Decision

Initial assessment: a complaint against Virgin Atlantic Ltd by Possible: the 10:10 Foundation

Published 1 May 2026

1. The UK National Contact Point’s (UK NCP) initial assessment process is a decision on whether the issues raised in the complaint merit further examination. It does not determine whether the respondent has acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (the ‘guidelines’). 

Summary of the UK NCP decision

2. The complaint has been raised by Possible: the 10:10 Foundation (‘the complainant’), a UK-based charity focused on reducing carbon emissions. The complaint has been raised with the UK NCP against Virgin Atlantic Ltd (‘the respondent’), an international airline headquartered in the UK.

3. The complainant alleges that the respondent failed to observe paragraphs in Chapter VI ‘Environment’ and Chapter VIII ‘Consumer Interests’ of the guidelines. Specifically, the complainant alleges that the respondent has made a number of inaccurate statements that could mislead consumers and the public about its efforts to reduce its environmental impact.

4. The OECD guidelines were updated in June 2023. The complaint details alleged breaches of the 2023 guidelines, but as the complainant alleges the statements in question were published prior to June 2023, the UK NCP has assessed the complaint against the relevant sections of the 2011 guidelines. Where the statements in question were cited in the complaint as published on websites which were online after June 2023, the UK NCP has also assessed these against the 2023 guidelines.

5. After conducting an initial assessment of the complaint, the UK NCP has decided that elements of this complaint merit further consideration under the following paragraphs of the 2011 and 2023 guidelines: 

• Chapter VI, paragraph 2(a) ‘Environment’ (2011) / Chapter VI, paragraph 1(d) ‘Environment’ (2023)

• Chapter VI, paragraph 6(c) ‘Environment’ (2011) / Chapter VI, paragraph 5(c) ‘Environment’ (2023)

• Chapter VIII, paragraph 2 ‘Consumer Interests’ (2011 and 2023)

• Chapter VIII, paragraph 4 ‘Consumer Interests’ (2011 and 2023)

6. Pursuant to Section 4 of the UK NCP’s procedures for dealing with complaints^{[footnote 1]}, the UK NCP will now offer mediation to both parties. The scope of the mediation offer will cover only those elements of the complaint meriting further consideration with respect to the specific paragraphs of the OECD guidelines accepted by the UK NCP at the initial assessment stage.

7. The decision to accept aspects of the complaint for further examination is not a finding against the respondent and does not mean that the UK NCP considers that it has acted inconsistently with the OECD guidelines.

8. A timeline and details of the UK NCP handling process can be found in Annex A.

Substance of the complaint 

9. The complaint was raised on 23 November 2023. The complainants alleged that the respondent has failed to comply with the following provisions of the 2023 guidelines (see Annex B):

• Chapter VI, paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c)

• Chapter VIII, paragraphs 2 and 4

10. The complainant claims that the respondent has made several statements on its website, in its annual reports and in press releases which breach the paragraphs of the guidelines noted above because they are inaccurate and misleading. The complainant also argues that these ‘relevant statements’ also potentially breach UK regulations and various other frameworks and guidelines relating to environmental claims in the advertising of goods and services to consumers, which are outside the scope of the guidelines.

11. The complainant alleges that the respondent’s statements “individually and collectively” downplay the current and likely future impact of its operations on the climate. The alleged misleading statements are grouped into 4 areas, which are described in more detail in the following paragraphs. The complaint cites an extensive number of individual statements and images which are alleged to be misleading, set out in an Annex of more than 20 individual statements which are alleged to have breached the guidelines. 

12. This report does not cite all these statements, rather a few examples are stated to demonstrate the nature of the concerns raised. In some cases, the statements highlighted by the complainant appeared on the respondent’s corporate website, which has been updated since the UK NCP received this complaint. This has made it challenging at this stage to assess precisely what period some statements were viewable online. 

13. Claims about reducing emissions: the complainant highlights statements from the respondent’s 2019 sustainability report that “Because of new, more efficient aircraft, since 2007 we’ve reduced…our total emissions by 21%”, and its 2022 annual report that “over the last decade and our absolute carbon emissions have reduced from 4.75m metric tons (MT) of CO2 to just over 3m MT CO2 in 2022, an improvement of 35%.” The complainant alleges that this is misleading because some of this decline was the result of decreased demand following the COVID-19 pandemic.

14. In addition, the complainant alleges that the respondent, while setting out its targets for reducing emissions in the future on its website and in its 2022 annual report, failed to disclose that it did not meet its previous target for 2020, which the complainant argues is key information for consumers seeking to understand the environmental impact of the respondent’s services. 

15. The complainant alleges these claims related to reducing emissions breach paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

16. Claims about efficiency: the complainant alleges that the respondent published figures on its carbon emissions intensity between 2007 and 2019 which differ between its 2019 sustainability report and 2021 annual report, as well as using different metrics and timescales in reporting its carbon efficiency in its 2022 annual report. The complainant alleges that this could confuse and mislead readers attempting to understand the respondent’s environmental performance, and because the respondent’s figures are below the industry average. 

17. The complainant also makes a number of allegations related to the statements by the respondent in which it claims to be increasing the fuel efficiency of its aircraft, such as “We operate one of the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleets in the sky with 70% next generation aircraft and an average age of less than seven years.” 

18. The complainant alleges that these statements on aircraft efficiency are misleading because the respondent implies this represents a radical, rather than incremental, change compared to older aircraft, represents an attempt to cut costs rather than mitigate environmental harm, because the respondent fails to provide detail on its wider efficiency measures, and because increases to efficiency will not address a growing demand for flights. 

19. The complainant alleges these claims related to efficiency breach paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

20. Claims about alternative fuels: the complainant alleges that the respondent’s use of the term ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel’ on its website, in its annual reports, and in press releases, is inherently misleading and the claims it makes about the reductions in carbon emissions, such as “They’re proven to safely and effectively power aircraft, potentially reducing lifecycle carbon emissions by up to 70% or more, in comparison to fossil fuel-based typical aviation fuel” are inaccurate. 

21. The complainant alleges that these fuels will not be available in sufficient quantities to replace conventional jet fuel, that increasing production may cause greater environmental harms, and that this is not acknowledged by the respondent, nor is the impact of non-CO2 emissions from such fuels. In addition, the complainant alleges that the respondent does not acknowledge that its commitment to use 10% Sustainable Aviation Fuel by 2030 reflects a legal requirement introduced by the UK government, rather than a voluntary measure. 

22. The complainant alleges these claims related to alternative fuels breach paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

23. Claims about net zero: the complainant alleges that the respondent’s plan to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, published on its website, annual reports and in press releases, risks misleading consumers because it relies on unrealistic, vague and incorrect targets, does not address the issue of non-CO2 emissions, involves the use of technologies which may not be effective, and the use of carbon offsets which the respondent does not describe. The complainant also alleges that the respondent’s statements on its website are misleading in that they tell consumers it would be wrong to stop flying. 

24. The complainant alleges these claims about net zero breach paragraph 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

25. The complainant requests that the respondent take the following actions:

• withdraw the statements in question

• publish corrective statements on the sustainability section of its website and next company annual report, publish a statement drawing attention to this fact as well as noting that demand management will be required for the aviation sector to contribute to the UK’s climate commitments

• ensure that it does not make similar claims in its future statements

26. The respondent accepted the invitation from the UK NCP to respond to the complainant and disputed the complainant’s characterisation of its statements as misleading and inaccurate. The respondent claims that it remains committed to working towards the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and that though this will be challenging, its plan for reaching this goal through increasing fuel efficiency and the use of alternative fuel, as well as the use of carbon offsets and removals, is credible.

27. The respondent also argued that the substance of the complainant’s allegations is in fact directed at the airline industry in general and UK government environmental policies related to commercial aviation, and that the UK NCP process is not the appropriate one in which to address these concerns.

28. A timeline and details of the UK NCP handling process can be found in Annex A.

UK NCP decision 

29. The UK NCP has decided that 4 paragraphs under 2 chapters cited in the complaint merit further consideration. The UK NCP’s decision to accept these paragraphs does not mean that it considers the respondent to have acted inconsistently with the OECD guidelines. 

30. The UK NCP considers that the following paragraphs of the 2011 and 2023 guidelines merit further consideration: 

• Chapter VI paragraph 2(a) ‘Environment’ (2011) and Chapter VI paragraph 1(d) ‘Environment’ (2023)

• Chapter VI, paragraph 6(c) ‘Environment’ (2011) and Chapter VI, paragraph 5(c) ‘Environment’ (2023)

• Chapter VIII paragraph 2 ‘Consumer Interests’ (2011 and 2023)

• Chapter VIII paragraph 4 ‘Consumer Interests’ (2011 and 2023)

31. The conclusions reached by the UK NCP in this initial assessment are based on the information provided by the parties to the complaint. 

32. The UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, as offering good offices could facilitate an exchange of dialogue between the parties and environmental information of higher quality being presented to the public by multinational enterprises.

33. In reaching the decision on whether the complaint merits further examination, the UK NCP has considered the criteria set out in the OECD guidelines as follows: 

• identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter 

• whether the issue is material and substantiated 

• whether the issues are covered by the OECD guidelines 

• whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance 

• the extent to which applicable law or parallel proceedings limit the UK NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issue or the implementation of the guidelines 

• whether the examination of the issue would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the guidelines

Identity of the party concerned and their interest in the matter

34. The OECD Guide for NCPs on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances states that the complainant(s) should have some interest in the matters they raise in their submissions: “Organisations with mandates or objectives related to certain Responsible Business Conduct-related themes may also have an interest in issues touching on those themes (for example, instances of environmental harm, forced labour etc.). An NCP may consider the mandate of an organisation as well as its stated objectives, while considering the legitimacy of its interests in the matter”^{[footnote 2]}.

35. The complainant is Possible: the 10:10 Foundation; a charitable incorporated organisation which is registered with the Charity Commission in England and Wales. It advocates for action to reduce carbon emissions with the aim of making the UK a zero-carbon society.

36. The UK NCP is satisfied that the complainant is an organisation with a mandate or objective relevant to the issues raised in the complaint.

Whether the issue is material and substantiated

37. ‘Material’ is defined as being “relevant to the implementation of the guidelines”^{[footnote 3]}. This means not only that the issue needs to fall within the scope of the guidelines, but also that it should be presented as an actual or potential breach of one or more recommendations contained in the guidelines, the redress of which would advance the implementation of the guidelines. 

38. ‘Substantiated’ is defined as “supported by sufficient and credible information”^{[footnote 4]}, meaning that the allegations made by the submitter on the issues should appear credible to the NCP based on the information available.

39. The complainant has alleged that numerous public statements by the respondent making claims about its efforts to reduce the environmental impact of its activities are misleading and inaccurate. The complainant alleges these statements fall into 4 categories. These categories, and the sections of the 2011 and 2023 guidelines they are alleged to breach, are:  

• misleading claims about reducing emissions – Chapter VI paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2023) and Chapter VI paragraphs 2(a) and 6(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2011)

• misleading claims about efficiency – Chapter VI paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2023) and Chapter VI paragraphs 2(a) and 6(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2011)

• misleading claims about alternative fuels – Chapter VI paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2023) and Chapter VI paragraphs 2(a) and 6(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2011)

• misleading claims about net zero – Chapter VI paragraph 5(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2023) and Chapter VI paragraph 6(c), Chapter VIII paragraphs 2 and 4 (2011)

40. In its response, the respondent denied that its statements are inaccurate or misleading. It asserted that it was committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and that its plan to continue to reduce its carbon emissions was realistic and credible in the context of wider investment and action by itself and other industry stakeholders.

41. The respondent argued that the complainant has presented some of its statements out of context. The respondent argues that, given the full context in which they appear (such as its annual company reports), readers would not be misled as to the environmental impact of its operations and measures it has or intends to put in place to reduce this impact. 

42. The respondent argued that the contents of its annual company reports was in line with the statutory requirements for such publications and were intended for an audience of finance professionals and shareholders rather than consumers, and that any information included or not included reflected this rather than any attempt to be misleading.

43. In its assessment, the UK NCP examined all the information provided by the complainant and respondent, including the respondent’s website, annual company reports, and press releases which contain the statements highlighted by the complainant.

44. The complainant also cited news articles, research reports published by non-governmental organisations, industry bodies, scientific papers from peer-reviewed journals, and reports from the UK government and official European Union and United Nations bodies.

45. The UK NCP has concluded that issues raised related to some elements of the respondent’s statements related to reducing emissions, efficiency and net zero are material and substantiated and merit further consideration. The UK NCP has rejected the elements of the complaint related to the respondent’s statements on alternative fuels. Further detail on the elements accepted or not accepted as material and substantiated is set out further along.  

Claims about reducing emissions

46. The complainant alleges that the respondent has made several statements related to reducing carbon emissions which breach paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

47. The complainant highlights statements from the respondent’s 2019 sustainability report that “Because of new, more efficient aircraft, since 2007 we’ve reduced…our total emissions by 21%”, and its 2022 annual report that “over the last decade and our absolute carbon emissions have reduced from 4.75m metric tons (MT) of CO2 to just over 3m MT CO2 in 2022, an improvement of 35%.” The complainant notes that the respondent’s published data suggests it was able to reduce its overall carbon emissions between 2007 and 2019 by increasing its efficiency, but argues that the respondent presented misleading and incomplete information by failing to acknowledge that decreased demand after 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic was a factor in the overall fall in emissions.

48. In its response, the respondent noted that the complainant acknowledges that it had decreased emissions between 2007 and 2019 by increasing efficiency of its aircraft and operations. The respondent also demonstrated that it acknowledged falling demand after 2019 in its 2020, 2021, and 2022 annual reports.

49. The UK NCP does not consider that the issues raised relating to the respondent’s statements on reducing emissions and falling demand in the period related to those statements are substantiated. The UK NCP therefore has not accepted these issues merit further consideration.

50. The complainant also highlights the carbon emission reduction targets for the years 2026, 2030 and 2040 set out in the respondent’s ‘Mission to net zero’ timeline displayed on its website and in its 2022 annual report. The complainant argues that this is misleading to consumers, alleging that the respondent did not achieve its previous target for 2020 and did not acknowledge this in its 2022 annual report or website, and that this is crucial context for consumers in judging the respondent’s environmental performance.

51. The respondent denied that consumers would be misled by the information presented regarding its plans to reduce its carbon emissions, arguing that the information on its website and in its 2022 annual report represented a “snapshot” of its plans at time of publication. As such, the respondent argued that a reference to its previous target in setting out its plans to reduce emissions in the future was not necessary to include in its annual report.

52. The guidelines call on businesses to provide consumers with relevant information on the environmental characteristics of their products and services, such as reports on progress (paragraph 2(a) of Chapter VI), state that this should be sufficient for consumers to make informed decisions (paragraph 2 of Chapter VIII), and should not include potentially misleading representations or omissions (paragraph 4 of Chapter VIII). The respondent did not address its 2020 target in the publications cited by the complainant (its website and 2022 annual report). The UK NCP considers that the issue of the respondent’s statements on reducing carbon emissions and its future and previous targets are substantiated and merit further consideration with respect to these paragraphs of the 2011 guidelines.

53. With respect to the ‘relevant statements’ on the same issue published on the respondent’s website at the time the complaint was received by the UK NCP, these also merit further consideration with respect to paragraph 1(d) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines. 

Claims about efficiency  

54. The complainant alleges that the respondent has published misleading, incomplete and confusing information related to the efficiency of its aircraft and operations and their subsequent environmental impact, in breach of paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

55. The complainant highlights inconsistent figures for reduction in carbon emissions per kilometre flown between 2007 and 2019 published by the respondent in its 2019 sustainability report and 2021 annual report (18.1% versus 17%). In its response, the respondent stated that this discrepancy was due to an error in calculating this figure, which was subsequently corrected with the publication of the revised figure in its 2021 report.

56. The complainant also highlights the use of two different metrics of carbon intensity - CO2/Revenue Tonne Kilometre (CO2/RTK) and CO2/Available Seat Kilometre (CO2/ASK) - in the respondent’s 2022 annual report as an example of potentially confusing and misleading information, arguing this would make it harder for consumers to understand trends in performance. 

57. The respondent argued that both metrics were widely used and understood within the airline industry, and therefore their use in the context of describing different aspects of their operations in a company annual report was not misleading. The respondent’s 2022 annual report includes statistics on emissions and carbon intensity in CO2/RTK, which would allow comparison with its performance in previous years.

58. The complainant also highlighted the use of different timescales in the respondent’s 2022 annual report, citing statements in which the respondent compared its carbon intensity in 2022 with its performance in 2007, 2013, and 2019 at different points in the document. The complainant also alleged that the respondent’s statements on fuel efficiency were misleading in that they did not acknowledge that its efficiency had improved more slowly than the industry average.

59. The respondent argued that its use of different timescales in comparing its carbon intensity was not confusing or misleading, and that its use of different baseline years was contextualised within its 2022 annual report. In relation to its performance against the industry average cited by the complainant, the respondent argued that this comparison was flawed because it compared the industry average over a different time period to that used in the respondent’s publications, and that its fuel efficiency was in fact superior to the industry average at the end of the time period highlighted by the complainant.

60. The complainant alleged that statements made by the respondent in its 2022 annual report, 2021 sustainability report, on its website, and in a video uploaded to a video sharing website about increasing the fuel efficiency of its fleet by replacing older aircraft were misleading, as they suggested this made its flights ‘cleaner’. The complainant also highlighted the respondent’s use of the term ‘next generation’ to describe the new aircraft, such as the following statement from its website: “We operate one of the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleets in the sky with 70% next generation aircraft and an average age of less than seven years.” The complainant argued that this term was vague and misleading in that it implied the new aircraft represented a radical, rather than incremental, improvement over older aircraft.

61. The respondent argued that the claims made on behalf of its new aircraft, in terms of fuel and carbon efficiency, were accurate and that they were therefore ‘cleaner’ in that regard. The respondent also argued that the complainant’s highlighting of the term ‘next generation’ took its use in annual reports and other publications out of context, and cited information published in the same documents which contextualised this term by providing detail of the superior fuel efficiency of the aircraft in question relative to their predecessors, and the corresponding impact on the overall carbon efficiency of its aircraft fleet.

62. The complainant alleged that the respondent’s claims about improving its operational efficiency in the publications highlighted above were misleading in that they did not acknowledge that this would not counterbalance the climate impact of a growing demand for flights in the sector as a whole, or might exacerbate climate impacts by making flying cheaper, increasing demand further. The respondent argued that this was not borne out by its own performance, which had seen a decrease in its overall carbon emissions between 2014 and 2019.

63. The complainant argued that the respondent had misleadingly sought to portray its acquisition of new aircraft as an environmental measure, rather than aimed at cutting costs. The respondent argues that such decisions are made based on several different factors and maintained that environmental factors were among those considered in its decision-making.

64. The complainant also alleged that the respondent states it will undertake improvements to its network efficiency in addition to aircraft fuel efficiency in its 2021 annual report but does not specify what these would be. The respondent demonstrated that it had included some detail on its other operational efficiency measures in its publications and argued that the level of detail it supplied relating to its operational efficiency changes were appropriate for its annual report and website.

65. Based on information cited by the complainant on the growth in demand for flights outstripping gains from efficiency improvements, the UK NCP considers that the issues raised in the complaint in relation to the respondent’s statements about improving efficiency are sufficiently material and substantiated to merit further consideration under paragraphs 2(a) and 6(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 in Chapter VIII of the 2011 guidelines. 

66. With respect to the ‘relevant statements’ on the same issue published on the respondent’s website at the time the complaint was received by the UK NCP, these also merit further consideration with respect to paragraph 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

67. The UK NCP does not accept that the information submitted by the complainant is sufficient to substantiate the other elements of the complaint related to efficiency and therefore does not consider that they merit further consideration.    

Claims about alternative fuels

68. The complainant alleges that the respondent made misleading claims related to alternative fuels in breach of paragraphs 1(d) and 5(c) of Chapter VI (“Environment”) and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII (“Consumer Interests”) of the 2023 guidelines. 

69. The complainant criticises the respondent’s use of the term ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel’ (SAF) on its website, press releases and in its 2021 and 2022 annual reports. The complainant argued that the respondent does not define this term, which the complainant argues is intrinsically misleading because the emissions profile of such fuels varies according to the material used to produce it, and the word ‘sustainable’ gives consumers the misleading impression that its environmental impact has been negated.

70. The complainant alleges that the respondent’s statements on SAF are also misleading in that they overstate the potential for this technology to mitigate environmental impacts. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the respondent’s statements on SAF are misleading because it is not available in quantities that would allow it to completely replace conventional jet fuel, its ability to reduce carbon emissions over its lifecycle is more limited that the respondent acknowledges, and because its use does not address emissions of harmful non-CO2 gases from flying. In addition, the complainant alleges that the respondent’s commitment to use 10% SAF in its flights by 2030, published on its website and in its 2022 annual report, was misleading as the respondent portrays this as a voluntary commitment when it is in fact a mandatory requirement imposed by the UK government.

71. The respondent argued that the complainant’s criticism of the term ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel’ was directed at the technology and its use in general, not specifically at the respondent, and that the UK NCP process was not appropriate to address this. It demonstrated that ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel’ is standard terminology used by the aviation industry, national governments and international aviation bodies. The respondent also said that it acknowledged in its reports and on its website that the supply of SAF was currently limited and will need to be increased to meet emissions reduction targets, and that these publications acknowledged that it did not consider the use of SAF alone would be sufficient to address the environmental impacts of aviation in the absence of other measures. 

72. The respondent noted that it had adopted the target to use 10% SAF prior to the mandate being consulted on or adopted by the UK government, and that this mandate only applied to fuel suppliers rather than airlines, and only to fuel obtained in the UK, while its commitment extended to all fuel obtained in other countries.

73. The respondent noted the requirements for a fuel to be classified as SAF are set out in UK, US and EU regulations, and stated that all the SAF it procures meets with the relevant sustainability standards, with lifecycle emissions reductions certified and audited according to the appropriate methodology, and that its statements related to the scale of possible carbon emissions reductions using SAF were therefore not misleading. 

74. In regard to non-CO2 emissions, the respondent noted that it is not required to report on its non-CO2 emissions by the UK’s Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting regulation, and that the exact scale of non-CO2 impacts from flying was still the subject of scientific debate, and observed that the issue of non-CO2 emissions was not specific to SAF but also applied to conventional jet fuel. 

75. The respondent stated that, in the context of the use of SAF, it recognised that non-CO2 impacts existed and had worked with partners to advance research in this area during a 2023 test transatlantic flight fuelled entirely with SAF. The respondent’s July 2023 press release on this flight cited by the complainant notes that the flight will “contribute to research and development into the non-CO2 effects of flying”, and a subsequent November 2023 press release cited by the respondent notes that the flight will enable researchers to “assess how it’s use affects the flight’s non-carbon emissions with the support of consortium partners”.

76. The complainant also criticised the respondent’s presentation of its intention to conduct a test flight fuelled entirely by SAF in a press release and the company’s 2022 annual report. In addition to the issues raised related to SAF’s emissions profile and availability, the complainant highlights the respondent’s statement that “residual CO2 emissions from the flight will be mitigated using innovative carbon removals from biochar projects,” arguing that this is misleading because the degree of carbon sequestration that can be achieved using biochar is disputed. The respondent argues that the carbon offsets it purchased for this flight were procured following a due diligence process conducted by an independent third-party, and the methodology for the use of biochar was validated by the appropriate standard and registry body.

77. The UK NCP does not accept that the information submitted by the complainant is sufficient to substantiate the issues raised in the complaint related to alternative fuels, and therefore the UK NCP does not accept that these issues merit further consideration.

Claims about net zero

78. The complainant alleges that the respondent has made misleading claims related to its plan to reach net zero emissions in breach of paragraph 5(c) of Chapter VI (“Environment”) and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII (“Consumer Interests”) of the 2023 guidelines.

79. The complainant alleges that the respondent’s presentation of its emissions reduction targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050 in its ‘Mission to net zero’ timeline, published in its 2022 annual report and corporate website is vague, confusing and implausible. Specifically, the complainant highlights the respondent’s use of the term ‘net reduction’ in carbon emissions without explaining if carbon offsets would be applied to reach this figure, or acknowledgement that the quality of carbon offsets in general is disputed by some researchers. 

80. The respondent noted that it does not currently use carbon offsets and demonstrated that its potential use of carbon offsets and removals in the future to achieve ‘net reduction’ in emissions is stated and contextualised in its 2021 and 2022 annual reports. The respondent stated that any carbon offsets it purchases will be properly certified and audited by third parties and argues that the complainant’s criticism is directed at carbon offsets and certification schemes in general, rather than specific to the respondent.

81. The complainant highlights statements from the respondent on its website that it is partnering with other companies in the development of Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology as part of its offsetting strategy. The complainant alleges that the respondent’s statement is misleading because the potential of DAC to mitigate carbon emissions at scale is currently uncertain, and because of links between one of the respondent’s partner companies and an oil company, and the potential for its technology to be used in oil and gas production.

82. The complainant did not supply any information as to whether the specific DAC project linked to the respondent would be used in oil or gas production. In its response, the respondent argued that the complainants criticism was of DAC and carbon sequestration in general, rather than related specifically to the respondent.

83. The complainant also argues that the respondent’s plan to reach net zero emissions lacks credibility because it states that 60% of the reduction in emissions will be achieved in a single decade between 2040 and 2050, which the complainant suggests is unrealistic. The respondent noted that its annual reports and website acknowledge that reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will be challenging and that the aviation sector will be difficult to decarbonise.

84. The complainant alleges that the respondent’s messaging is misleading in that it promotes flying as ‘unavoidable’, ‘intrinsically good,’ and can be made sustainable by small individual actions by consumers and actions such as reductions in the use of plastic by airlines. The respondent demonstrated that its statements did not present flying as ‘unavoidable’ or ‘intrinsically good,’ and that it did not present action by individual consumers and other initiatives as, in of themselves, making flying sustainable.

85. The UK NCP does not consider that the information supplied by the complainant substantiates these issues and therefore has concluded that they do not merit further consideration.

86. The complainant argues that the respondent’s statements related to its plan to reach net zero emissions are misleading in that they fail to address or acknowledge the impact of non-CO2 emissions. The respondent provided information on its position on non-CO2 emissions, citing its press releases on its transatlantic test flight cited in the section above on claims relating to alternative fuels. The respondent argues this demonstrates how it has acknowledged and sought to address the environmental impact of non-CO2 emissions arising from flying.

87. The UK NCP considers that the issue of the respondent’s statements on its plan to reach net zero in relation to the non-CO2 impacts of flying is sufficiently substantiated by the information supplied by the complainant. It therefore merits further consideration with respect to paragraph 6(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2011 guidelines. With respect to the ‘relevant statements’ on the same issue published on the respondent’s website at the time the complaint was received by the UK NCP, these merit further consideration with respect to paragraph 5(c) of Chapter VI and paragraphs 2 and 4 of Chapter VIII of the 2023 guidelines.

Whether the enterprise is covered by the guidelines

88. Although the OECD guidelines do not include a single definition of the term ‘multinational enterprise,’ it reads: “the international nature of an enterprise’s structure and its commercial form, purpose, or activities are main factors to consider in this regard.”^{[footnote 5]}

89. The respondent is a UK-registered company and maintains its corporate headquarters in the UK. As an international airline, it operates flights between several different countries and therefore can be said to have a presence in these countries.

90. The UK NCP finds that the respondent is an enterprise covered by the guidelines. The UK NCP finds it to be appropriate to undertake an initial assessment of the complaint.  

Whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance

91. The UK NCP has concluded that the elements of the complaint related to the respondent’s statements falls within the scope of the guidelines, and that the complaint concerns the respondent’s statements in relation to its own business activities.

92. The UK NCP is therefore satisfied that there is a sufficient link between the enterprise and the issues raised.

The extent to which applicable law and/or parallel proceedings limit the NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issue and/or the implementation of the guidelines 

93. The guidelines state: “Matters covered by the guidelines may be the subject of domestic law and international commitments. The guidelines outline recommendations on responsible business conduct that may go beyond what enterprises are legally required to comply with. The recommendation from governments that enterprises observe the guidelines is distinct from matters of legal liability and enforcement.”^{[footnote 6]} Therefore, a situation where an enterprise has met domestic law requirements is not necessarily equivalent to a situation in which an enterprise observed the guidelines.

94. The complainant refers to several other regulations and frameworks:

• The UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPR)

• The Competition and Markets Authority Green Claims Code

• The UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising (CAP Code)

• The International Chamber of Commerce’s Advertising and Marketing Communications Code (The ICC Marketing Code)

• The International Standards Organisation’s standard on green marketing claims, “ISO 14021:2016(E): Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims” (Type II environmental labelling)

95. In its response, the respondent argued that any codes external to the OECD guidelines are not relevant to the complaint, as the UK NCP process is not judicial and cannot make any determinations as to whether other regulations or frameworks have been breached. The respondent also argued in its response that the statements highlighted by the complainant do not breach the CPRs and are therefore not misleading, as well as citing a body of case law in the UK and other jurisdictions which it argued reinforces this point.

96. The UK NCP is not aware of any ongoing or pending parallel proceedings which could impact on its ability to contribute to the resolution of this issue.

97. The UK NCP is aware that the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint about a radio commercial for the respondent in August 2024, which related to SAF. The commercial publicised the respondent becoming the first commercial airline to make a transatlantic flight with an aircraft fuelled entirely by SAF. The UK NCP considers that the commercial and the publications cited in the complaint differ to the extent that it does not see the ASA’s ruling as directly relevant to whether the claim that the statements alleged in the complaint to be misleading is substantiated. Per the guidelines, the UK NCP has made its own assessment against the OECD’s criteria of the claim that the respondent’s statements are misleading.

Whether the examination of the issue would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the guidelines

98. In regard to the stated purpose of the guidelines, this is assessed on the basis of whether further examination of the issues would address the alleged impacts on people, planet and society, as well as whether it  would enhance the contribution of business to sustainable development or economic, environmental and social progress. 

99. In regard to the effectiveness of the guidelines, this is assessed on the basis of whether facilitating an exchange between the parties, discussing the issues and expectations of the guidelines with the enterprises in question, or developing meaningful recommendations with respect to enterprise’s conduct would support or encourage the resolution of the issues.

100. The UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the purpose and effectiveness of the guidelines, as offering good offices could facilitate an exchange of dialogue between the parties, which could in turn lead to improved environmental information quality being presented to the public by multinational enterprises.

Next steps

101. Pursuant to section 4 of the UK NCP procedures for dealing with complaints, the UK NCP will offer mediation to both Parties after the conclusion of the initial assessment.  

102. The mediation offer is voluntary and if any party to the complaint declines mediation, the UK NCP will conduct a Further Examination of this complaint.   

103. A Further Examination would include the UK NCP providing a determination on whether the company has acted consistently with the OECD guidelines. Should the UK NCP determine that the company has not adhered to the OECD guidelines, the UK NCP may provide non-binding recommendations for improving the company’s adherence to the OECD guidelines. 

104. If the UK NCP concludes in its Further Examination that respondent’s conduct was inconsistent with the OECD guidelines, that finding will be noted in the Final Statement, a copy of which will be published on the UK NCP website and forwarded to the UK Export Finance Department.

Annex A: timeline and details of the UK NCP handling process

Date	Action
23 November 2023	The UK NCP receives the complaint.
14 December 2024	The UK NCP confirms receipt of the complaint.
17 January 2024	The UK NCP offers separate meetings with the parties to discuss the initial Assessment process and the parties’ prospective interest in mediation.
20 March 2024	The UK NCP receives the respondent’s response to the complaint.
29 January 2026	The UK NCP drafts the initial assessment and shares the draft with both parties for factual comment.
8 January 2026	Both parties submit factual commentary to the UK NCP with their response.
27 February 2026	UK NCP incorporates factual comments in the initial assessment.
1 May 2026	UK NCP publishes the initial assessment on GOV.UK.

Annex B: relevant chapters of the OECD guidelines

The complainant refers to the following chapters and paragraphs of the 2023 guidelines:

Chapter VI – Environment

Enterprises play a key role in advancing sustainable economies. They can contribute to delivering an effective and progressive response to global, regional and local environmental challenges, including the urgent threat of climate change.

Enterprises should conduct their activities in a manner that takes due account of the need to protect the environment, and in turn workers, communities and society more broadly. They should also avoid and address adverse environmental impacts, and contribute to the wider goal of sustainable development. This applies within the framework of laws, regulations and administrative practices in the countries in which they operate, and in consideration of relevant international agreements, principles, objectives, and standards.

Enterprises can be involved in a range of adverse environmental impacts. These include, among others: 

a) climate change

b) biodiversity loss

c) degradation of land, marine and freshwater ecosystems

d) deforestation

e) air, water and soil pollution

f) mismanagement of waste, including hazardous substances 

Important differences across environmental impacts are outlined in the commentary to this chapter, including with respect to climate change and how an individual enterprise’s relationship to such impacts should be considered in the context of relevant frameworks. In particular, enterprises should:

Paragraph 1: Establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise associated with the operations, products and services of the enterprise over their full life cycle, including by carrying out risk-based due diligence, as described in Chapter II, for adverse environmental impacts, including through: 

d) providing the public, workers, and other relevant stakeholders with adequate, measurable, verifiable (where applicable) and timely information on environmental impacts associated with their operations, products and services based on best available information, and progress against targets and objectives as described in paragraph 1.b 

Paragraph 5: Continually seek to improve environmental performance, at the level of the enterprise and, where appropriate, entities with which they have a business relationship, including by:

c) promoting higher levels of awareness among customers of the environmental implications of using the products and services of the enterprise, including by providing relevant and accurate information on their environmental impacts (for example, on greenhouse gas emissions, impacts on biodiversity, resource efficiency, reparability and recyclability or other environmental issues)

Chapter VIII – Consumer Interests

When dealing with consumers, enterprises should act in accordance with fair business, marketing and advertising practices and should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality and reliability of the goods and services that they provide. In particular, they should:

Paragraph 2: Provide accurate, verifiable and clear information that is sufficient to enable consumers to make informed decisions, including information on the prices and, where appropriate, content, safe use, environmental attributes, maintenance, storage, disposal of goods and services, and relevant e-commerce disclosures such as privacy issues, and information about available dispute resolution and redress options. The information should be presented in a comprehensible and easily accessible manner using plain language, while also regarding the needs of accessibility for consumers with disabilities. Where feasible this information should be provided in a manner that facilitates consumers’ ability to compare products. Not make representations or omissions, nor engage in any other practices that are deceptive, misleading, fraudulent unfair or that otherwise subvert consumer choice in ways that harm consumers or competition. 

Paragraph 4: Not make representations or omissions, nor engage in any other practices that are deceptive, misleading, fraudulent unfair or that otherwise subvert consumer choice in ways that harm consumers or competition.

The relevant chapters and paragraphs of the 2011 guidelines are:

Chapter VI – Environment

Enterprises should, within the framework of laws, regulations and administrative practices in the countries in which they operate, and in consideration of relevant international agreements, principles, objectives, and standards, take due account of the need to protect the environment, public health and safety, and generally to conduct their activities in a manner contributing to the wider goal of sustainable development. In particular, enterprises should:

Paragraph 2: Taking into account concerns about cost, business confidentiality, and the protection of intellectual property rights: 

a) provide the public and workers with adequate, measurable and verifiable (where applicable) and timely information on the potential environment, health and safety impacts of the activities of the enterprise, which could include reporting on progress in improving environmental performance

Paragraph 6: Continually seek to improve corporate environmental performance, at the level of the enterprise and, where appropriate, of its supply chain, by encouraging such activities as:

c) promoting higher levels of awareness among customers of the environmental implications of using the products and services of the enterprise, including, by providing accurate information on their products (for example, on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, resource efficiency, or other environmental issues)

Chapter VIII – Consumer Interests

When dealing with consumers, enterprises should act in accordance with fair business, marketing and advertising practices and should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality and reliability of the goods and services that they provide. In particular, they should:

Paragraph 2: Provide accurate, verifiable and clear information that is sufficient to enable consumers to make informed decisions, including information on the prices and, where appropriate, content, safe use, environmental attributes, maintenance, storage and disposal of goods and services. Where feasible this information should be provided in a manner that facilitates consumers’ ability to compare products.

Paragraph 4: Not make representations or omissions, nor engage in any other practices, that are deceptive, misleading, fraudulent or unfair.

1. UK NCP (2019), UK NCP procedures for complaints under the OECD Guidelines, section 4, p. 10. ↩

2. OECD (2019), Guide for National Contacts Points on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances, p.10 ↩

3. OECD (2023), OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, p.70 ↩

4. OECD (2023), OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, p.70 ↩

5. OECD (2023), OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, p.12 ↩

6. OECD (2023), OECD guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, p.10 ↩