Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate

The Role of the Media and Communications in Actioning Climate Change: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I have received apologies from Deputy Alan Farrell. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss media. This is the third meeting in our series of sessions on media and communications in the effort to bring about effective climate action. Today's session will be split in two. In the first session, we will hear from representatives from RTÉ and in the second session, we have the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, ASAI, Purpose Disruptors Ireland and Client Earth. The purpose of both sessions is to have a discussion on media in actioning climate change. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from RTÉ, Ms Tara Peterman, Mr. Colm O'Callaghan, Mr. Philip Bromwell and Mr. Peter Woods, who are joining us remotely.

I remind the witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they not should criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If a witness's statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity I will direct the witness to discontinue and it is imperative that any such direction is complied with. As our witnesses today are attending from outside the Leinster House campus there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, witnesses may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present on the Leinster House campus.

Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are only allowed to participate in the meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. I ask that prior to making their contributions to the meeting, if they are joining us online that they would confirm that they are indeed on the grounds of Leinster House.

I now call Ms Peterman from RTÉ to make her opening statement.

Ms Tara Peterman

We would like to thank the committee for having us here today and for the opportunity to articulate what we see as our role during this time of climate crisis.

As reflected in the most recent Reuters report, RTÉ remains the most trusted news provider in the country. Over 92% of the Irish public use one or more of RTÉ’s services each week. With this large audience also comes a strong sense of responsibility.

Our role in climate change coverage starts with a commitment to making a meaningful contribution to increasing understanding around the issues and for providing a platform for discussion and debate on the requirements and options for action across society. It also includes empowering citizens to feel they can be a part of the solution.

Broadly speaking, the role of RTÉ is based on three pillars, two of these are journalistic in nature, and the third is more educational, engaging, and empowering. We are fortunate that climate misinformation is a lesser problem in Ireland than in some other countries. This is likely due, in part, to the fact that audiences in Ireland watch and read trusted news and current affairs coverage. This also offers a real opportunity to ensure that Irish citizens are kept comprehensively informed of the implications and developments within the climate crisis, at a local, national, and global level. RTÉ can play a hugely valuable role on this issue.

RTÉ is the only broadcaster in Ireland with a dedicated environment correspondent, Mr. George Lee. His wide-ranging brief incorporates scientific findings, policy developments, innovation and climate impacts, in addition to climate related topics such as biodiversity. Mr. Lee’s recent reporting from COP27, as well as his online analysis, are strong examples of the kind of in-depth reporting that we are committed to. This environment correspondent provides content across all platforms and for all ages including for young people on news2day. In addition, climate topics are reflected across our specialist briefs including agriculture, business, technology, regional and international reporting.

While there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, there is also rigorous debate on the policies to mitigate the crisis. Given the enormous size of the challenge, these and a whole host of other issues related to climate change will become increasingly important in public and political discourse. RTÉ is central to facilitating and hosting this debate. We have a duty to, and mandate from, the public, to ask the key questions, to interrogate vested interests and viewpoints and to question policy positions. We are committed to rigorous debate and we also need to stand firm on the science of climate change such as linking cause and effect as in the example of extreme weather events to ensure that they are not seen as one-offs but are, rather, connected by the perspective of global warming.

Reporting and programming are done with the backing of science and in co-operation with important partnerships, such as with climate research scientists, Met Éireann and Science Foundation Ireland. To give an example of that science partnership, the "Brainstorm" podcast features articles each week from Irish academics often in relation to climate change issues.

It is fair to say that climate change is now embedded in our programming. Over the past year "Prime Time" produced several climate specials on issues such as energy use, the decarbonization of transport and the biodiversity crisis. Climate topics are also mainstay issues on radio current affairs programmes like "The Claire Byrne Show" and "Drivetime". In the genre of documentaries, flagship programmes such as "Hot Air" and "Will Ireland Survive 2050?" as well as the podcast series “Hot Mess" have all looked at topics in depth, with an Irish angle, reflecting a breadth of perspectives.

RTÉ’s relationship with Science Foundation Ireland and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, is creating new collaborations for specific science and natural history output. This output is played prominently across the schedules to large, cross-demographic audiences.

We also recognize that the existential threat posed by climate change can be overwhelming for the average person. A critical role for RTÉ is in making people feel informed, engaged, and that they have a sense of agency.

"Eco Eye" has been Ireland’s longest-running environmental awareness programme. It highlights local and topical climate change developments, as well as solutions. Programmes such as "What Planet Are You On?" offer expert-led practical ideas to everyday life choices and help demonstrate how individuals can have impact. The RTÉ website offers real-time information on the sources of daily energy use and shows Ireland’s transition to renewable energy

As for solutions, “Climate Heroes” is a new series of short digital-first films that shines a light on individuals and communities who are stepping up to protect the environment and tackle climate change. These videos often produce above average engagement on social media, where our younger audiences reside.

With the awareness that young people will carry the greatest burden of climate change, new programmes and events were created for young people as part of RTÉ’s climate week in 2019. This included the RTÉ youth assembly on climate, a unique collaboration between RTÉ and the Houses of the Oireachtas. It brought young people, supported by scientists, into the climate debate and into contributing to climate solutions.

RTÉjr Radio developed a podcast series called "Ecolution" which investigates and explains the issues in an informative and age-appropriate way for young people. A recent episode included former President Mary Robinson answering questions from the children around the country on climate justice.

On one level, climate change is an easy story to tell, given the dramatic nature of some of the events it unleashes. It is also one of the most difficult, because it requires a long-term perspective and patient engagement around potential solutions. Climate change presents a challenge to journalism where the immediate can crowd out the important. We believe it is the definition of public service broadcasting that we continue to find ways to engage audiences in arguably the most important challenge of our times.

Chairman

Chairman

I thank Mr. Woods for his answer. I call Deputy Whitmore.

I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank the witnesses again for the opening statements. I want to help out the Chairman because they were looking for specifics on what he was alluding to with the Punch and Judy show and the fact that conflict gets ratings. An example I can give straight off is from during the setting of the emissions ceilings. This was not unique to RTÉ, it was through all broadcast and print media. Even though at 25% agriculture would have had the lowest emissions ceiling, the focus was on that 25% and how it was somehow going to lead to the demise of the agricultural sector. I am absolutely sure this will not be the case and agriculture will continue to flourish. However, the debate centred around that as opposed to the fact that for the first time ever Ireland had introduced significant emissions ceilings for all sectors. I am just backing up the point the Chair was making.

Referring to the opening presentation it is very notable that RTÉ's coverage of the climate crisis has improved drastically over the last number of years. The COP26 coverage from Scotland was very prominent. It was in all of the news bulletins whether the six o'clock news or otherwise. It was very prominent. This was encouraging to see and it was the first time I can recollect that happening. The witnesses mentioned the "Prime Time" specials. I also think "Hot Mess" has been fantastic both in terms of the depth it has gone into around the different aspects of the climate crisis, but also looking for solutions as well as at problems. They mentioned "Eco Eye" too. My first question is whether there is a demand for these types of programmes. What are the ratings like for these climate focused shows? Do they drop off? I remember speaking to a print journalist who said climate change did not sell papers. That was the comment. Is it the same for RTÉ? Is this being done because they feel a duty as a public service broadcaster to tell this story, or is there a ratings demand for these shows?

My second question relates to the twin issues of the biodiversity crisis. We have seen RTÉ broadcast some fantastic shows over the years. I am thinking of Ken O'Sullivan's "Ireland's Deep Atlantic," which was fantastic. "Wild Cities" and "Living the Wild Life" from Colin Stafford-Johnson are two others. All of these were made a couple of years ago. In the UK they really have the wildlife and nature broadcasting right. They have "Spring Watch," which airs about three times per year, alongside "Autumn Watch" and "Winter Watch." Do the witnesses think RTÉ can produce something similar and really reconnect the Irish public with wildlife and nature? Deputy Whitmore mentioned Éamon de Buitléar. Do we need that kind of wildlife, biodiversity and nature champion in Ireland again? Can RTÉ come up with a show to demonstrate that?

Ms Tara Peterman

One of the "Prime Time" climate specials was entirely on biodiversity. While we have done biodiversity issues over the years, I think that was the first time we have had a fulsome approach where an entire programme was about biodiversity. That does reflect the increase in our coverage. I will pass to my colleague, Colm O'Callaghan, to answer that question, because he works in specialist factual, which covers some of the programmes mentioned.

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

As a public broadcaster I do not think that we can be determined exclusively by ratings. Obviously, you invest lots of public money into quality content and you want people to watch. Science and this area is a hard sell, but that is not a good enough reason not to do it. Unlike colleagues in the BBC, for example, we tend to play our science, diversity and climate change output very prominently on our first channel. In the UK, an awful lot of this stuff would play on BBC 2. It is a challenging area, and yet on some of the content we have done over the last four or five years we have gone in there with 23%, 24% or 25% shares in pre-watershed and post-watershed, which represents very good returns for content that can be quite abstract.

In respect of the natural history and wildlife output, yes, we can do more. We are very active in that area. An awful lot of that content is time dependent. It is very costly and very expensive. The Deputy mentioned Ken O'Sullivan's last series. We have three hours of Ken coming up in 2023, looking at the impact of fisheries on the whale population. That will be three hours of big, internationally focused, high-end documentary making. There are three hours upcoming from the same crew that does the Colin Stafford-Johnson stuff about wildlife on Ireland's islands. Last year we did a beautiful two-part series set on the Burren. We are partnered up with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications on the wild Atlantic nature project in the west of Ireland. Could we be doing more? I am sure we absolutely could. I would love to be doing more. Is there an appetite for it? There certainly is. However, it is very time-consuming and when we are looking at placing these big projects in the schedule we are looking at these things occurring in real time. They often take from two to four years and an awful lot of that time can be spent raising funds to try and get these projects up and under way.

Chairman

I am sorry for cutting across the witness but we have limited time. If we have time we will hopefully have a second round.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

If they want to produce a "Spring Watch" type show in RTÉ, I would be more than willing to make myself available to present it.

Chairman

We will all put in our CVs.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I also thank the witnesses for the presentation. Like Deputy O'Sullivan, I think RTÉ's coverage has improved significantly. I was intrigued by one of the last comments in the presentation which states, "climate change presents a challenge to journalism, where the immediate can crowd out the important". I think that really goes back to the point raised by the Chairman at the start. Any of these phone-in shows will tend to follow the immediate and not the important. I wonder how they factor that in as they approach fair coverage of these issues, which are so tricky as they say.

I will ask all of the questions at the beginning otherwise the Chair will cut me off if I do not. Last week there was a very interesting report from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI. It showed that while our production sector emissions are 61 million tonnes, which Paris measures, we have 75% more emissions if you look at our consumption patterns. We are buying lots of things with appalling carbon footprints. Is that factored into their coverage, or is their focus exclusively on the Paris context?

That brings me to one of my pet subjects which is the circular economy. Has RTÉ any sort of plan to develop some programming around that? I think it is a much more palatable approach to some of these very difficult decisions we have to reach. It embraces all forms of environmental damage and not just climate. It looks at the whole supply chain, and not just the producers. It also emphasises collaborative efforts to fix some of these problems. Finally, how do they find social media interacting with their climate coverage? What is their relationship with social media in this sort of arena?

Ms Tara Peterman

I thank Deputy Bruton for his questions. My colleague Mr. Woods will answer that.

Mr. Peter Woods

I am looking at what the Deputy said about the immediate and the important. We look at both. Sometimes what is the immediate is also the important, but as I said earlier, it is the same editorial line that "Liveline" is in that put "Hot Mess" on air and it is also part of the answer to Deputy O'Sullivan's question. We put "Hot Mess" there not because of ratings but to change the argument, to look at policy and to influence the way our people think about and engage with things. In terms of the immediate and the important, one would not want to ignore how the important feeds into the immediate. I reference the Brendan O'Connor programme on Sunday mornings around a month ago when doing a newspapers review. I cannot exactly remember what subject the panel was discussing, but Brendan O'Connor said maybe they were missing the point and it was the economy they should have been discussing. That was the weekend of the United Nations climate change conference, the COP summit, and they went on to discuss that. That would be an instance of what is happening generally in respect of the long term impacting on the immediate. We have to look to both sides of that and we do.

Ms Tara Peterman

My colleague Mr. Bromwell has not had a chance to speak yet so I will pass the torch over to him. He might have some thoughts for us, particularly on social media.

Mr. Philip Bromwell

I will touch on the issue that was raised about social media and the circular economy. I commissioned a strand of content for our social and online platforms which we called climate heroes. Over the course of the year we have produced 49 stories, and are almost up to the milestone of 50, looking at the people and projects around the country who are stepping up to do something and who are trying to protect the environment and tackle climate change. It is a solutions-based approach, and within that we find there is a real appetite for solutions, so it is incumbent on us to reflect that. To be honest, no project is too small because there is a collective responsibility that we are all part of the solution per se. What we did in the course of that series in terms of the circular economy was to look at a project happening over the road from us here in UCD called Revolution Farm & Kitchen. It uses spent coffee grounds from the cafés in UCD to grow mushrooms which they then turn into a range of sauces that are sold in cafés and restaurants across counties Kildare and Dublin. Those kinds of solutions we can highlight are definitely part of what we are trying to do. In terms of the engagement they are getting, we find that because of the appetite for solutions and because, let us face it, climate change is a big scary subject and can be quite abstract, if we can highlight things that are working and give people a bit of hope and inspiration, that is where we see engagement. Certainly in this strand we are seeing above average engagement with lots of comments and suggestions. It becomes a two-way thing where we are listening and looking for opportunities to take ideas from the public as to what projects they would like to be highlighted. We become part of the conversation as well.

Mr. Peter Woods

If there are Green Party people going on programmes or there are Green Party Deputies or councillors going on programmes who disagree with some of the Green Party policies in Government, that is what the programmes reflect.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

No.

We are asked to go on against our colleagues in other political parties in order to have a conflict on air around issues regarding climate action. I am not saying that I go, but we have been asked.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. I am interested in what they said about empowering citizens and that it is critical as the national broadcaster. I constantly talk about public transport and buses in my constituency, Kildare North. When I bring up buses, I incorporate the issue into climate change and climate action. The witness mentioned that RTÉ has a climate correspondent; does RTÉ believe, as the national broadcaster, that every story has a climate aspect? Should all RTÉ reporters and journalists try to incorporate climate action into their stories?

Mr. Peter Woods

Some stories have more apparent climate aspects. Senator Higgins suggested that one can look at stories more widely in terms of the carbon cost and everything else like that, but some stories stand by themselves.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I think it is recognised that there has been an increase and improvement in content which is welcome. I will focus on the nature of programming, how that programming is scheduled and edited and the emphasis on solutions There is a difference between "Liveline" and "Eco Eye" and the political debates of "Prime Time" or "Drivetime". It seems to me that there is not an adequate focus on solutions at times. There is an emphasis put on the difference either between parties or within parties. It is almost like political tittle-tattle. For example, in the discussion on liquified natural gas, LNG, I can almost script the debate if I see which politicians are on the platform. The same applies to the sectoral emission ceilings debate which is entirely framed around picking an emissions reduction target and choosing a number between 22% and 30%. There is no real debate about the solutions and what it would take to get to a 22%, 25% or 30% reduction. There is zero focus on any other system, whether it be transport, energy, residential or industry. There is zero focus on these areas. Would the witnesses consider the point I make on having a focus on solutions rather than a chase for a Punch and Judy-type debate?

On contributors and the so-called experts who are used, it is appropriate and it often happens that contributors are scrutinised. However, at times I feel there is not adequate scrutiny. Whether one looks at the area of LNG or the energy transition, there are repeat contributors on RTÉ shows who are out of kilter with the broad political consensus on the energy transition. They are afforded the opportunity to push a fossil fuel future that is not supported in the political system here. Is that something the witnesses recognise? How does RTÉ ensure its broadcasters are sufficiently equipped to challenge concepts such as "lock in" and "fossil fuel future" when they hear these so-called "experts" in a one-to-one situation and with no political challenge?

Ms Tara Peterman

We can follow up with something in writing on the advertising question members have posed. Solutions to the problem is a growing area in journalism. We are certainly trying to incorporate that into our coverage. That is part of editorial discussion. It is something that we have been incorporating in our various programmes. It could be to do with coastal erosion in Dingle where locals are replanting marram grass----

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I am specifically interested in the focus on political debate. I appreciate the focus on solutions in programmes such as "Hot Mess" or "Eco Eye" but I am referring to the political discourse and debate. In my opinion, there is a need to shine a light on difference at the expense of a focus on solutions.

Mr. Peter Woods

If we look at the LNG terminal for example, there was a political debate on that. Some people believe we need a terminal to bring in the gas and store it in this country and some people do not. That is what our programmes are doing. They reflect the political reality or the debate that is happening in the country at a given time. The Deputy used the words "so-called experts" earlier. If a person is on a programme, on their own and there is no other viewpoint given, the presenter is expected to act as the devil's advocate and put the opposite view in those situations. What we do and how we make programmes are very clear on that.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I suggest there is significant opportunity to improve the nature of the climate debate.

This could be done by means of an editorial emphasis on solutions rather than on whether people are pro- or anti-LNG. It could reasonably be suggested that RTÉ is not simply reflecting these differences but is driving and sustaining them. For example, when is the last time RTÉ had a focus on lock-in of the Energy Charter Treaty or on the concept of a just transition and how it might reasonably be delivered? With a slight tweak of emphasis, there is significant opportunity for solutions as opposed to division. It is the business of the witnesses; it is not mine. There is a significant opportunity and it would help what is an incredibly important debate.

Chairman

On LNG, I do not know of any serious investigation of that subject that RTÉ has done. LNG is not suitable for medium- or long-term storage of energy, and that has never come through RTÉ's coverage. It has always been about the political divide or who wants it and who does not want it. If experts are asked, they will say it does not make sense for Ireland, but that is not coming through. We get a divisive public debate on it because the public service broadcaster is not doing its due diligence on the subject, and that is only one important subject.

We have approximately 20 minutes left so I will open up to a second round.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

Chairman

I call Senator Alice-Mary Higgins.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I want to follow up with Mr. Bromwell on the global network. The point I spoke about earlier was on links with other public service broadcasters, including in developing countries. Very often the international aspect only gets covered at EU Ministers' meetings or at the COP. However, on the ground in Europe or across the world where the impacts are, RTÉ has the potential, as a public service broadcaster, to do more linking because I think the justice narrative is really important in that context.

There was also mention of both sides in a discussion. There are often many sides in a discussion. I have noticed for example that sometimes when climate action is proposed by Government, those who oppose it will get quite a bit of coverage. However, many others, sometimes including myself, who say the action does not go far enough do not get the same coverage. It would be a different conversation if we were discussing how much further we should be going. That might in some cases be a more productive discussion. It is not necessarily about going further but maybe about the different approaches. Could the witnesses bear in mind that it is not simply about finding somebody who disagrees with the Minister?

There may be people disagreeing from the other side, but that rural-urban divide is so deeply embedded as a narrative that it seems like it is often the go-to when there is a debate, rather than maybe looking to the different perspectives. I have those two questions regarding the international perspective and how sometimes even having an international perspective on an Irish policy can be useful to those who will be affected by it.

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

In respect of international perspectives, Mr. Peadar King has been very active through the "What in the World?" series for many years and in fact was doing very strong international-facing content in the series for many years right across the emerging nations. There were a couple of memorable programmes from South Sudan and one particularly brilliant one in Greenland. We are currently in production on a second series of "The Hardest Harvest" where we take Irish farmers to farm in Vietnam and the rainforests in Brazil, and we take a fisherman out to Senegal.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

That is interesting.

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

We can bring this stuff back and view it through an Irish lens. There is a challenge for producers simply because of the scale of what they are trying to do, but it is a point very well made that these are very good Irish-skewed ways to look at what is a global crisis but one that, through vibrancy etc., will have a national and local implication for us. "The Hardest Harvest" will play very prominently in the RTÉ One schedules and will be at 9.30 p.m. mid-week.

Mr. Philip Bromwell

One of the things I am most excited about in my engagement with the Oxford Network is that it has put together a verified list of experts from the global south and made them available to broadcasters around the world so that we hear the voices of those who are most affected and they become part of the fabric of our programming and our broadcasting. It is about expanding our vision and our view and reflecting that in our adverts.

Ms Tara Peterman

We are very conscious of getting those issues across in our coverage and we do lean on our partners. We have partnerships through the European Broadcasting Union and we get some of their content. We are not able to cover all the issues we would like to cover but we have articles represented online and we also have our chief reporters who are based around the world who can do stories on climate impact, justice and adaptation. One of our reporters went to Kenya and she talked about the fact that climate change was affecting women and girls to a great degree, and about the difficulty of food production. We are getting those stories through different means. We might get them from a local journalist, from one of our journalists who are travelling or through one of our partnerships.

Mr. Peter Woods

On the rural-urban issue, most of the people I work with come from outside of Dublin and we would be very mindful of that. One of our starting points is that many of the people who live outside Dublin live in towns as well, so the concerns are not about whether it is rural-urban but rather that the concerns can be shared across that.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

There is a great diversity of perspectives within rural Ireland of course as well. Some very large lobby groups can tend to be the go-to in that regard, when we know some of the strongest climate activists one can find are in rural Ireland.

Chairman

We are out of time and have other guests waiting to come in. I thank the RTÉ representatives for joining us today. It was a very interesting discussion and not as long as we would have liked. I am sure the witnesses would have preferred more time to tease through some of the issues and provide more information. The committee would welcome any further information they would like to give us, but that piece on advertising and that overlap when it comes to content creation is critical. I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow our other guests to enter.

Sitting suspended at 12.34 p.m. and resumed at 12.37 p.m.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee I welcome the following witnesses. Ms Orla Twomey is chief executive of the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland and Mr. Michael Lee is deputy chief executive officer. They are very welcome. Ms Laura Costello is strategy director of Purpose Disruptors Ireland, who is very welcome. Joining us online is Mr. Jonathan White who is a climate lawyer with ClientEarth, who is very welcome.

Before we begin I will read the note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. For our witness who is attending remotely from London and outside the Leinster House campus, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, he may not benefit from the same level of immunity as our guests who are physically present.

I invite Ms Twomey to make her opening statement.

Ms Orla Twomey

On behalf of the board of the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland, ASAI, I express our appreciation for the invitation to address the Committee on Environment and Climate Action. I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Lee, deputy chief executive. ASAI is the recognised regulator for advertising in Ireland. Established for more than 40 years, it operates as a self-regulatory organisation, SRO, and is highly embedded in the advertising ecosystem. Advertising self-regulation is recognised by the OECD and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, and, in Europe, by the European Union in the unfair commercial practices, misleading and comparative advertising, and the audiovisual media services directives. ASAI seeks to ensure the highest standards of advertising in Ireland across all media, offline and online, through the enforcement of its code in the interests of consumers, business, society and advertising generally.

ASAI keeps abreast of national and international developments relevant to its code and regulation and has been keenly aware of the global movement towards sustainability in many areas. This brings growth of marketing communications that reflect or incorporate ideas and claims associated with the concept of sustainability. There is a need to look beyond the advertising content itself to see if claims being made or implied are contributing to a more sustainable environment or future. Such claims must be grounded in transparency and authenticity and be capable of substantiation to avoid the potential pitfalls of greenwashing.

The extensive ASAI code, developed through public consultation and with diverse stakeholders, incorporates a dedicated segment specifically for environmental claims. This includes rules regarding qualified and unqualified claims, the need for substantiation and making the limits of the life cycle clear. The ASAI's independent complaints committee is seeing a growing volume of complaints for adjudication falling within the general term of "greenwashing". This trend has been an emerging one experienced by our contemporaries at European and international levels.

The European Advertising Standards Alliance, co-founded by the ASAI, is the single voice on advertising self-regulation issues in Europe, representing 27 national advertising self-regulatory organisations. As vice chairperson of the alliance, I moderated a critically important panel discussion last month on "Further contributing to responsible environmental marketing communications". One of the speakers, Ms Marie-Paule Benassi, head of unit for consumer enforcement and redress at the Directorate General for Justice and Consumers, stated:

Consumers want to be greener in their consumption choices. Green claims must not be used as a marketing trick: they have to enable the transition and be adapted to the needs of consumers ... There is complementarity between law and self-regulation.

At the same event, the keynote speaker, Mr. Didier Reynders, the European Commissioner for Justice, commented:

Legislation alone cannot solve all our problems ... I see both regulatory and self-regulatory instruments as complementary to each other.

As an ongoing agenda, with the European Advertising Standards Alliance and its members having a significant role in the development of best practice for advertising self-regulation, alliance members are continuing the conversation to identify further appropriate needs and actions.

Within the advertising ecosystem, other players are actively engaging on the sustainability agenda. Last year, the World Federation of Advertisers launched its Planet Pledge initiative, complemented by developing guidance covering how brands can make sure environmental claims featured in their marketing communications are credible for both consumers and regulators. Separately, Ad Net Zero is the advertising industry's drive to reduce the carbon impact of developing, producing and running advertising to real net zero. In Ireland, Ad Net Zero is driven by all the key trade bodies and organisations in the marketing and advertising community.

With the imminent transposition of the audiovisual and media services directive, the new media commission will have EU-wide responsibility in the new area of video-sharing platform services regulation. The ASAI, with the European Advertising Standards Alliance, has been in liaison with the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, regarding the potential of opening up its existing cross-border complaints mechanism to the media commission as a tool that could be leveraged to manage future advertising complaints, including those emerging in the sustainability space. The ASAI conducts compliance monitoring to evaluate the code compliance of marketing communications. To manage scale for online advertising, we have been working with European partners on artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities as tools to capture both compliant and non-compliant advertising. These tools will greatly assist the ASAI in assessing the compliance of marketing communications, including those covering sustainability.

The ASAI considers that the subject under the committee's review is timely, appropriate and significant. This is an area for continued consideration in a cohesive way. Such is the scale of the subject that the ASAI holds the view that multiple stakeholders across borders are needed to work harmoniously in an inclusive and collaborative way in bringing forward this agenda for the benefit of all stakeholders. The ASAI will continue to play its part. I thank members for their attention and I welcome the opportunity to contribute further today.

Chairman

I thank Ms Twomey. I now invite Ms Costello to make her opening statement.

Ms Laura Costello

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting. Purpose Disruptors Ireland is a community-driven network of marketing and advertising insiders with a mission to catalyse the advertising industry's climate transition to align with the 1.5°C global warming target set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. The focus of our work is to help those in the industry to reimagine and reshape the role of advertising to support a thriving future. We drive this by facilitating collaboration and providing frameworks and tools to guide our industry in the right direction.

It is clear that advertising drives consumption, and consumption contributes to climate change. By some reports, household consumption is responsible for 72% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which makes householders key actors in reaching the 1.5°C goal. The Hot or Cool Institute in Berlin found recently that the individual lifestyle footprint target for 2050, which is 0.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, is exceeded in all countries it researched. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, per capita emissions in Ireland increased last year to 12.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person in 2021. This needs to reduce dramatically if we are to reach the target of 0.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2050. Not addressing the reduction in emissions from lifestyle and households puts the requirement to cut Ireland's emissions to net zero by 2050 at risk.

On the other hand, the IPCC has also made clear the enormous opportunity that exists. It has stated, "Socio-cultural changes within transition pathways can offer Gigaton-scale CO2 savings potential at the global level." We need people to want to change. Advertising does more than just sell; it drives desire, creates culture and shapes society. It drives mass attitude and behaviour change. Advertising is a $600 billion industry. In Ireland, it will grow to €1.23 billion this year. Every day, virtually every human on the planet is touched and influenced by it. It is arguably the biggest engine of societal change in existence.

As an architect of desire, the industry will play a vital role in determining whether the world will successfully transition towards a low-carbon, sustainable society. The level of transformation needed is massive. The emissions gap report of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP,from October 2022 states that we require "wide-ranging, large-scale and systemic transformation". It goes on to say that the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is by a "rapid transformation of societies". The advertising industry needs to go through its own radical transformation to help to accelerate systemic societal transformation.

We know what this paradigm shift requires. In the UK, Purpose Disruptors, in collaboration with Magic Numbers, recently calculated the nation's advertised emissions for 2022. Borrowing from the idea of financed emissions, which is already established, advertised emissions are defined as the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the uplift in sales generated by advertising. Things are going in the wrong direction. Advertised emissions have risen by 11%, to 208 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, from 2019 to 2022, which is equivalent to 56 coal-fired power plants running for a year. This means advertising is responsible for adding an extra 32% to the carbon footprint of every single person in the country. High-carbon industries are driving this increase. While we do not have the same research commissioned yet in Ireland, we know consumption is growing on a similar trajectory here. For example, UK advertising spend is predicted to rise by 9.2% this year compared with Ireland's 10.9% rise.

We need to find ways to achieve steep reductions in these emissions at rapid pace. We must disrupt the purpose of advertising with new aspirational visions of tomorrow, supported by actions today. Right now, the change we see is focused on production and operations. This is slow and does not go deep into the heart of the creative work, which is the area in which we are having the biggest impact on society. We are extremely concerned about this. The Ad Net Zero initiative found that 71% of people in advertising are worried about the negative impacts of the industry on the environment.

The position taken by Purpose Disruptors Ireland is that our industry needs to take responsibility for reducing its impact and optimising the creative work it puts into the world. To make the industry's transition faster and easier to manage, the science requires us to change what is advertised. This starts with doing less harm. The skills in the advertising industry are essential for the radical transformation Irish society requires. The industry can accelerate the adoption of the goods, services, behaviours and attitudes we need to transition to a net zero economy. We have seen advertising's brilliance as a positive force in society on many fronts, including saving lives with campaigns encouraging the use of seat belts and Covid-19 safety measures.

The advertised emissions data show that the most effective way to achieve a reduction in those emissions is to restrict the highest carbon products in the most carbon-intensive categories, including fossil fuels, transport such as automotive and flying, and red meat production. Taking the ban on cigarette advertising in the US as an example, we can predict that if there were a ban on categories of high-carbon products and services, which has already happened in France with fossil fuels and in Holland with meat, we would see a corresponding decline in carbon emissions.

The vast majority of people in Ireland have a desire to see the industry adapt to this potential. In 2020, Purpose Disruptors Ireland, in collaboration with Behaviour & Attitudes, found that, because of its influence, 90% of people think it is the advertising and creative industry's responsibility to encourage and normalise more sustainable behaviours. Our position on the opportunity for the industry is that we are required to look beyond treating people as consumers who buy things and invite them to discover their agency as citizens, thereby helping us all to adopt sustainable behaviours through our communications. This reframing must sit at the heart of the industry if it is to achieve the scale and pace required. To begin, we need to decouple our skills. We need less investment in high-carbon campaigns and more investment in campaigns that will push us towards our 1.5°C goal.

By accelerating the position of doing less harm, we can then reapply the incredible creative effectiveness of the industry, with appropriate speed and scale, to more life-affirming outcomes for all.

Mr. Jonathan White

I am appearing today for ClientEarth, which is an international environmental law NGO. One issue ClientEarth focuses on is greenwashing, which is seen as a key barrier to a wide range of environmental goals and to the attainment of a high degree of human health. ClientEarth’s greenwashing work involves several things, such as engaging with regulators and policymakers and supporting enforcement through claims and complaints.

The context of this work is that, in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, concluded that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require a rapid escalation in the scale and pace of transition, particularly in the next ten to 20 years. The use of fossil fuels is the dominant cause of climate change and therefore achieving the Paris goal requires the drastic reduction of fossil fuel use. However, in contrast to this, fossil fuel advertising preserves demand for the same products that must be rapidly reduced to meet that Paris goal. It also often misleads consumers about the environmental attributes of harmful products and harmful industries.

ClientEarth therefore supports the European campaign for a ban on advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel and fossil fuel transport companies. This position draws on two things: first, the international scientific consensus on decarbonisation from the IPCC and others and, second, ClientEarth’s experience of seeking to enforce the prohibition on misleading advertising. I will expand on these two things for the remainder of my statement.

To begin with the science, according to the IPCC, decarbonisation requires public behaviour change in the consumption of fossil fuel products. This is known as "demand-side mitigation" in the literature. The change implicates businesses as social actors because they influence public behaviours and social norms through advertising. However, the IPCC highlights that fossil fuel industries’ advertising has acted as a barrier to decarbonisation by shaping narratives such as climate scepticism and derailing climate mitigation. Accordingly, the IPCC’s examples of decarbonisation policy measures include the regulation of advertising. The IPCC also refers to the risks of what is called "carbon lock-in", which is the build-up of economic, institutional or social inertia around carbon-intensive technologies that become difficult or costly to phase out once installed. This means, conversely, that low-carbon alternatives are locked out. Fossil fuel advertising plays a crucial role in perpetuating carbon lock-in in the forms of inertia I mentioned.

According to climate scientists, we have instead to cross what are called "social tipping points" to make transition effective. Those are contagious and fast-spreading processes of social and technological change and they need to be tipped within the next few years. Bans on advertising for fossil fuel products are again noted in the literature as a policy intervention that will trigger social tipping points and create an enabling environment.

There is evidence of democratic support for bans. The UK and French citizens’ climate assemblies backed such bans or restrictions on high emissions products and sectors. As Ms Costello mentioned, national and local governments in France, the Netherlands, Canada, the UK, Australia, Sweden and elsewhere are acting or seeking to restrict fossil fuel advertisements in various ways. Similar to tobacco advertising bans, the fossil fuel advertising ban is supported by the World Health Organization in light of the wide-ranging health impacts of climate change and clean air pollution.

Meanwhile, studies show that potentially misleading fossil fuel climate advertising is proliferating, often relying on common and co-ordinated sector narratives that contradict decarbonisation science. ClientEarth’s support for the ban is therefore based also on its experience of seeking to enforce prohibitions on misleading advertising. According to European Commission guidance on the unfair commercial practices directive, which is the consumer law at the European level, environmental claims in advertising must be substantiated by robust and well-accepted scientific evidence. This law should operate to prevent misleading fossil fuel environmental claims. However, in practice we find that structural barriers contribute to a significant enforcement gap, so the law is not sufficiently observed in practice and the market is flooded with practices that would appear to be illegal. Regulators, consumer associations and PR and legal professionals do not have sufficient capacities or sufficient expertise in what are often complex issues of climate science to be unpicked. In addition, claims and complaints tend to be costly, complex and lengthy, typically taking at least one to two years to resolve, by which time a new marketing strategy is usually in place.

Nevertheless, we have seen a wave of litigation, regulatory guidance and self-regulatory bodies’ rulings. These are important in raising awareness and signalling the risks, but they do not appear to have solved the problem. Fossil fuel companies appear to be incentivised to promote the core narratives that underpin their social licence to operate in their current business models, irrespective of the mounting legal risk. Therefore, we believe fossil fuel greenwashing is liable to grow unless it is prevented at source. ClientEarth’s position is that a fossil fuel advertising ban is necessary for ensuring legal compliance and as a necessary policy measure to achieve the net zero transition.

Chairman

I will now invite members to indicate to ask questions. I will just go first, if I may. I will go straight to Mr. White and the suggestion of a ban on advertising for fossil fuel products. Will he speak more about that? What jurisdictions have bans already? How do our guests in the room feel about the appropriateness of a ban on fossil fuel product advertising?

Mr. Jonathan White

The jurisdictions and municipal or local governments that have enacted or put in place a ban have done so in varying ways. France, for example, has banned advertising of fossil fuel products and will in the future, I think, include SUVs, but it is not clear when, whereas in Amsterdam, for example, the city council has banned advertising by fossil fuel companies. The main thing here is to think about it in terms of the objective, which is to ensure the products and industries we know we need to reduce or phase out under the decarbonisation pathways do not have an ability to influence the narrative within society and affect the very changes the IPCC identifies. Accordingly, the main European move for a ban, which was a European citizens’ initiative that was ongoing until quite recently, seeks a more complete ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies, those involved in the trade of fossil fuels, and fossil fuel transport. That is reflected in much of the literature as being the most effective way of achieving the outcome that is desired of the reduction in the use of those products.

Chairman

I have a follow-up question before I bring in our other guests. Do we have evidence on the effectiveness of the bans in those various jurisdictions that Mr. White mentioned? I ask him to be brief because I have limited time.

Mr. Jonathan White

I have not seen direct evidence of those. Much of the evidence in this area is taken from the tobacco and other behaviour change examples, such as obesity and pension auto-enrolment. The evidence there is pretty strong in support of the need for a stick as well as a carrot, in short, on this sort of area.

Ms Laura Costello

I would be very aligned with ClientEarth on this. The other thing I would add is that a ban or restriction offers an opportunity for those creative skills to be repurposed into the energies we need them to be in, rather than wasting talent and time.

Ms Orla Twomey

As the regulator of advertising, it is not our role to decide whether particular product categories should be banned. Where a product can be legally advertised, our role is to ensure the advertising for that product or category is responsible.

One of the things we have noticed clearly as we have gone through the decades is that the science around climate change has changed and our understanding of it has evolved. When the ASAI first introduced guidance on environmental claims some 30 years ago, the whole concept of the life cycle was not in place.

Now, however, we know it is absolutely vital to look at the whole life-cycle of a product or service to determine whether it can make a sustainability claim. The other important thing is that when companies want to make a claim about sustainability or environment, they have to be very clear on what part of the product or service life cycle they are talking about. Thirty years ago greener was a concept, whereas now it is about asking what is greener. That is one of the discussions being had at European level with our European colleagues. The European Commission is looking at this and will issue guidance about the type of substantiation required. We welcome that. To have clear guidance from the European Commission on substantiation that applies throughout the EU will be helpful, not just for industry but also for regulators and consumers.

When we talk about greenwashing, it is important to recognise that we want to encourage companies coming out with sustainable products and where the talent to create that is being used, that consumers are informed about the choices they can make. Companies coming up with products should feel confident that they can make appropriate claims. If companies are not telling consumers about the products they have, then consumers will not be making potentially sustainable choices.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I thank all of our guests. I support a fossil fuel advertisement ban because we hear from all the witnesses how complicated it is to substantiate claims being made about what constitutes greenwashing. For certain industries and products, a straight-cut ban would eliminate all those doubts and make the job of the ASAI much easier if certain products were banned outright. In regard to what Purpose Disrupters Ireland said about the skills in industry being used as a force for good as opposed to a force for evil, it would eliminate that risk. If we had a voluntary opt-in scheme, would a fossil fuel company not just go to an advertising company that is not opting in? We have seen that happen in other areas as well. When one opts in, others get the benefit of the business.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Even if it takes a month to investigate a complaint, the amount of money a company puts behind an ad for a month is considerable. It would derive a benefit from that ad running even for that month. If those ads had to be pulled until adjudication happened, that would certainly be beneficial. It would prevent some companies putting ads out that could potentially go against the ASAI code.

Ms Orla Twomey

It is also important to say in respect of advertising that is complained about that, sometimes, a consumer might have a view of the ad but when we look at it in its totality, we do not have the same view. A complaint does not equate with an advertiser setting out to mislead or that it has misled. It is very important that we have a process, such as the ASAI and a code, that can look across all media. If an advertising complaint is made about an ad on television, and that ad and the claim in it is found to be in breach, then the adjudication applies across all media. I acknowledge that we have a strong role to play in this. As I said, it is something we are putting an increased focus on.

Mr. Michael Lee

I will add to that. It is terribly important, whether it is a criminal or civil matter, that due process is followed. For us as an organisation managing complaints, it is no different to any other quasi-judicial process. It is very important we do not deem things to be wrong before we investigate. I hear the point the Deputy made, but everybody has to be given fairness through the process to ensure that process is robust and sustainable into the future.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I thank the representatives for their presentations. Deeming something as wrong or incorrect is the crux of the matter. When we look through many of the decisions, it seems they are concerned with where a false claim has been made as opposed to what I consider greenwashing, which is to undermine climate action in the consciousness of the public.

That is the dangerous part of this advertising because it is so clever and subtle. The companies know they are doing it. They are not saying anything that is literally wrong that could be upheld in court but it is having a massive effect on us reaching our goals as has been outlined. I am wondering what we can do. We need to resolve this issue. That is the ultimate goal. I look down through much of the advertising that is fairly clearly greenwashing and it has not been upheld such as in respect of Dacia. I will quote this particular ad. It compares commuting by car to jogging and states:

Is your morning commute is getting you down? Think about jogging to work instead. Get up at 5 a.m., do some calf stretches, swallow a few raw eggs, don't forget to pack a Band-Aid for those blisters. Ah no, we're only messing.

Essentially, it makes it sound absolutely awful to do something in active travel and then says buy this car instead. The complaint against that ad was not upheld by the ASAI, but the damaging effect this has on people over time can be seen. There are many others and they do seem to tend to relate to cars. For instance, we have all seen the ads for Land Rover with various celebrities making sustainable choices, they will say, by planting trees and then still driving a Land Rover. Again, this was not deemed inappropriate or greenwashing when, objectively, it is. The ASAI does not seem to have any controls over greenwashing; what it has are controls over something being factually correct or incorrect. Do the representatives agree with that?

Chairman

I do not think we should name entities.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I am looking at ads and just saying that they were not deemed greenwashing.

Maybe I could get an answer on the other question. How do we move to a systemic change from the individual narrative?

Ms Orla Twomey

ASAI, as a self-regulatory organisation with a self-regulatory code, recognises it operates within a statutory framework. We welcome having a statutory backstop. Where the section of the code that deals with misleading advertising is concerned, we regard the unfair commercial practices directive and Consumer Protection Act as the statutory backstop. We have a very good working relationship with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, because of that. It nominates people to our complaints committee who adjudicate on complaints. I do not know whether the members saw today that the CCPC issued a report on research it has done on influencer marketing. We will be working with it across several key actions regarding that because it is an area of combined interest. We regard it as one of our key stakeholders and regard ourselves as supportive of some of its aims in this area. Therefore, the statutory backdrop element is very important for us.

The Senator referred to media codes and what is now the Act. It is important to have codes of practice that can be amended if needs be. You do not put all the detailed rules into the legislation because that can be difficult to change. The media codes will be the function of the coimisiún. We envisage our role continuing in regard to the consideration of advertising because, when we are considering and amending our code, we examine what other codes, including those of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, and the legislation state. While I do not believe we have to be many steps ahead of the legislation, the idea of self-regulation is around the industry being responsible and going further than hard regulation. I really do not believe it is a case of either–or but of both working together across a range of areas.

Ms Laura Costello

Reference was made to the mechanics of how advertising is produced. Ad Net Zero, which has not yet been mentioned, and AdGreen are both programmes set up to help to shift the industry in the right direction regarding its production. Again, Purpose Disruptors Ireland's perspective is that this does not get to the heart of where we can have the greatest impact but is still crucial to how we change production and how advertising goes out into the world.

Ms Orla Twomey

ASAI is not a part of Ad Net Zero but is tangential to it. We have had discussions on how we can help the creative industry create advertising with a positive message that encourages consumers in a positive way as opposed to its just being about a sales pitch.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Could the delegates respond later on the collective narrative by comparison with the individual narrative, if there is an opportunity?

Chairman

There may be some time. I thank the Senator.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the delegates very much for what was a very interesting presentation. The first question is for Ms Costello. The claim that advertising is responsible for an extra 32% of the carbon footprint of every single person in the country is truly stunning. How is that calculated? Is it disputed? It raises very significant issues if it is undisputed.

On Mr. White's presentation, I am interested in knowing what has happened in the countries that have introduced advertising bans. How do the companies react? I cannot imagine they put their advertising revenue into creative work in the advertising field to promote green products. I am interested in knowing what happens. With the removal of an advertising stream from many media that had got used to depending on it, how did governments that introduced the bans address the collapse in support for radio, television and local print media that might have been depending on the advertising? Do we need to know the reverberations through the system before we move to that?

Some of the statements made on advertising standards are tantalising. It was said that green claims must not be used as a marketing trick. This is a very low standard. It was also said that green claims have to enable the transition and be adapted to the needs of consumers.

I thank Ms Costello for her paper. It is really interesting and music to my ears. Even in politics sometimes, politicians do not talk about citizens anymore; they talk about consumers. Politics has nearly become something where people consume a brand. The level of transformation we need is massive. We must look at advertising. If people do not need stuff, should we really be encouraging them to get it?

I have a question for Client Earth. What sort of advertising bans is it talking about in its proposal? There are some concerns because some people feel it might be public transport, which we need to use. Could Mr. White clear that up for me?

It is good to see an increase in the number of complaints across the EU, but it is bad to see that they are needed. Could Ms Twomey discuss the penalties involved? I believe they are minimal. Does she think that the ASAI should be more involved and make a better effort to publicise bad practice and when there are findings of greenwashing? Companies value their reputations greatly. If companies had to take out ads in order to correct previous incorrect ads, it could be something we could look at. Does the ASAI actively communicate with these global companies? They have reputation managers. Is there any correspondence or communication with them when the ASAI finds that a company is guilty of greenwashing in an ad?

Chairman

Who was the first question for?

Deputy Réada Cronin

The first question was for Client Earth.

Mr. Jonathan White

Client Earth supported the European citizens' initiative, which is probably a potential model for answering the Deputy's question. Public transport is the subject of modal shift under decarbonisation pathways and, therefore, is not something that should be discouraged. I can provide the draft law that was used as part of that initiative. The answer is that it should be targeted effectively to exclude services of general economic interest, which is a concept under EU law that effectively means public transport in this instance. I imagine that it would not be beyond the wit of the legislature in any member state to specify what sort of things ought to be excluded because they are aligned with climate action. That is the way it was framed. It basically caught fossil fuel businesses in the business of extracting, refining and supplying fossil fuels and effectively petrol car and aviation businesses. That was the scope of it.

Deputy Réada Cronin

What are the penalties when a company is found guilty of greenwashing?

Ms Orla Twomey

Our major sanction is to name and shame where we publicise our decisions, which are on our website, are searchable and are released to media. The advertising must be withdrawn or amended. While this is not a direct financial penalty imposed by the ASAI, there is a financial penalty for advertising that must be withdrawn because there is the cost of creating the advertising and all that went into that. If space is booked in media, they lose it. This means that there is an impact.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Is that sufficient?

Ms Orla Twomey

I think it is sufficient. It is a strong sanction. The Deputy mentioned reputation managers major companies would have. From our contact with companies, we know very clearly that they really do not like having an adjudication against their advertising saying that they were found to be in breach of the code because the advertising was misleading. The adjudication is saying the company has misled their audience - their own consumers - and in my experience, the vast majority of advertisers do not want to be in that space. Their reputation is really important to them.

It is a very strong sanction.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I do not think the penalty will stop greenwashing. Unless citizens search the website of the ASAI, they will not see it. The press release is the sanction. Neither the advertisers nor the ASAI will be required to take out space to express that the advertisement in question was wrong. The advertisement needs only to be withdrawn. People may be led to believe that it was only a short-term advertisement that the advertiser in question was blasting out. Is there a conflict of interest in the ASAI when four members of the organisation are advertisers?

Ms Orla Twomey

As part of the structure of the ASAI, we have a board of directors. Because we are a self-regulatory organisation, they are from within the industry. However, they have no role in the assessment, investigation or adjudication of complaints. That is the role that Mr. Lee and I lead within the ASAI. Our independent complaints committee is separate from the board. The structure is that of a self-regulatory organisation. The board has no role to play in the decisions that are made by the complaints committee. As it happens, we are examining our structures to see whether there might be changes we can make to increase confidence. I assure the committee that the only time our board members know about an adjudication is just before it is published and that is only as a courtesy so the board knows we are adjudicating. It has no role.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Would Ms Costello like to come in on the lack of penalties in respect of greenwashing?

Ms Laura Costello

Readers do not really see it when a newspaper prints a mistake. That is a similar situation. A scenario in which an advertiser had to spend the same amount correcting a message that was harmful would be interesting. Such an approach would probably need to be measured on a case-by-case basis. There is something in that suggestion.

Mr. Jonathan White

I will come in on a specific example. Senator Boylan raised the carbon neutral claim, which is a common type of commercial practice in fossil fuel aviation and petrol or gas supply. There have been examples of self-regulatory body rulings finding those claims to be misleading. That has not happened in Ireland but has happened elsewhere. It has happened repeatedly in some instances. The claim might be for neutrality before it was found to be a matter of compensation. Each one was found to communicate the same basic misleading consumer understanding. There is also litigation afoot regarding those commercial practices. However, the issue is that they continue across the board and across the different European jurisdictions. It an example of why I feel sympathy for the role of self-regulatory bodies such as the ASAI in trying to deal with these quite complex issues. Complaints often run to hundreds of pages in order to explain all of the scientific invalidity of those sorts of claims and the context around them. We can see that systemically it is not proving to be the solution.

Ms Orla Twomey

If I may address that point, it would be helpful for statutory regulators and self-regulators to have guidance from the European Commission in all of these areas. It is not just in respect of companies that are advertising fossil fuels because other companies that are advertising a whole range of products make claims about their own environmental credentials. This is not something that applies only to fossil fuels. That is why it is important for us to be supportive of the European Commission in developing guidance in this area that can apply to all of the European Union and to all product sectors, whether fossil fuel or other product categories.

Chairman

Ms Costello mentioned in her opening statement that the advertising industry will grow to €1.23 billion this year. Do we have a breakdown by sector in that regard? How much of that applies, for example, to the transport sector?

Ms Laura Costello

I have not seen a breakdown. There may be more insight available.

Chairman

Ms Orla Twomey

We look at advertising that may cause offence and advertising that may be in breach of other areas of the code slightly differently. One complaint can initiate an investigation. As for complaints about misleading material, the environment and so on, most such ads will see only one or two complaints. We need only one complaint to start an investigation. When it comes to a matter of the offensiveness of an advertisement, we tend to look at the strength of the reaction we have received and the number of complaints received in a short period. We have our complaints committee and it makes the final adjudication. It is not for me to decide that the Irish consumer should find a particular ad offensive. We look at how many complaints we get and whether that indicates a level of offence. That is very much separate from the question as to whether someone makes a complaint about an ad that makes a certain claim, whether about the climate or otherwise, and says he or she believes that the claim is wrong. If the ad and the medium are within our remit, we will take up and investigate the complaint, sometimes on the basis of just one complaint. We see those as very different types of complaint.

As for the monitoring, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, we are very fortunate to have had the support of EASA, which has been working with partners to develop AI tools. From a monitoring perspective, there have been programmes done in other countries. France, in particular, has done a monitoring programme on environmental claims online to capture sustainability claims. That is the type of thing we would look to do in the future, that is, how we can bring that expertise into our organisation to look at that.

Chairman

Thank you for that, Ms Twomey. Mr. White, did you want to comment on sponsorship of programming or our print media?

Mr. Jonathan White

Chairman

Great. Thank you, Ms Twomey.

We will finish up. I thank Ms Costello, Ms Twomey and Mr. Lee for attending and Mr. White for joining us from London. We very much appreciate their time and expertise. It has been a very interesting discussion and it will certainly help us as we grapple with a very difficult issue. We hope to produce a report in the new year. If the witnesses have anything further to send in to us that they think would be interesting to us in our discussions, we would certainly like to see it. We discussed a few specific issues today. If the witnesses send anything further to the secretariat, the secretariat will then circulate it to members. I thank them again.

I will now adjourn the committee until the new year.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.08 p.m. sine die.

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate - Tuesday, 13 Dec 2022

The Role of the Media and Communications in Actioning Climate Change: Discussion (Resumed)

Ms Tara Peterman

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Philip Bromwell

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Ms Tara Peterman

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Philip Bromwell

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Philip Bromwell

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Mr. Philip Bromwell

Ms Tara Peterman

Mr. Peter Woods

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Laura Costello

Mr. Jonathan White

Mr. Jonathan White

Mr. Jonathan White

Ms Laura Costello

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Ms Orla Twomey

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 2022