Greenpeace is allowed to express its opinion in a confrontational commercial about the role it believes the Dutch bank Rabobank plays in the nature, climate, and nitrogen crisis. This was decided by the Advertising Code Committee. The television commercial features images of forest fires, mega-stalls and the felling of rain forests. The text and voice-over says, among other things: "Rabobank, proud sponsor of festivals & nature destruction" and "Rabobank, proud sponsor of museums & cutting down rainforests."

The complaint is that the advertisement is unsubstantiated anti-advertising against Rabobank. In assessing this complaint, the Advertising Code Committee is exercising restraint. This is common practice in advertising for ideas; often these are non-commercial expressions about socially relevant topics (e.g. the environment). Advertisers have a broad freedom of expression. This is the starting point for idealistic advertising. 

Greenpeace substantiated with documents why in its opinion Rabobank is responsible for 'sponsoring' nature destruction, cutting down rainforests and the nitrogen crisis. The Advertising Code Committee rules (in Dutch) that Greenpeace is entitled to express this opinion. The fact that the expression affects the interests of Rabobank is insufficient to limit Greenpeace's freedom of expression. In principle, confrontational expressions also fall under the broad freedom of expression.

The outcome may well have been different if the statement was not from a non-commercial organization such as Greenpeace but from a competitor of Rabobank, for example. In that case a less broad freedom of expression would apply and the Advertising Code Committee could also test the statement for deception and comparative advertising.

Myrna Teeuw

4 October 2023