contextualise, contextualise
In 2023, KLM released a Twitter graphic showing a cabin crew member with some coffee grounds. The text explained that KLM would recycle the coffee on board to create “green energy.”
This resulted in some criticism online. One French climate scientist, FrancoisMarie Bréon, called it “expert-level" greenwashing.
Why? After all, recycling is a good thing. We’d argue that what was missing was two things:
• First of all, there is a missed storytelling opportunity. What exactly happens to these recycled coffee grounds? Where do they get used in green energy? At airports? To make SAF? We’re just not told.
• Secondly, aviation’s biggest environmental impact comes through emissions; sustainability communications must clarify that.
An example of good context-setting here is Air New Zealand's sustainability communications. The airline talks about its waste reduction efforts but always relates them back to its broader decarbonisation strategy:
"While we tackle our biggest sustainability challenge – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – we're also working hard to reduce waste. We've eliminated single-use plastic from our domestic flights, which will divert 28 million items from landfill annually. But we know this is a small piece of a much bigger picture. That's why we're also investing in a modern, fuel-efficient fleet, operational improvements, and sustainable aviation fuels to cut our emissions."
Putting waste reduction efforts in this broader emissions reduction context ensures they are seen in the proper light. It shows the airline is taking a systematic approach and not relying on waste reduction alone to solve its environmental challenges.
(H/t to Patrick Edmond for this example)
CONCLUSION
The aviation industry finds itself at a critical juncture as it navigates the mounting pressures of the climate crisis. As public concern about the environment grows and activists increasingly target the sector, airlines must confront the reality that their social licence to operate in the current form is under threat.
The industry's past failures to meet sustainability targets and its reliance on recycled PR headlines have eroded its credibility. At the same time, its perceived status as a privileged and unequal activity has raised questions of climate justice. Greenwashing lawsuits, aimed at shifting public opinion and pressuring regulators, pose significant risks to the industry's growth and profitability.
Drawing parallels to the shift in attitudes towards smoking on planes, climate activists are working to make flying less socially acceptable. As sponsorships and advertising claims come under fire, airlines must brace for the potential loss of lucrative deals and the erosion of their public image.
The industry must embrace a new approach to sustainability communications to address these challenges.
Green hushing is not the answer; instead, airlines must be transparent, credible, and contextual in their messaging. By backing claims with independent third-party verification and telling compelling stories about their sustainability initiatives, airlines can begin to rebuild trust with the public. However, communications alone will not suffice. The industry must make genuine, measurable progress towards decarbonisation, invest in cleaner technologies, and work to reduce its environmental impact.
Only by demonstrating a sincere commitment to sustainability can aviation hope to maintain its social licence in a world increasingly focused on combating climate change.
The road ahead is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the aviation industry must adapt to the new reality of heightened environmental awareness and activist pressure. By embracing transparency, credibility, and meaningful action, airlines can position themselves to thrive in a more sustainable future.
by
Photo
Markus Spiske
Listen to more insights on our podcast
Hosted by SimpliFlying CEO and Founder Shashank Nigam, Sustainability in the Air is the world’s leading sustainable aviation podcast.
Over the past year, aviation guests have included Scott Kirby (United Airlines), Marie Owens Thomsen (IATA), Tim Clark (Emirates), Amelia DeLuca (Delta Air Lines), Amy Burr (JetBlue Ventures), Adam Goldstein (Archer), Bonny Simi (Joby) and Nathan Millecam (Electric Power Systems).
Listen and subscribe to the podcast here: Tune In Today
Meanwhile, our Sustainability in the Air website includes weekly articles on sustainable aviation tech startups; reports on subjects as diverse as SAF and eVTOLs; and regular newsletters read by thousands of industry professionals to understand the ever-evolving space of sustainable aviation and the industry’s potential pathways to net zero by 2050.
Climate change concerns are making the aviation industry turn to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), electric, and hydrogen-powered aircraft to cut emissions. However, scaling these technologies requires significant innovation.
Sustainability in the Air highlights the journeys of entrepreneurs, executives, and investors who are navigating these challenges and paving the way for the future of aviation. Learn more at sustainabilityintheair.com
