Shell may well say that it is "also investing in new energy." But "We are changing for a cleaner future" should be more specific. While the Advertising Code Committee ruled in favor of Shell, the Board of Appeal ruled (in Dutch) that the statements violated the Sustainability Advertising Code.

In an earlier case (in Dutch), the Advertising Code Committee ruled that the similar claim "We are changing, in one of the biggest drivers of the energy transition" was misleading. Shell thereby created the wrong suggestion that investments in fossil fuels are (largely) left behind. Thus, the expression was too rosy.

The new expression is sufficiently nuanced about Shell's activities. The average consumer knows Shell as a supplier of fossil fuels. It can be deduced from the statements that Shell also invests in sustainable projects. Consumers therefore understand that Shell, in addition to the steps it is taking towards a cleaner future, also invests in fossil fuels. So far, so good.

Yet this case does not end well for Shell. Why not? "A cleaner future" is too vague. In fact, this general goal applies to all environmental sustainability projects. What should Shell have done? The Board of Appeal, for the first time, explicitly refers to "rule of thumb 4" from the ACM's Sustainability Claims Guidelines. These state that sustainability ambitions must be concrete and measurable.

The sustainability ambition must be made specific in the expression itself. The Board does leave room to do this in a clear reference (call to action) to a website with more information. Exactly what this looks like, the Board of Appeal does not tell. In any case, merely stating "Search for Shell online" is not enough.

So: always specify a general sustainability claim in the expression itself. And if that fails, provide a - specifically worded - reference text to the landing page. That web page contains all relevant information about the ambition, including concrete examples.