SA advertising regulator finds TotalEnergies was misleading on ‘sustainable development’ commitments

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) ruling stems from the first “greenwashing” complaint lodged in South Africa, according to the NGO Fossil Free SA, which initiated the action through its Fossil Ad Ban campaign.

The complaint took issue with TotalEnergies’ claims of a commitment to “sustainable development and environmental protection.” ARB found the “sustainable development” claims from Total to be unsustainable but ruled that its partnership with South African National Parks (SANParks) could reasonably be seen in the light of environmental protection.

Still, a “greenwashing” precedent has been set, driven by activists highlighting the links between fossil fuel usage and rapid climate change.

“This ruling is a significant victory in our fight against the greenwashing tactics employed by fossil fuel companies,” Lazola Kati, campaign manager for Fossil Ad Ban, said in a statement.

“It sets a critical precedent in South Africa, affirming that companies cannot mask their harmful environmental practices with misleading claims. This decision is not just a win for sustainability integrity but also for consumer protection.”

Total had not responded to Daily Maverick’s request for comment before we went to press.

The complaint centred on an ad highlighting Total’s relationship with SANParks which asked readers to share their favourite summer moments at a national park in South Africa for a chance to win various prizes.

“The ad claims that TotalEnergies is ‘committed to sustainable development and environmental protection’. This is a completely false and misleading claim, which we believe constitutes greenwashing. TotalEnergies is lying to the public about the nature of their business,” said the complaint made to ARB.

The complaint then listed several citations, including:

• TotalEnergies’ ranking as the world’s 19th biggest greenhouse gas emitter.


• The company’s oil and gas exploration projects across Africa.


• Its 62% stake in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project, which the complainant alleged “... will be built through some of the world’s most important elephant, lion and chimpanzee nature reserves” and threatens to displace tens of thousands of people.

Total, for its part, maintained that the content on its website was not an advertisement and was not false or misleading. The company pointed to its target to be carbon neutral by 2050 and its pipeline of renewable projects.

It said it was “... investing even more than in previous years in renewable solar and wind energy, as well as in transitional energy sources such as natural gas, which provides a flexible complement to intermittent renewables while avoiding the emissions associated with coal power generation.”

The company also rejected the assertion that tens of thousands of people would be displaced by the East African pipeline project and that its environmental compliance was in line with stringent World Bank standards.

Total further maintained that it was not a member of ARB and so did not fall under its jurisdiction.

In its decision, ARB noted that it can instruct its members not to accept advertising which it holds to be misleading. It also ruled that the content promoted Total’s business so it considered it to be an ad.

The bottom line it ruled was that the claim boiled down to two questions:

1. “Is the Advertiser’s partnership with SANParks indicative of a commitment to environmental protection?”


2. “Is the Advertiser’s partnership with SANParks indicative of a commitment to sustainable development?”

On the first score, ARB found that Total was not in violation of the Code of Advertising Practice.

“There is no question in the Directorate’s mind that the work of SANParks is geared towards environmental protection, and that support of SANParks therefore supports environmental protection. For this reason, the claim ‘committed to …  environmental protection’  is not unreasonable in this context,” it ruled.

On the second question, it found Total wanting.

“The Directorate has no evidence that there is a link between the support of SANParks, and any definition of sustainable development. Given this, the claim ‘sustainable development’ in the context of the SANParks support is misleading and in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code,” the ARB ruled.

“ARB instructs its members not to accept any advertising from the Advertiser with the wording ‘committed to sustainable development’, relating only to its support of SANParks.”

For a major oil producer, this is hardly a blow. But it represents a new front in activist efforts to hold such companies accountable for applying a green sheen to their activities. DM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeWvTRUpMk