Skip to main content
Normal View

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)

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 ClientEarth. 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 decarbonisation 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 recognise 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.

I thank Ms Peterman for her opening statement. I now invite members to indicate if they want to ask questions. We have limited time today so I propose that we take just five minutes for questions and answers. I ask members and our witnesses to be as succinct as possible in their questions and answers. If I may go first, Ms Peterman, my committee colleague, Deputy O'Rourke mentioned last week this tendency in journalism to lean into the "Punch and Judy" style of politics. This leads to the question of the chase for ratings which I think affects some programming decisions. I will call out certain programmes on RTÉ "Liveline", "Drivetime" and "Prime Time". While all three feature climate to some degree or other they have a tendency to polarise and divide.

That might be defended on the basis that a debate is needed on particular policies, but if the overall effect is resistance to climate action, then it is a failure of our public service broadcasting. Will the witnesses respond to that? I will then have other questions.

Ms Tara Peterman

We adhere to the guidance in the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, code of programme standards as well as our own journalistic guidelines. We need to reflect views as they are present in Irish society. My colleague, Mr. Woods, may speak more specifically about the point the Chair is making.

Mr. Peter Woods

It is difficult to answer that question without the specifics of what the Chair is talking about in the particular programmes. Our starting point with climate is not to create false equivalence; two of the programmes the chair mentioned would be-----

I am not talking about false equivalence; I think we agree that generally one does not see false equivalence so much. What one does see is polarisation and division. If the interrogation of issues is not fair and thorough and the outcome is a resistance to climate action, then that is ultimately a failure. RTÉ may say it is a success because it has given the topic a platform, but it is not really because if there is resistance to whatever might be required on the ground, then we are not getting anywhere.

Mr. Peter Woods

My problem with that is I am not sure what exactly the Chair is talking about without specific information about the programmes concerned. I do not know about resistance. Our starting point is not to build resistance to anything but to have a discussion. The Chair is suggesting that the discussion is creating resistance to climate action. Without knowing the specifics, it is difficult to answer that. The Chair is talking about programmes like "Liveline", which is driven by what people telephone in to the programme about. Our starting point in a programme like "Liveline" is not that we want to do this or that, it is that the listeners phone in about different subjects and then "Liveline" presents-----

Will Mr. Woods comment on the tension between chasing ratings and listenership or viewership and a positive output in terms of informing the public?

Mr. Peter Woods

In the editorial meetings I am part of, there would not be any emphasis on chasing listenership by creating divisions. To be honest and straight up, in terms of programmes, I am not sure that works. I am not sure that people turn their radios on all the time to listen to division and argument. That is not a starting point in how we make programmes.

Sticking with the same topic, do the witnesses analyse the programming and the editorial approach on an annual basis and the effect of the editorial approach when it comes to such a serious issue as climate action?

Mr. Peter Woods

If Deputy Leddin wants to come back to me after this meeting on the specifics of what he is saying, I could answer on the specifics. Overall, we look at the reaction we get to our programmes on an ongoing basis and we look at the listenership figures we get for our programmes. My editorial line is also responsible for "Hot Mess"; we would not be making programmes like "Hot Mess" if we were just chasing the numbers. It is not something we do; we make the best programmes we can in all of the circumstances we are in.

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

I thank the witnesses for their presentation today. The opening statement articulated the importance of media and RTÉ's role when it comes to climate and environmental education. My involvement in the environmental sector was largely driven by watching Éamon de Buitléar on RTÉ many years ago. Over the past year or two, there has been a great uptick in the amount of coverage on RTÉ when it comes to environmental programming. That is to be welcomed. At the same time, there is a large amount of advertising for, say, fossil fuels and environmentally-damaging products on RTÉ. One of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, reports stated that behaviour change could complement system change in achieving rapid emissions cuts. It lists regulation of advertising as an example of a policy measure that could have a major influence on mitigative capacity. Is this something that RTÉ has looked at? Being a public broadcaster, RTÉ is a lead role in this discussion. There are things that RTÉ could do voluntarily and not to be forced to do. Has RTÉ considered banning fossil fuel ads?

Ms Tara Peterman

My colleagues and I before the committee are all involved in the content side of RTÉ. The commercial side is very much apart from us. That is not something we are necessarily equipped to answer.

The witnesses are not aware of any discussions in RTÉ; that would be a completely separate element?

Ms Tara Peterman

That is completely separate.

Do the witnesses see any divergence in their policies? If they as the content people are providing factual, evidence-based programming, is there any conflict with them doing that and putting so much emphasis on that within RTÉ and at the same time the commercial arm is working directly against what they are doing? Do the witnesses see any difficulties with that?

Mr. Peter Woods

We are primarily editorial; we make programmes. As to what happens around those programmes, we may have personal opinions, but as divisions within RTÉ, quite rightly, we are completely separate from what happens around it. I presume our colleagues who sell advertising and sponsor programmes are complying with the guidelines. Any questions around that would have to go elsewhere and not to us. People might have opinions but those are their opinions; we do not speak with one voice for RTÉ on these issues.

I am interested in the witnesses' voices as content managers of RTÉ. As they said in their opening statement, the witnesses are producing, for example, a programme that says fossil fuels are the cause of climate change and that is the reason we are having all of these weather disruptions. If they finish the programme and at the ad break it goes to SUV advertising, do the witnesses have a difficulty with that? I am asking for their opinions as content managers within RTÉ and whether they consider that to undermine the content of the programmes they have put a huge amount of effort into.

Mr. Peter Woods

In fairness, whatever opinion we might have, that is on a personal level; we cannot do anything about that. We can talk to our colleagues and make what we want known but we do not draw up the rules or legislate.

I know that, but RTÉ is a public broadcaster. There is a responsibility as a public broadcaster to lead the debate on this. Has this been raised as a policy issue with senior managers, that they are uncomfortable or feel that it undermines the work the witnesses are putting in if the station is also broadcasting ads that cause the issues the witnesses are actively trying to educate people about?

My time is up, but I find this incredibly frustrating. Mr. Woods has failed to answer Deputy Leddin's question and now he is refusing to answer mine. We are interested in the witness's opinion on this and he has literally spent three minutes avoiding the question, which I find very disappointing.

Mr. Peter Woods

The Deputy's interest is in individual opinions. If she were asking my opinion as-----

I am asking for the witnesses' opinions as the content managers of a public broadcasting unit, and whether or not they consider if this content they produce has been undermined by the commercial arm of RTÉ. That is what I am asking.

I call Deputy 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.

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

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.

We will all put in our CVs.

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.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. The ratings issue is critical here and I am a little confused. Are the witnesses trying to get broad acceptance of the seriousness of the climate crisis or are they trying to develop programming that will educate future climate scientists? If they are trying to do the latter, then absolutely the ratings are not so important as long as there are a few people tuning in. If they are trying to do the former, they need to have the shows with the highest ratings featuring climate action, and that is what we want to see. Do the witnesses have climate action and climate science woven through their flagship shows, which have the highest ratings? Is that where we will be likely to see climate in the future? I am not sure I do.

To go back to the issue of conflicts between advertising and editorial content, there is evidence from the US, in particular, that where there is a lot of fossil fuel advertising, it has an impact on editorial content and it waters down the type of content we then see. Do the witnesses have safeguards in place in the editorial section to stop that from happening? What are the processes in place to make sure that is not happening?

As regards advertising and greenwashing, I see a type of greenwashing advertising coming on in the middle of shows that show climate action. There will be advertising for cars, for instance, that are hybrid, and that will come on in the middle of a climate show, as if, if you believe in the science, this is the next thing you must do. They are not kept separate. That is where there is a big problem if editorial and advertising are not talking to each other, and it is undermining the witnesses' own shows, with respect.

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

I thank the Senator. In respect of the discussion of climate and sustainability around the broader schedules, to be fair, we make programmes specifically in this area that deal with climate and sustainability. Over the past ten years and certainly over the past five years, we have seen the topic of climate, even stuff like the "Fair City" storylines-----

My time is limited and I do not want to cut across Mr. O'Callaghan, but on the specific point, does he have input into editorial content in the flagship shows and can climate be woven into the flagship shows if it is they that are receiving the highest ratings?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

I think we have done that and it is very obvious across the schedule from anything like "Fair City" storylines to "Ear to the Ground" to building, engineering and architecture programmes. They are all produced mindful of, and against the backdrop that is informed by, climate and sustainability.

Mr. Peter Woods

It is very difficult to quantify the level. The discussion on climate has become more and more mainstream in programmes so the question is asked how that would affect the climate. We do not quantify or count that but that is asked on programmes such as Claire Byrne's programme and "Drivetime". "Morning Ireland" was broadcast from the COP summit. All of that feeds into, and increasingly feeds into, mainstream programmes.

I am delighted to hear the witnesses feel it is woven in. I do not think it is sufficiently and I do not think those shows are being used enough, but as I said last week to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, the climate science is indisputable now. That is not where the argument is anymore. What we are talking about is climate action, and what I see is that there is not enough about climate action, for instance, that people are walking and cycling on shows instead of using cars. Of course, some people will always need to use cars. I do not see enough climate action being woven through and it is still presented as a debate between one versus the other when it comes to climate action. In fact, we in our party, and I know I am probably not the only one, would be asked to go on shows against our own colleagues in government when it comes to climate action. I do not like to do that, but that shows it is still desirable in some of the shows that there is some kind of conflict around climate action and that it is politicised rather than it just being said that the facts are indisputable.

Mr. Peter Woods

If there is conflict, those programmes are reflecting an already existing conflict.

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.

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.

There was a good question from Senator Pauline O'Reilly that did not really get an answer. Perhaps it cannot be answered or perhaps the committee could get a written answer in respect of what the safeguards are around the influences between advertising and editorial content and what the mechanisms are. The witness spoke about them being separate but it is clearly an area of interest. It would be good to get a follow-up in writing from RTÉ about how that issue is navigated and how RTÉ reviews its advertising policy in light of climate change and what safeguards are in place to ensure that editorial content is not affected. It would be useful to get that in writing.

Do the witnesses wish to respond?

I do not need a response, I have my own questions now. That was just a suggestion. Another, which, if it cannot be answered, could be followed up in writing is around production. If the experts before the committee today are involved in content, production may not be their area of expertise. I would like to know about things like the Albert carbon calculator and what efforts there are in terms of increasing the sustainability of RTÉ's production methods. It would be useful to have a note on that.

My questions will be on content, as that seems to be the focus. It was interesting that "Fair City" was mentioned. The issue is not just around the journalistic aspect or empowerment, it also involves things like creative content and artistic perspectives. There has been good art in relation to climate change. When RTÉ is commissioning around drama, documentaries and art, how does climate change weave into commissioning and creative programming? The link with Science Foundation Ireland is good, but I was also glad to see the Irish Research Council and others involved because tackling this issue is not solely going to be about hard science, it is also going to be about social sciences and other forms of expertise. Increasingly, it is about justice narratives. Sometimes there is an unchallenged narrative which, as we have heard from the ESRI, the statistics do not add up on. The rural-urban divide is one such example and an easy trope that does not often stand up, as compared to what is very real, for example, international climate justice. That is a very real story; inequality is another example. How does RTÉ ensure that it does not fall into simple binaries and also look to where the narratives are? What kinds of frames is RTÉ moving towards? There is a scientific frame, but in terms of social understanding and framings, what comes in? For example, light versus heat; the thrust of my questions is about light versus heat when we look at these issues.

The witness mentioned how beginning to be mainstreamed would affect the climate. How do we mainstream that more? Everything RTÉ is reporting on, whether it is sport or education, is happening within a carbon budget and a limited carbon space.

I will remind the Senator of the time.

If something is going to cost €100 million, that will get covered as part of the story. How do we have the carbon impact covered as part of the story? My other question is about RTÉ's link with other international public service broadcasters because this is an international issue. Can that be strengthened?

Ms Tara Peterman

There are a few questions there. We can follow up in writing with some of those answers. The Senator mentioned the carbon footprint. We are signed up to the content pledge, which was created through the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, BAFTA. We are actively working on using the Albert carbon calculator across various programmes; in fact it was used for "Prime Time". I think the "Late Late Show" is also using it. It is something we are actively engaged in.

Regarding weaving in social and behavioural sciences, I know that Professor Lunn came in and spoke to the committee recently. He has been involved in some of our programmes and documentaries as well as "Prime Time", for example. The quantity and range of what we are doing across RTÉ is quite extensive now. It is embedded in our everyday conversations. We talk about climate change and environmental issues at editorial meetings.

On the question about impact, we did research, which was not about ratings per se, but about overall viewership or engagement. We did that research before and after the "RTÉ on Climate" week, which involved eight hours of bespoke television, 15 radio items, two full programmes on radio and 68 online articles and RTÉ Player exclusives, which reached 1.6 million Irish adults, or 44% of the adult population. Our coverage is there and it is across the board. It is in arts; while I cannot speak to the arts, I am aware of it because our colleagues come and talk to us about it. It is across sport, for example, coverage of World Cup recently was not just about the players or the winners and losers or the money; the climate aspects of the World Cup were discussed in broadcast and online.

My question involved the move towards the measurable. For example, if a project cost €1 billion, one would talk about it costing €1 billion; similarly, weaving in the measurement of carbon impact, one would say the carbon impact was this or that when talking about projects that are not necessarily climate projects. It is about making it a standard piece of information attached to discussions. Will the witnesses comment on the international public broadcaster element as well?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

On that, as I said earlier, the cost of big, high-end natural history and wildlife content is often very high and to that end, credit to those producers that Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned earlier, who, in order to get content up and moving and into production are really engaged with co-producers, other distributors and licensees. I have projects on my plate that are co-produced with ARTE, BBC, BBC Northern Ireland and distributors in America like Blue Ant Media. International co-production is a standard template when in the space of natural history and wildlife because of cost.

Due to the climate justice issue, it should also involve developing countries, not just looking to where the money is for co-production but also where the story is-----

I want to be fair. The Senator may come back in again if we have a few minutes later. I call Deputy 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.

We would encourage people in all areas to have an interest in climate change but it cannot be reached for. If we are trying to put something across or make a programme, including news programmes, we have to bring people with us. How that is done is very important, so we look at how we can bring people with us in those areas. Taking public transport as an example, last night's "Hot Mess" programme looked at whether we would be better off putting the money that is given to purchasers of new electric cars into public transport. We look at the issue in different areas. However, if someone comes to a meeting to try to get a story on air, that story also has to stand on its merits to some extent.

We are facing what could be, if we do not get a grip on this, the end of human civilisation. I always say the planet will be grand. It is the human beings living on it in such a parasitic fashion who are the main problem. I am concerned that there seems to be very little cohesion between the advertising and editorial departments. As a public broadcaster in receipt of public money, does RTÉ have a particular duty to look at that? The dissonance that has came across at this meeting is a little disturbing.

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

RTÉ is unique in respect of its funding. It is co-funded through commercial incomes and the licence fee. The conflict between those is as long and colourful as the history of the organisation itself. I work in the area of factual content and we are very clear about the distance between our commercial activities and our obligations, particularly regarding the public-facing content we do. We have very robust internal codes in and around the advertising that we take. I am almost certain that RTÉ does not take advertising for and does not advertise products that are in any way illegal, for instance. There is a lot of conversation on an ongoing basis about-----

I apologise for interrupting Mr. O'Callaghan but Mr. Woods appeared very defensive when the distance between the two editorial departments was brought up by my colleagues.

Mr. Peter Woods

Advertising is not editorial. There is one editorial in RTÉ and then there is advertising. Advertising is not editorial.

I know that and what I said was that the cohesion between the advertising department and the editorial department seems to be lacking. Given that RTÉ is a public service broadcaster, does it not have a duty to look at that and-----

Mr. Peter Woods

As my colleague said, there is a set of guidelines that surrounds what we can and cannot advertise. I am assuming that we are not advertising anything that we are not supposed to be advertising.

I will let my colleague in.

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----

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.

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.

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.

I will go back to a point that was raised at the end of my previous slot in the context of reflecting the debate as it is. The entire point of this is not to create a sense that both sides are equal, is it not? Is that not what the witnesses say they are doing in their programming? They are creating a platform to have two sides, and some politicians will lean into that. They will know they can get airtime on political programmes if they go against the green agenda, and they do so for that reason. That is what I see happening.

Perhaps the witnesses will have to come back to the committee on this next question. How much of RTÉ's advertising revenue comes from climate polluting companies? Is there a breakdown of where in the schedule those kinds of ads can be seen? What kind of ads are displayed during the set climate programming?

Our guests already indicated they will not be answering questions on revenue and advertising.

Will they come back on that? With respect, this is a key part of why representatives from RTÉ are before the committee? I brought up advertising last week. Everyone is on notice that advertising is a critical part of this.

Over to RTÉ.

Ms Tara Peterman

As I said earlier, we are prepared to deliver something in writing on the questions the committee has about advertising. It is just not for the people in this room to discuss that.

Is there a reply to the first question?

Ms Tara Peterman

Will the Senator remind me of the first question?

It goes back to the point I was left with at the end of my previous slot. I will not repeat everything I said, but essentially what RTÉ says it is doing through its political programmes is reflecting a debate, if a debate is there, on climate. The entire point of what was said in the opening statement is that RTÉ does not give equivalence to both sides, if there are two sides, and that it accepts and highlights the climate science. When politicians are allowed to take one side or another, or to have a debate on air, you will find politicians lining up on the other side to say that the kind of climate action that we know scientifically is required, is not required, just in order that they can get on air. RTÉ is not reflecting the debate; it is creating that debate. Does Ms Peterman agree?

Ms Tara Peterman

In the programmes we make - I said this earlier but allow me to repeat it, if I may - we give due weight to the consensus of contemporary scientific knowledge in respect of climate change. This is from the journalistic guidelines. We also reflect the views that exist in society, but we come back to and our foundations are in science. If we are doing a programme where we are talking about views on climate change, we may follow with a scientist who says that all measures need to be taken or that we will still need to get to certain places in order to meet our targets. We are reflecting the debate that exists.

I am not sure there is any point in coming back in, other than to say I am not talking about the climate programmes. I am talking about political programming. The latter is what more people listen to. Programmes are still giving equal weight to things that do not carry equal weight in terms of the science.

I have some sympathy with RTÉ on this, in that if we have censorship and do not allow political figures to express their views, that is not good either. We have to have engagement with vested interests, as RTÉ says in its document. We cannot be so purest to imagine that all scientists are icons of objectivity and all politicians are climate deniers. There is a need for RTÉ to create a ring within which the objective truth is out there, but there is still a feeling that different points of view are being heard. I am slightly nervous about the direction the committee is leaning towards because some scientists - we have had them before the committee - can be dogmatic and present, not solutions but, rather, impossible options to politicians who are trying to get a majority of people to support a programme of change. We need to strike a balance. RTÉ is reflecting our community, and it is not all at one. I am not for a moment saying that the science is not categoric on climate, but RTÉ has a difficult line to walk. I appreciate what it is trying to do. At times it could be done better but I see the dilemma it is in.

I thank the Deputy. Do the witnesses wish to respond?

Mr. Peter Woods

That describes pretty much what it is like. If we were talking about different viewpoints on something like rewetting, we have a job to do. The only way we can bring climate change into programmes as an argument or a subject is to engage with different aspects of it. I suspect, but I have no numbers on this, that the vast majority of people probably think that actions are needed in respect of climate change. However, it is about how it is done and the cost to people. I am also thinking about the people we do not reach. I sometimes think that we are largely speaking to the converted. It is about people who are probably looking at the big climate issue of how to heat their houses in these times. We consider all aspects of this but if we are not reflecting the other side of an argument and if we are saying it does not exist, we are not doing our job. That is why we are here. We are here to reflect the country in as wide a sense as possible.

I have two questions. First, on the issue of the expert and the broadcaster on an individual show, how has RTÉ responded in the area of research capacity or training for individual broadcasters or the team? It is a very technical area. We are doing things in this country we have never done before. There are new ideas and concepts in terms of climate research capacity and training that has gone into preparing for programmes. Second, when it comes to the selection of contributors, do they consider, for example, the nature of their vested interests or whether they have been funded by the fossil fuel industry? Is it made explicit? Do they do that sort of due diligence? If a conflict of interest, or at least a vested interest, is found, does RTÉ ensure it is made public?

Mr. Peter Woods

To answer the latter part of that question, our production teams would ask questions of people. If we were to bring in public relations firms on any issue we ask them who they represent before they go on air. If they are still used in the programme, and they are lobbyists or whatever, we make that clear.

Is it the same for scientists and expert contributors, for example?

Mr. Peter Woods

If we are looking at a study for instance, we look at where the funding for the study came from.

What about the research capacity and training for broadcasters, producers and programme teams?

Ms Tara Peterman

We have had training here at RTÉ. We had a climate science seminar with Professor Peter Thorne from Maynooth University, who is one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report. That was on planet science. We also had a session with Dr. Dave Robbins from DCU on climate communications. A number of our key people across news and current affairs have a background in environment, and perhaps were environmental correspondents in a previous portfolio. We have colleagues who have, of their own accord, engaged in further training and education. One of them is getting a masters degree in DCU. Mr. Bromwell has some things to add here.

Mr. Philip Bromwell

On a micro level I have just become a member of the Oxford climate journalism network. That puts me in a field with 100 other journalists and editors from around the world. This is with the support of the organisation. It is absolutely with the intent of improving my own climate literacy. It also means I can feed back to my team to improve its climate literacy, which informs the organisation's climate literacy. That is just me speaking personally. However, it is reflected in many other individuals across the organisation, who in their own way are seeking to broaden their knowledge and horizons on what is undoubtedly the defining issue of our times.

It is welcome to hear that. Is there much resistance, opposition or dismissal of this move?

Ms Tara Peterman

Of education?

Mr. Philip Bromwell

Absolutely not within this organisation. My application for that network was entirely endorsed and supported by the organisation. It was seen as a good thing. Equally, myself and several other colleagues are members of a network called Covering Climate Now. That is all about broadening our perspectives, and giving us a global perspective so we are not just looking at things happening locally. Everybody's education in this is going to be vital going forwards. Every avenue and every opportunity will be explored. Certainly, it is my experience that it will be backed and supported.

Ms Tara Peterman

That has proved to be my experience as well.

The witnesses have made clear that advertising is very much the remit of the commercial side, and the committee is certainly looking forward to a response in writing if they can give one. If members agree we might seek to have the RTÉ commercial division in at a future date. Can the witnesses tell me about sponsorship of programming? Do they have any role there? Is there any overlap between their role as content managers and the sponsorship of programming? Have they any input into that?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

We have editorial representation on an internal sponsorship committee.

I can think of shows that are sponsored by, and feature products within the show, that are not climate friendly. I am talking about SUVs. Would the editorial representatives have any input on whether a car manufacturer promoting and selling SUVs should sponsor a show?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

That would be debated very robustly within RTÉ's internal sponsorship committee. I am not sure what programmes the Deputy is referring to. If he could be specific I could chase back and come back to the committee.

"Drivetime" was sponsored. It may not be at the moment. I do not think there is any sponsor for "Drivetime" at the moment. Is that correct?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

Yes.

It was sponsored in the not too distant past. Is there a policy to prevent greenwashing happening on their programming, both through content and extending to product placement featuring influencers for example? Is greenwashing something they are actively trying to ensure does not happen on their programmes?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

We have very clear guidelines on product placement as well. Any production or output that we make, which does have product implications, is clearly labelled.

Do the guidelines apply to the climate?

Mr. Colm O'Callaghan

They apply to all content.

I call 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.

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.

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.

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.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Orla Twomey, chief executive, and Mr. Michael Lee, deputy chief executive officer, from the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know it is not the ASAI's job to decide what the policy is, but would Ms Twomey say that the resources required would be reduced if there was a straight-cut ban on certain fossil fuel advertisement?

Ms Orla Twomey

If the advertising for any product category is subject to a legislative ban, there will not be any advertising and we will not get complaints. I do not know how fast that could happen. Even if that is a policy aim for the Government or the EU, we still need to make sure that, in the interim, the advertising in place is responsible. This is an evolving area. Our understanding of the issues is also evolving. The guidance on substantiation for the life cycle would still need to be developed by the EU. With most of these matters, bans do not come in overnight. There is a consultation process. From an ASAI point of view, we still need to continue to do our work to ensure that we develop our understanding in this area and , insofar as we possibly can, that our decisions do not have unintended consequences. Like everybody else, we understand that there is a real issue here.

Ms Twomey pointed to the importance of consumers knowing that there is no greenwashing involved when they are buying products and that they are doing their bit. For example, on petrol company was using an advertising slogan about carbon neutral driving. I and, no doubt, many others submitted complaints to the ASAI in respect of that particular issue, saying that there is no such thing as driving carbon neutral. If you put petrol or diesel into your car, that is not driving carbon neutral. However, the complaint was not upheld. The company was allowed to continue to use that advertisement. This is an example where a fossil fuel ban would just eliminate the ambiguity that exists. Everybody here knows that when there is petrol or diesel going into an engine, that is not carbon neutral.

Ms Orla Twomey

Rather than discuss a particular individual adjudication that the complaints committee has already made, if we look at the UK recent research on consumer understanding of carbon neutral and net neutral has been carried out discovered that this is an evolving area. I am not saying that we will make a different decision. We have to look at the information with which we are provided. In particular cases, we take account of the entirety of the information provided and what we understand the advertisers are saying in their advertisements. It is an evolving area. This year has accelerated the conversations we have had with our European colleagues about the absolute game-changer that needs to be introduced in order for not only the advertising industry but also for the regulators to support a change in how we approach these areas.

Ms Twomey outlined clearly why a panel would be more effective. It is difficult to adjudicate on certain products known to be damaging in the context of climate change. What is the average time between a complaint being lodged and an answer being supplied? In view of the complications of deciding whether something is greenwashing or a substantiated claim, has the ASAI adequate resources to look at these?

Ms Orla Twomey

To give an average across all complaints would be misleading. If we get a complaint that is out of remit, it is dealt with very fast. If we get a complaint on which we do some investigation but in respect of which we ultimately decide that there is no need to go further, that involves its own timeframe. Adjudicated complaints, particularly on complex issues relating to, for example, as environmental claims, can take longer not least because we will often go to a third party to get information or advice. In the case of advertising relating to medicines, for example, we might go to the Health Products Regulatory Authority for advice. It is hard to say with specificity, in a way that is not misleading, how long it takes to deal with a complaint.

It can take up to year.

Ms Orla Twomey

In complex cases, yes, it can.

I am conscious of the time. When there is an adjudication, say for example the ASAI found an advertisement is in breach of the codes, what is the penalty for a company? Do we inform the public that this advertisement has been misleading?

Ms Orla Twomey

We publish all our adjudications on our website, and we also release them to media. Our general experience is they get coverage in the media. More than that, if we find a particular practice in an advertisement is misleading and in breach of the code, then that applies to all advertising that will follow that practice. It is not just that we are finding against one advertisement. We are potentially changing a business practice. We only follow up on that to ensure where there are adjudications that have industry-wide application that adjudication is taken into account.

In regard to public bodies, are they still exempt from the ASAI code?

Ms Orla Twomey

Advertising that does not involve a commercial element to it is not within the code. We have a broad understanding of what constitutes commercial. Advertising relating to public bodies, NGOs or charities that does not involve a commercial or financial element is not currently covered by the code.

With apologies to members, I would like to follow up on Senator Boylan's line of questioning. In the context of this lengthy process, for which there may be legitimate reasons, an advertiser might be quite happy that an adjudication goes against them a year later because the advertisement will have fulfilled its purpose. What is in place to mitigate against that or to prevent this kind of abuse of the system?

Ms Orla Twomey

Different types of advertising claims can be made.

Some cases that involve complex substantiation issues or complex potential unintended consequences can take longer. Generally speaking, however, the claims being made by those advertising are the type of claims that the advertiser and the sector will want to continue to make. They are not short-term claims. They are-----

Essentially, a precedent is set.

Ms Orla Twomey

A precedent is set. These type of claims tend to be part of the brand-building of companies.

If a precedent is set, and those advertising breach that precedent because it suits them, and they can get their advertising out to millions of people which sells their products, what happens then?

Ms Orla Twomey

From the ASAI point of view, if advertising that has been found to be in breach of the code is repeated, whether it is offline in the traditional media or even on social media platforms, we can ask for the advertising to be removed. We can say we have a precedent, we have an adjudication-----

Can that can happen very quickly?

Ms Orla Twomey

Yes.

Ms Orla Twomey

Our experience is that our adjudications are respected. Advertisers might not like what we decide but they will comply with adjudications. We also have a review process. If either an advertiser or a complainant is unhappy with an adjudication, they can apply for a review by another panel to look at whether there is an issue with how the adjudication was formed.

I will follow on from those points. The point the Chair made is very valid. If there is a process that could take a year to be finalised, and during that year a company has put a lot of money behind its advertisement and is getting value from its ad over that period, should that ad be shown if an adjudication process is under way? Should it be the case that once a complaint has been submitted, the ad has been deemed inappropriate and the ASAI is giving it serious consideration, the ad should be pulled until that adjudication is finalised?

Ms Orla Twomey

That is not generally part of our process. Under our process, the advertiser is the one responsible for proving its compliance with the code. It is not that the complainant has to prove his or her case. There is a reversal of what might be the case in a legal situation. The advertising is not found to be in breach until a decision is made. From a due process point of view, if we applied what the Deputy suggested broadly across all sectors, we might have a problem. Under the code, we have a process where we can accelerate a situation or an investigation, and we can ask for the removal of advertising, but it is very rarely used. It is used in cases where something is highly and grossly offensive or involves something that is potentially harmful, for example, to children. It is very rare that we use those powers to have advertising withdrawn pending a full investigation.

The ASAI has a very difficult job. If part of its code is to determine whether an ad is responsible, that is a very subjective thing. On what Ms Twomey mentioned regarding something that is damaging to children, I contend that making Ireland unliveable is damaging to children. If we come at it using a very much precautionary approach, any ad that promotes something that is environmentally or climate damaging is going against the ASAI code. It is a very difficult position for the ASAI to be in to have to adjudicate on that. I agree that is potentially where the benefit of a ban is because that makes it very clear-cut.

At present, I do not see what the penalties are for any large companies if they can continue to advertise, and have a particular ad in the general public arena, while this lengthy adjudication process happens. I just do not know what the disadvantage is for a company on that basis. I imagine that companies would make that assessment in some instances. They put something out that they know is potentially just on the edge of what is deemed acceptable in the hope that their ad can continue for a certain length of time and they can get the revenue and financial benefit from it.

Some €1.2 billion was mentioned as what is spent on advertising in Ireland. Is there a breakdown of what proportion of that is fossil fuel advertising? The ASAI might do this, but is there a breakdown anywhere of how much is fossil fuel advertising as against ordinary ads? What percentage of complaints coming to the ASAI relate to greenwashing? Has it seen an increase in that?

Ms Laura Costello

I have not seen any breakdown of the €1.23 billion that includes the percentage of fossil fuel advertising. There is an interesting breakdown in the advertised emissions report I submitted in respect of the higher carbon industries and how they are impacting on the lifestyle carbon footprints of individuals. One of the call-out points to note is that 33% of advertised emissions are related to automotive campaigns. That accounts for just 6% of ad spend. It can be seen that the high-carbon categories are really having an impact on overall emissions. I would also love to see a breakdown of that €1.23 billion.

Mr. Jonathan White

I will come in briefly on the automotive point. For example, in the wider context of SUV advertising, which is advertising for larger and bigger cars that involve larger cost margins for the manufacturers, the growth in SUVs has swamped the gains from the increase in electric vehicles globally. That is the nature of the problem of advertising pulling in the opposite direction to the gains being made through climate action.

What about the statistics?

Ms Orla Twomey

Complaints about advertising that contain environmental or green claims are not a huge proportion of the number of complaints we receive. I had a quick look and in the past five years, there are probably approximately ten complaints a year on average. Sometimes, one ad might be subject to more complaints and another less. It is not an area that is a significant source of complaint for us. Nevertheless, it is an area that we believe is very important for us to focus on.

On the time it takes to investigate complaints, not all complaints take a year and not all complaints that relate to environmental claims take a year. It is just that, sometimes, certain ones have a particular focus. I do not want the committee to think that is the standard for all complaints we deal with.

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.

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?

I do not think we should name entities.

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

It is on the public record so we have to be fair to them as well.

Ms Orla Twomey

We upheld complaints against the advertisements by one of those organisations recently. The discussions we have been having at European level, as Ms Costello has been saying as well, are about being the force for good and doing no harm. This is about using the standards to encourage advertisers to be that force for good and to show behaviour that is sustainable and not going to do harm. It is a complex area and it is not just related to fossil fuel companies. Across the board, the role for standards is to try and encourage companies in little ways in their advertising to show behaviour that is sustainable and that encourages consumers to do something better. That is part of the discussions we are having, albeit they are at an early enough stage but we are clearly aware that as a regulatory industry to look at what our role is in this area. It is evolving and I am not going to talk in detail about decisions previously made. Sometimes decisions have been made because of the particular complaint and that is what we have focused on. Moving forward with this into next year and the years after, we will look at how we can support the industry generally to be the force for good while, at the same time, recognising we are just one cog in of all the controls that need to be implemented and all the actions that need to be taken.

Ms Laura Costello

When we talk about these cases, many times complaints are upheld because you are able to tick a box with some information you are able to provide. This conversation comes back to a broader one around the industry being encouraged to use its moral muscle more. We saw this year, with the likes of Russia, when a lot of advertising was pulled from that country. This is a topic on which we need to encourage the industry to use that moral muscle in a way and to accelerate that as much as possible.

It is that question of the different cogs in the machine. We have focused a lot on self-regulation, which of course is the ASAI, but the key focus, and what we need to examine, is the regulations. They are, of course, a harder and a stronger tool in that regard. We have discussed a ban on fossil fuel advertising and certain forms of automotive advertising and I am very sympathetic to the idea of it. I suggest looking to ads for products such as infant formula, which have both an ethical as well as environmental impact. It is an area of advertising that was discussed during our debates on the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022. In that regard, the ban is one tool and then the other is hard regulations. It is not just self-regulation or a ban; there is a ban and then there is regulation. One thing we will see is new media codes being developed through the online safety Act. This is Ireland's transposition of the EU's audiovisual media services directive. I would appreciate the take of the witnesses on what a strong transposition the audiovisual media services directive or Digital Services Act will look like in the context of media codes or clear regulation. Within that, I would appreciate the thoughts of the witnesses, especially those Purpose Disruptors Ireland, around what kinds of elements could go into those new hard media codes. For example, under the self-regulation, section 15 of the ASAI code is just environmental claims. It does not tackle issues such as being honest about the carbon impact of a company's product or a green subsidiary of a major fossil fuel corporation having to be transparent about its links. It does not include everything anything about the life cycle cost or impact. Are there elements we should be looking to make requirements in advertisements rather than just mistakes companies should not make? I am interested in that because those codes are a new area of regulation that is coming in and it would be great for us to try to jump in at the best practice level on this.

Lastly then, I have a question to any of the panel but again, in particular to the representatives of Purpose Disruptors Ireland. They mentioned creativity. When we have a hard regulatory measure, such as in the alcohol Bill, which provides for serious constraints, how can that spark creativity and looking at this in a different way? It relates to the idea of it almost being a frame for a better industry and another frame within that being the emissions of the industry. There is a big difference between a ten-second video that is running all the time and a stationary ad. There is a big difference in how much data different advertising approaches take. Ireland is looking at a third of its electricity potentially going to data centres. Will the representatives comment on the ethics of the mechanics of the industry and, again, how that can be regulated for and how best practice can also be encouraged in that regard?

Mr. Jonathan White

I am afraid I am not very familiar with the shape of the new audiovisual regulation, which is going to limit my answer somewhat but I apologise for that. The Senator made a point about the general need for harder law and regulation to serve a role in this space just like the role the self-regulatory bodies like the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK plays as well. That is necessary. The clear case for restricting certain kinds of advertising that we know creates things we do not want, which is more demand for the very things we need to phase out, needs to be complemented with an enforcement drive to address the enforcement gap I referred to in my opening statement. However, the problem with those harder law tools is that they effectively incentivise litigation responses from the companies that end up subject to them and that leads to the three-year court process; the complex arguments over the average consumer understanding; and it becomes quite hard. There is a need for clear principles on that which govern general environmental communication. The EU is overhauling its consumer law and there will be some of those instruments in there which could be developed upon in the member states.

My question is for the representatives of both Purpose Disruptors Ireland and the ASAI. When we seek to have new media codes, self-regulation should surely be ahead of what is required. If we raise the bar on all the hard regulation, do we then need the industry to be steps ahead so it moves almost beyond the law, with incentivisation beyond the legal requirements?

Ms Laura Costello

On the challenge with the kinds of elements that need to go into media codes, we need to have codes that encourage people or ensure they back up claims they are making. This should include life cycle analysis and everything the Senator has mentioned. When it comes to the actual advertisement going out into the world, however, messages are communicated in such short periods. There are ten- and 30-second advertisements, for example, and everything cannot go into those. Very few people are going to do research on having seen one piece of content. The broader shift we need to talk about goes back to the opportunity I talked about in respect of treating people as consumers who buy things. As an industry, we use the word "consumer". We need to take responsibility for the creative content going out into the world and treat people more as citizens. We must consider the stories we are telling each other as a nation. The narrative needs to be less about encouraging people to go to shopping centres and more about how we encourage people, through our work, to treat one another better, build community, go out into nature and have more meaningful lifestyles. That does not mean businesses will not thrive. This is about promoting the green economy and the adoption of certain lifestyles and behaviours, but through new types of stories. As an industry, we came up through the Industrial Revolution. We were taught to sell things. Everyone I speak to within the industry through the lens of Purpose Disruptors Ireland is quite uncomfortable with that being part of their job description right now. It is a matter of how to use the creative skills better.

The question of hard regulatory measures, as mentioned by the Senator, relates to the impact in terms of framing for a better industry. We have work called Good Life 2030, which is all about helping people in the industry to understand the framing objective and shift the narrative towards the lifestyles people say they want.

We have focused on the lifestyles but, at other sessions on communications, we heard about the focus on the individual as opposed to the focus on the collective.

We are way over time.

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.

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

There may be some time. I thank the Senator.

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.

On what Mr. White was saying earlier about SUVs, an SUV has a footprint of more than 30 tonnes per vehicle compared with 8 tonnes for a small-sized car. That is a multiple of four. Where does the ASAI stand on advertising that does not seek in any way to address that dramatic difference? To stay within the self-regulatory framework, is there not an obligation to move on some of these matters? There is scope in the future for labelling but I do not believe we are anywhere close to having the level of knowledge required. A regulatory scheme could be detailed, but, as was said, primary legislation is very inflexible. How will the representatives respond to what is clearly the existential challenge to us? Saying people should not have marketing tricks is a very low bar. What is the task of the self-regulator if we are not to trigger much more heavy-handed regulation? I suppose the jury is out on that. We really need to move a little more aggressively to lock down some of the practices that are clearly present.

Mr. Jonathan White

I will begin and then pass over to Ms Twomey on the 32% statistic. The Deputy's question was on the ramifications in countries where bans have been introduced.

The ramifications in the discourse in those countries have been quite varied. In France, there is a watered-down version of the ban sought by the participants at the climate assembly. There has been a significant backlash against President Macron for being perceived as picking and choosing in the context of what is said at and recommended by citizens at the assembly. Where bans have happened at municipal level, it is quite limited. I refer, for example, to the city limits of Amsterdam. Companies have argued against that ban being widened on the basis that they can start to increase things like health warnings but, again, that is something that is not backed up as an effective solution. I encourage people to look at the UK House of Lords' behaviour change report, which covers the lessons of all the different behaviour change initiatives in the past very well. This report basically states that information provision on its own is highly unlikely to drive sustained behaviour change based on experience in many other areas.

I have not seen any particular figures regarding loss of revenue, but the need for the advertising industry to make revenue from fossil fuels must be balanced against the need for a smooth transition towards the very near-term changes that are required. On its net-zero pathway, the International Energy Agency has a phasing out of new gas boilers from 2025 and that is global. A country like Ireland or the UK should probably be moving ahead of that. There is not really the time to experiment with some of this stuff, so that need would have to be balanced against loss of revenue. I will hand over to Ms Costello to finish up on the point about the statistic.

Ms Laura Costello

It is a phenomenal figure, at 32%. It should be on every advertising team's wall to look at as a challenge. It is not disputed. It was presented at COP27 this year in Sharm El-Sheikh. Again, it is UK-based but we think it would be quite similar here. It is calculated using the UK advertising spend by sector, the advertising return on investment by sector and the greenhouse gas emissions per pound output by sector. It takes into account the effects of the supply chains of all the products that are sold, and that equals the advertised emissions. Many of the economic metrics and figures behind those calculations are used to calculate the effectiveness of the industry generally so it takes into account how we tell people we are good at our jobs. It uses everything in terms of the products that go out into the world - their entire life cycle essentially - to get to that figure and it is not disputed.

Do the witnesses attribute all the SUVs to the advertising?

Ms Laura Costello

It is the life of the SUV. They treat automotives differently compared with other categories. They were able to say that the estimated time this car will be on the road and then use that within the calculation as well.

Does it attribute it all to the advertising campaign?

Ms Laura Costello

Only the uplift in sales.

Ms Orla Twomey

In respect of the ASAI's position on this, I do not have all the answers. It is still a work in progress; it is something we need to look at. We see it as a shared problem that requires a shared solution. We have been talking with EASA colleagues about how to address some of these issues. The issue raised by the Deputy relates to whether particular product types should have declarations in the advertising as to their emissions. There are legislative requirements around this but they are not within the ASAI code. It is something we can take away from and consider whether we should go further on this but I do not have all the answers. It is still a work in progress.

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 ClientEarth. 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?

Who was the first question for?

The first question was for ClientEarth.

Mr. Jonathan White

ClientEarth 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 its scope.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It would be helpful if Ms Costello could find a breakdown. It would help the committee in its formulation of a report and recommendations to have those figures.

In our previous session, representatives of the public service broadcaster, RTÉ, were before the committee. They were clear that advertising is separate from content creation. Towards the end of the session, they conceded that when it comes to sponsorship of shows and programming, advertisers have an input. That is interesting. I am interested in hearing the views of all the witnesses in that regard. There is a crossover there and it would be concerning if sponsors were influencing the content of shows. This applies not only to broadcast media but also to print media. There are examples of paid for opinion pieces where it is often not clear that they are paid for. They influence public opinion and are, essentially, advertisements. I am interested in hearing the views of our guests.

Ms Orla Twomey

From an ASAI perspective, programme content does not come within our remit but the advertising of the sponsorship does. Certain product categories should not be sponsoring certain programmes. In the case of gambling, for example, sponsors should be careful that they are not using children in sponsorship advertisements and things like that. However, the editorial content is not within our remit. Advertising features or advertorials in traditional media are within our remit. That is where an advertiser creates content and pays for it to be placed in, say, a publication. The code requires that to be disclosed as advertising material because where the advertiser has paid for it and has significant control of its content, that is advertising. We would be concerned about the transparency piece.

I imagine the ASAI is challenged in that regard. The sponsor is sponsoring a show for a reason. The show might be all about the importance of climate action and a sponsor that wants to sell its product can creatively disguise the fact that its product does not align with climate action and might, in fact, pull against it. How can the ASAI get around that? Is it resourced well enough to understand the difference between sponsorship that is harmful and sponsorship that is genuinely aligned?

Ms Orla Twomey

Our code does not currently have a set of rules that relates to the choice of sponsorship in a general way or that assesses whether a particular sponsorship is appropriate. In respect of programme codes, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has programme codes as well as separate advertising codes and there is a reason there is a separation between programme content and advertising content. If we received a complaint about a sponsorship advertisement, we would examine whether it was misleading or whether any other element of the code was breached. However, whether or not it is an appropriate sponsorship is not something we currently consider.

Does Ms Twomey have concerns in that regard? Sponsorship is a challenging area.

Ms Orla Twomey

I can absolutely understand what the concerns would be if there were a lack of alignment between the two. However, it is not something that currently falls within our remit. While I can understand the concern, I cannot offer a position on it.

The code is within the remit of the ASAI.

Ms Orla Twomey

It is. The code deals with commercial marketing and communications, not with programme content or considerations as to whether sponsorship is aligned to the programme content. I would argue that the selection of a sponsor by the programme is where that responsibility rests.

Who regulates that?

Ms Orla Twomey

The BAI has codes of conduct for programme standards. I am not sure whether that responsibility lies within those codes. I can reach out to the BAI to seek further information.

It would be helpful to us to clarify that.

Ms Orla Twomey

Sure.

It seems to be a very grey area and a challenging one. People watch these programmes and want to make the right choice, and then the show is sponsored by some company and they go off and make purchasing decisions they think are the right ones but which may not be.

Ms Orla Twomey

Yes. I understand.

Senator Boylan, did you want to come in briefly?

Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. White from ClientEarth to outline his view on the sponsorship element. As for the radio and television advertisements, one is sponsored by a boiler manufacturer and another by Glanbia, which is a large dairy producer. They sponsor the weather, and we are going through our mildest and coldest winter.

Ms Twomey said that only ten complaints per year relate to greenwashing. How much emphasis does the ASAI put on the number of complaints that come in and the scrutiny that is given to them? Looking at the Tampax ad, one of the arguments the ASAI made in its judgment was about the number of complaints that came in - there were 84 complaints - and that, therefore, clearly, those complaints were unprompted and the ad was offensive. The problem, however, is that climate change is a very complex area. Greenwashing is even more complicated. I am probably responsible for half of the ten complaints the ASAI has received. How much emphasis does the ASAI place on the number of people who make a complaint? Does it proactively monitor advertising? Does it make random selections and look at them? I am very concerned if it is to fall to the individual, the public, to make complaints flagging advertisements that could constitute greenwashing.

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.

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

Mr. Jonathan White

Yes. Sponsorship was included in the European citizens' initiative I mentioned. The reason for that, essentially, is that it is seen as a key way of maintaining social licence and creating brand sympathy, which is inimical to the changes I flagged in my opening statement. It is also a lesson taken from the tobacco area. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control includes a prohibition on activities called brand stretching and brand sharing, whereby a company advertises a product in order to maximise sales of another product that is core to its brand. It is that lesson that is really important to learn in this context. The tobacco example is one where narrower forms of advertising progressively widened to achieve the change that was needed, but we do not have as much time in this case.

The final issue I will flag is the importance of social media advertising. It is very difficult to police social media advertising for the simple reason that it cannot be found. Social media advertising occurs on some of the big tech platforms - Twitter, Facebook, etc. - but is shown only to the person who sees it. Some of those platforms, in limited ways, maintain databases that are searchable by the public for seeing what kinds of adverts popped up. They tend to pop up or run for sometimes three days a week over two weeks. Having tried to reconstruct that sort of thing a few times, I can tell the committee that it is very challenging to find out something even when you know what you are looking for, let alone trying to monitor it. It seems to be an area that is generally quite difficult to establish transparency over.

Thank you for that, Mr. White. It is after 2 o'clock. I do not know if anybody else wishes to ask a quick question or make a brief comment before we finish.

Ms Orla Twomey

If I may, the challenge with online monitoring and social media is among the tools that have been developed at European level that we will be able to use. Take, for example, influencer marketing on Instagram. We did a pilot programme whereby we captured this over a particular period. You cannot capture the whole of the Internet in one go but you can certainly capture some of it such that it can be looked at. That is definitely something we and our partners in Europe will do more of, that is, using the tech tools to check compliance.

That is good.

Could we get a breakdown of the average time it takes for complaints to be addressed? Ms Twomey said that some can take a matter of weeks. Would it be possible for the committee to get that information?

Ms Orla Twomey

We will certainly look at what we can share.

Perfect. I thank Ms Twomey.

Maybe we could have a bit more information than the average time because that can be misleading. Perhaps we could have an analysis of-----

Ms Orla Twomey

Yes. We will look at what we can share.

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. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 January 2024.
Top
Share