Singapore Airlines Joins VietJet and KLM Exposed in Explosive Greenwashing Scandal and Called Out for Selling the Eco-Friendly Lie as They Have Been Busted for Climate Deception in the Skies and Misleading Sustainable Claims: Everything You Need to Know

In 2024–2025, both Southeast Asian and European airlines ramped up sustainability claims while their carbon emissions continued to rise. Carriers like Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, and Vietnam Airlines pledged net-zero by 2050, highlighting fuel-efficient fleets, SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) trials, and carbon offset programs, yet their total emissions increased. Some, like VietJet Air, faced regulatory backlash—its “Green Friday” campaign was banned in Singapore for greenwashing, exaggerating emission cuts from specific aircraft. In Europe, Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France made similar claims. KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” and Lufthansa’s “Protecting its future” ads were ruled misleading by watchdogs, as they suggested flights were already environmentally friendly. Airlines justified rising emissions using carbon intensity metrics, future technology optimism, and offsets, though critics argue these deflect from urgent reduction needs. Regulators are now cracking down on vague green language like “eco-friendly” and demanding verifiable, precise claims. Ultimately, these airlines’ green marketing increasingly outpaced their actual climate progress, fueling concerns about widespread environmental deception.

Emissions Trends and Sustainability Pledges in 2024–25

Resurgent Air Travel and Rising Emissions: Across the board, 2024 brought a sharp increase in flight activity – and thus emissions – as international travel recovered. For example, Lufthansa Group’s CO₂ emissions jumped 16% in 2024[1], pushing it further off track from its mid-term goal to halve emissions by 2030. Singapore Airlines similarly reported a 14% year-on-year rise in operational emissions in the 12 months to March 2024[2] as it ramped up capacity. Most Southeast Asian carriers, after the COVID slump, also saw sustained or rising emissions in 2024 with booming passenger demand, despite introducing more fuel-efficient jets. In short, absolute emissions are trending upward again, even though many airlines claim improvements in carbon intensity (emissions per passenger or per tonne-km). Lufthansa, for instance, noted that emissions per passenger-kilometer in 2024 improved by ~1% thanks to newer aircraft, even as total emissions grew[3]. This intensity-based framing is a common strategy to show progress while overall climate impact still increases.

“Net Zero 2050” and Other Green Commitments: Virtually all major airlines in both regions publicly align with the industry’s 2050 net-zero emissions target. Southeast Asian flag carriers – Singapore Airlines (SIA), Thai Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Philippine Airlines (PAL), Vietnam Airlines, etc. – have announced plans to achieve net-zero CO₂ by 2050, often referencing IATA’s global “Fly Net Zero” pledge[4][5]. Many also set interim goals or are part of alliances with climate targets. For example, Singapore Airlines targets 50% use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) by 2030 and net zero by 2050[6]. Air France–KLM Group’s climate plan (covering KLM) was validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, committing to a 30% reduction in CO₂ per revenue tonne-kilometer by 2030 vs 2019[7]. Lufthansa Group likewise aims to halve net emissions by 2030 (vs 2019) and reach carbon neutrality by 2050[8]. These pledges feature prominently in sustainability reports and press releases, signaling that airlines are “responsible climate actors.”

Decarbonization Measures (Real and Proposed): To back up these promises, airlines highlight various initiatives: – Fleet Renewal: A cornerstone for all carriers is investing in new-generation aircraft (e.g. A350, A320neo, 787) touted to burn ~20% less fuel than predecessors[9]. For instance, Air France-KLM is spending €2+ billion/year on new planes and expects 64% of its fleet to be new-gen by 2028[9]. Singapore Airlines and others in Asia similarly expedited retirements of older jets in favor of fuel-efficient models (SIA now flies more A350s and 787s, Thai Airways added A350s, etc.), claiming this significantly cuts per-flight emissions. – Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): Airlines heavily promote SAF – biofuel or synthetic fuel blends – as a key to greener flying. However, SAF usage remains minimal in 2024. Vietnam Airlines, for example, operated its first SAF-powered flight in May 2024 and then pledged from Jan 2025 to use at least 2% SAF on all flights from Europe (gradually increasing to 6% by 2030)[10]. It claims these steps helped reduce nearly 70,000 tonnes of CO₂ in 2024[11]. Singapore Airlines and Japan’s ANA were among the first in Asia to procure SAF batches for flights, and Thai Airways ran its first SAF trial flight in Dec 2023[12]. European carriers have a longer history with SAF: KLM has conducted SAF flights for years and Lufthansa has offered corporate customers a program to finance SAF. Still, SAF made up only a tiny fraction of fuel in 2024 (generally well under 1% of total fuel burn[13]), something climate analysts note limits its impact. Over-reliance on SAF in pledges is risky, as supply is constrained and true lifecycle emissions can be significant[14][15]. (Around 95% of current SAF is made from waste oils, which are limited in volume[16].) Critics argue some airlines use the prospect of future SAF at scale as social license to continue expanding fleets today[17][14].
– Carbon Offsetting: Many airlines have introduced or revamped voluntary offset programs for passengers and participate in ICAO’s carbon offset scheme (CORSIA). For instance, Malaysia Airlines in 2024 announced plans to let passengers pay to offset flight emissions[18] (joining carriers like Qantas, BA, Delta that have done so). Southeast Asian governments are also crafting frameworks – Malaysia launched an Aviation Decarbonisation Blueprint targeting net-zero aviation by 2050[19][20], and Thailand’s upcoming Climate Change Act will push companies to report and curb emissions, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050 nationally[21][22]. Offsets (funding projects to “cancel out” flight emissions) remain controversial; European regulators warn that suggesting a flight can be “carbon neutral” via offsets is likely misleading without clear proof[23]. Indeed, the EU launched an investigation in April 2024 into 20 airlines’ green claims, one concern being the “incorrect impression” that paying an extra fee (for climate projects or SAF) fully counterbalances flight CO₂[24].
– Operational Efficiencies: Airlines also cite measures like improved route optimization, continuous descent approaches, lighter catering and cargo loads, and even using solar power for ground operations. For example, Thai Airways signed a 20-year solar energy deal for its facilities, cutting a modest ~589 tons of CO₂ annually[25] – tiny relative to flight emissions, but a symbolic step. Philippine Airlines adopted software (SkyBreathe) to analyze flight data for fuel savings[26]. Such steps do help reduce fuel burn incrementally, but by themselves they cannot neutralize the growth in overall traffic.

Reality Check – Emissions vs. Targets: The net effect of these efforts in 2024–25 has been incremental efficiency gains, not absolute emissions cuts. Airlines acknowledge that demand growth is outpacing green improvements in the near term. For instance, Lufthansa’s own sustainability report shows it had improved carbon efficiency ~3.8% vs 2019 by 2024, yet its total emissions are still rising rather than declining toward the 2030 half-cut target[1][3]. Singapore Airlines likewise states it “remains on track” for 2050 goals despite rising emissions, pointing to its fleet renewal and initial SAF uptake as justification[27]. This tension between short-term emissions trends and long-term climate promises is at the heart of greenwashing concerns. Airlines insist their current growth is “sustainable” because each new plane or gallon of SAF incrementally lowers the carbon intensity. Critics counter that absolute emissions — what matters for climate — continue to climb, undermining the credibility of “net-zero” claims without more drastic action[28]. Even industry leaders admit aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, with no viable zero-carbon aircraft widely available this decade[29].

Green Marketing vs. Reality in Southeast Asia

Most Southeast Asian carriers have polished their sustainability messaging recently, highlighting green initiatives in press releases, inflight magazines, and social media. Vietnam Airlines ran campaigns like “A Greener Sky, A Kinder Earth” in 2024, noting tree-planting and fuel-saving efforts, and proudly announced being “the first Vietnamese carrier to use SAF on all flights from Europe” (at 2% blend starting 2025)[10]. Philippine Airlines issued statements in late 2024 about being “poised to attain net zero by 2050” and won a sustainability award for its efforts[30]. Garuda Indonesia publishes a “Green Efforts” section on its website discussing carbon-neutral flights and waste reduction[31][32]. Malaysia Airlines touts studies on fuel reduction and was an early volunteer in CORSIA carbon offsetting[33][34]. And Singapore Airlines has a detailed sustainability report and even trialed plastic-free meal serviceware in 2023 to burnish its eco-credentials[35].

However, observers point out a lack of transparency and potential overstatement in some of these claims: in Indonesia, airlines “make frequent claims about their green efforts” on websites and social media, but with no specific regulations requiring proof, there’s a risk of greenwashing if claims are vague or unsupported (e.g. calling a service “eco-friendly” without context)[36][37]. In June 2024, a Jakarta Post op-ed noted Indonesia has no dedicated rules against airlines’ greenwashing, warning that announcing lofty climate goals “for image purposes” without concrete action plans can mislead the public. The article urged that merely declaring carbon neutrality goals “without a real understanding of necessary adjustments” could constitute greenwashing if firms aren’t truly on track[38][39].

Case Study: VietJet’s “Green Friday” Controversy

A high-profile example of alleged greenwashing in Southeast Asia was VietJet Air’s ill-fated “Green Friday” campaign. In November 2024, VietJet (a Vietnam-based budget carrier) launched a promotion in Singapore marketing “eco tickets” as a way for travelers to “contribute to a greener future” by flying with the airline[40]. The ads highlighted VietJet’s modern, fuel-efficient Airbus fleet and use of digital e-tickets as proof that flying VietJet was more eco-friendly[41][36]. Tickets were sold at special fares (as low as S$87) under a “Green Friday” slogan, a play on Black Friday shopping with a green twist[42][43].

Singapore’s advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS), quickly received a complaint from a concerned consumer and investigated[44][45]. In January 2025, ASAS ruled that VietJet’s environmental claims were unsubstantiated and misleading, ordering the campaign pulled[45][40]. The crux was that VietJet claimed fuel consumption and emissions were “reduced by 20% and 50%” – but those figures applied only to a particular aircraft-engine combination comprising a subset of its fleet[43][46]. Most customers could not be guaranteed a flight on that specific fuel-efficient model, so “consumers could not be assured of realizing the claimed reductions” in practice[47][46]. ASAS also flagged the use of vague terms like “eco-friendly” without qualifiers, noting that such broad claims mislead if not backed by concrete evidence[36][37]. This was only the second-ever instance of Singapore banning an ad for greenwashing, marking a clear precedent[48][49].

VietJet’s response to the regulator hinted at the strategies airlines use to defend their green image. The airline justified the campaign by pointing to its adoption of SAF – stating it had operated two SAF-fueled flights in Oct 2024 and that SAF can cut emissions by up to 80%[50]. VietJet also mentioned small “green” measures like using bamboo utensils in premium cabins as part of its sustainability drive[51]. However, ASAS and experts were unmoved, calling these measures marginal at best. In media commentary, the complainant pointed out that digital check-in and e-tickets are now industry-standard, so presenting VietJet’s use of them as uniquely sustainable was “questionable and masked the climate impact of budget air travel”[52]. The public reaction in Singapore was largely supportive of the ban – reflecting growing awareness that flying, especially low-cost flights encouraging discretionary travel, has significant climate costs that cannot be swept under the rug by marketing.

This case underscores a pattern: some airlines in the region have begun to oversell modest improvements as “eco-friendly flying,” crossing into deception. Regulators like ASAS are starting to rein this in, even as countries like Singapore work on formal greenwashing guidelines[53][54]. It also parallels global cases (as we’ll see with KLM and others) where claims of “flying green” or “carbon-neutral flights” have triggered legal challenges, forcing airlines to clarify or withdraw such statements.

Southeast Asian Carriers at a Glance

To summarize the Southeast Asian majors in 2024–25:

Airline	Emissions Trend (2024)	Sustainability Claims & Initiatives	Greenwashing Accusations / Issues
Singapore Airlines	↑ Emissions rising with post-COVID rebound (Scope1+2 up ~14% in FY2023/24)[55].	Net-zero by 2050; 50% SAF by 2030 goal; modern fleet (A350/B787 replacing older jets); offers carbon offset options and “eco-services.”	No official accusations. However, SIA emphasizes intensity improvements even as total CO₂ grows, drawing skepticism. The company insists it is “on track” for 2050 due to fleet and SAF investments despite higher emissions now[27].
Thai Airways	↑ Emissions recovering (2024 traffic rebounded, though exact CO₂ not public).	Net-zero by 2050; joined industry climate pledge[56]. Actions focus on new aircraft, first SAF trial flight in Dec 2023[12], and solar power at ground facilities[25]. Promotes waste reduction (e.g. cutting single-use plastics).	No known greenwashing cases. Some concern that Thai’s climate claims are light on detail – e.g. heavy reliance on future technology and government policy support[38][39].
Malaysia Airlines	↑ Emissions likely rising (resumed full operations by 2024).	Net-zero 2050 pledge (via oneworld alliance)[5]. Operated its first SAF flights in 2022[57]. Plans to launch a passenger carbon offset program[18]. Using fuel-efficiency software (SkyBreathe) to optimize flights[26].	No public allegations. However, MAS mostly targets carbon-neutral growth (stabilizing emissions) rather than near-term cuts – its communication stresses future offsets and technology, which could be seen as delaying real reductions.
Garuda Indonesia	Emissions recovering (scaled-down fleet post-restructuring, but 2024 saw traffic growth).	Targeting carbon neutrality (Indonesia’s aviation aims net-zero 2060, with efforts to accelerate to 2050). Highlights “Green Flights” concept on its site[58][32] – e.g. reducing waste, exploring SAF, partnering to use eco-friendly packaging[59].	No notable cases. Domestic observers caution that Indonesian airlines’ green claims are largely voluntary and unverified, potentially “greenwashing” if claims are too rosy[36]. Garuda’s broad slogans (e.g. “Fly Greener”) risk criticism if not backed by data.
Philippine Airlines	↑ Emissions rising (strong travel demand in 2024).	Committed to net-zero 2050[60]. Joined IATA’s sustainability programs. Fleet renewal ongoing (retiring older A340s, acquiring A350s). Highlights participation in reforestation projects and community programs to offset carbon[61].	No known accusations. PAL received an award in 2024 for sustainability efforts, but this is seen by some as PR. The airline’s net-zero plan is in early stages; critics want to see transparent reporting of its annual CO₂ and credible milestones (to ensure it’s not just a PR exercise).
Vietnam Airlines	↑ Emissions rising (record 2024 profits meant more flights)[62].	Net-zero 2050 pledge. Pioneer in SAF among ASEAN airlines – first SAF flight May 2024, then using 2% SAF on all Europe flights from 2025[10]. Claims it cut ~70,000t CO₂ in 2024 via SAF, new planes, and efficiency steps[11]. Engages in tree-planting and “Green Office” initiatives.	No direct accusations toward Vietnam Airlines. However, its low SAF blend (2%) and reliance on future scale-up (20% by 2035, 70% by 2050)[63] mirror industry critiques: current actions offset only a “modest” slice of its overall emissions[13]. The bold marketing of “greening the skies” invites scrutiny similar to KLM’s (see below).
VietJet Air	↑ Emissions growing (rapid LCC expansion in SE Asia).	Markets itself as a “green” low-cost airline with a young, fuel-efficient fleet. Ran “Green Friday” sale in 2024 promoting “eco tickets” on the premise of lower-impact flights[40]. Claims use of digital tech and occasional SAF flights to reduce footprint[41][50].	*Regulatory action:* Singapore ASAS banned its “Green Friday” ads as greenwashing – claims of 20–50% emission cuts were only true for part of fleet[46]. Use of terms like “eco-friendly flights” was deemed misleading[36]. This high-profile case exposed VietJet’s practices as environmental misrepresentation[46]**, forcing it to withdraw the campaign.

(↑ = increasing; = moderately increasing; bold indicates a significant point of note.)

As seen above, Southeast Asian incumbents are publicly aligning with global climate goals, but their marketing sometimes gets ahead of reality. So far, the most egregious greenwashing incident identified in 2024–25 from the region was VietJet’s advertising, which regulators swiftly addressed. For the others, the issues are more about potential disconnects – e.g. net-zero promises vs. lack of near-term emission cuts, or generic claims of being “green” via minor measures. These have not yet resulted in official sanctions, but civil society is increasingly alert. For example, environmental groups in Asia (inspired by Western NGOs) are watching for “fly green” style claims. It’s worth noting that many of these Southeast Asian airlines are still recovering financially; they tend to frame sustainability as efficiency (which also saves cost). This contrasts somewhat with European carriers that face louder public pressure and have engaged in more aggressive green marketing – which in turn has led to more accusations of greenwashing in Europe, as detailed next.

European Airlines: Green Initiatives and Accusations (2024–25)

European flag carriers like Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France have been at the forefront of both climate commitments and greenwashing controversies. By 2024, these airlines had reinstated most flights and even expanded routes, leading to sustained or rising emissions year over year. For example, Lufthansa’s CO₂ output rose significantly in 2022–2024 with the traffic rebound[1], and Air France-KLM’s emissions similarly tracked the return of air travel (Air France in 2023 even surpassed 2019 passenger levels on some routes). All three maintain that they are still on the trajectory to meet long-term targets, often by pointing to technological upgrades and offset schemes as justification.

Justifying Rising Emissions: A common narrative from these airlines in 2024 is: “Our emissions may be up in absolute terms as we rebuild connectivity, but we are reducing emissions per passenger and taking concrete climate actions, so our growth is responsible.” For instance:

• Lufthansa emphasizes its “Make Change Fly” program – investing €2.5 billion annually in new aircraft, a group-wide goal to cut CO₂/seat-km 30% by 2030, and offering “Green Fares” where passengers pay extra for a mix of SAF and offsets[64]. When confronted with its 16% emissions jump in 2024, a Lufthansa spokesperson noted that the fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower (-1%) due to efficient planes, highlighting that progress[3]. Lufthansa also aims for carbon-neutral ground ops by 2030 and frequently cites its participation in EU ETS and CORSIA as evidence it addresses emissions. In short, the company line is that growth and sustainability can coexist via efficiency and market-based offsets – even their slogan “Connecting the world. Protecting its future.” encapsulated this ethos (more on that slogan’s fate below).
• Air France–KLM Group similarly defends its climate stance by pointing to fleet renewal and SAF usage. CEO Benjamin Smith responded to greenwashing allegations by insisting that buying new efficient jets and blending biofuels “is very concrete…not a fair assessment to call that greenwashing”[65][66]. KLM’s Climate Action Plan projects a steady improvement in fuel efficiency (they expect ~1-2% efficiency gains per year from operations and fleet) and assumes 30% SAF use by 2030 to meet its intensity-based target[67][68]. Both Air France and KLM have introduced customer-facing carbon programs – e.g. Air France let customers contribute to certified offset projects (until France’s 2023 law restricted such advertising), and KLM’s CO2ZERO program allowed passengers to offset flights. By 2024, after criticism, KLM actually stopped actively offering offsets to individuals and shifted focus to SAF contributions, to avoid the claim that you can simply buy your way to “neutral” flights[69]. That indicates the pressure they felt around greenwashing.
• Rhetoric of Innovation: All three European carriers promote future solutions: Lufthansa and Air France are investors in startup research for hybrid-electric planes and hydrogen fuel, though those are decades out. KLM has publicized experiments like a “flying-V” concept and more immediate steps like an electric tug for taxiing. By framing themselves as innovators and early adopters of any available green tech, these airlines justify that they are doing everything feasible short of cutting flights. The implication in their communications is: “We can’t eliminate emissions overnight without grounding planes, so instead we are leading in making flying gradually more sustainable.” This strategy, however, often collides with scientific urgency, as climate experts note incremental improvements won’t achieve absolute emission cuts fast enough to meet Paris Agreement goals[70].

Greenwashing Crackdowns in Europe:

Europe has seen several high-profile cases in 2023–2024 where regulators or courts intervened in airlines’ environmental claims. The patterns of alleged deception included overstating climate initiatives, using misleading slogans, and giving consumers a false sense of “green” flying. Key examples:

• Lufthansa’s “Protecting its future” Ads (UK): In 2023, Lufthansa ran a global ad campaign featuring a Boeing 747 flying with an image of planet Earth on its underside, captioned “Connecting the world. Protecting its future.”[71] and tagged #MakeChangeFly. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints that this gave a misleading impression that Lufthansa’s flights were already environmentally benign[71][72]. In a March 2023 ruling, the ASA banned the ads, agreeing that consumers would interpret “protecting its future” as claiming Lufthansa had significantly mitigated its environmental impact – which was not true given aviation’s lack of current green technology[72][73]. Lufthansa admitted the tagline was aspirational (based on future goals of carbon neutrality by 2050 and halving emissions by 2030)[8][72], but ASA noted “many of these initiatives are targeted years into the future” and no present technology could justify an “absolute green claim” like “protecting [the planet’s] future”[74]. The ASA ordered Lufthansa to ensure future ads don’t mislead about the actual climate impact of flying[75]. This was a landmark warning shot – as ASA stated, high-carbon industries “shouldn’t make claims that give a misleading impression about their green credentials” without solid evidence[76].
• “Fly Responsibly” and the KLM Lawsuit (Netherlands): KLM – known for its 2019 “Fly Responsibly” campaign – faced a first-of-its-kind civil lawsuit by environmental groups (led by Fossielvrij NL) in 2022, which culminated in a Dutch court ruling in March 2024. The court found KLM misled consumers with advertising aimed at boosting its green image[77]. In particular, judges ruled that 15 out of 19 environmental claims in KLM’s ads were “misleading and therefore illegal”[78]. KLM had made broad statements about sustainability and implied that flying could be “sustainable” or that its measures (like planting trees, using biofuels) significantly reduced its impact[79]. The court concluded that KLM “painted a too-rosy picture” of its actions – noting that those measures “only marginally lessen [the] environmental impacts” of flying[79]. Crucially, the verdict said giving the impression that “flying with KLM is sustainable” is unlawful when in reality all flights still emit large amounts of greenhouse gases[80]. KLM’s defense was that it had clarity now on what it can claim, and it pointed to ongoing efforts (efficient planes, mixing biofuels) which it does not consider greenwashing[65]. But activists hailed the verdict as a clear message that “companies are not allowed to claim they are tackling climate change when they are fuelling the crisis”[81]. This set a legal precedent in Europe. Notably, the court did not fine KLM but warned it must be “honest and concrete” in future ads[82]. After this, KLM quietly adjusted its marketing, dialing back the most grandiose claims (the “Fly Responsibly” tagline is used more narrowly now). The case also referenced a broader EU context: BEUC (European Consumer Organisation) had filed a complaint to the European Commission in 2023 against 17 airlines over similar misleading green claims[83] – a complaint that led the EC and national authorities to launch an investigation into 20 airlines in April 2024[84]. Among those airlines were likely Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, and others. The regulators outlined several prohibited practices, such as unqualified use of terms like “green” or “sustainable” and implying offsets or SAF could fully neutralize flight emissions[24]. This is pushing airlines to reformulate how they communicate climate efforts across Europe.
• Air France and Others (ASA action 2023): In December 2023, the UK ASA also banned ads by Air France and Etihad, alongside another Lufthansa instance, for misleading environmental claims[85][86]. Air France had run a promotional line that it was “committed to protecting the environment,” and Lufthansa ran a Google ad urging people to “fly more sustainably” with it[86]. The ASA found these to breach rules since the airlines could not substantiate such absolute claims[87]. In particular, it noted there are currently “no initiatives or technologies in operation in aviation that would adequately substantiate [an] absolute green claim” given flying’s high emissions[88]. All three ads were banned and the airlines were told to remove or clarify the language[87]. Lufthansa acknowledged the phrase “fly more sustainably” lacked explanation in the short ad, and promised not to use it without context[89]. Air France-KLM did not publicly contest the ruling, perhaps wary after the KLM lawsuit. Climate advocates praised these moves – one expert noted “there is no such thing as environmentally friendly air travel,” and that meeting climate goals will require reducing flight demand, not just greening flights[90]. This blunt perspective contrasts with airlines’ growth narratives and shows why their ads drew ire.

In sum, European airlines in 2024–25 often tried to portray themselves as climate-conscious leaders, but some of their marketing crossed into misleading territory and was met with legal or regulatory pushback. Table 2 below summarizes the European carriers:

Sources: Company sustainability reports, ASA rulings, court documents (see citations). “Mt CO₂” = million tonnes of CO₂.

As the table shows, European legacy airlines have faced formal accusations of greenwashing in 2024, unlike most of their Southeast Asian counterparts (so far). These European carriers made some of the boldest green claims – and regulators responded in kind. Public reactions in Europe have also been strong: climate activists occupied airport terminals in 2023 to protest “greenwashing and expansion” by airlines[91][92], and NGOs have launched campaigns like “Badvertising” in the UK targeting misleading ads[90]. The result is that by late 2024, airlines like Lufthansa and KLM are more cautious in their language – pivoting to emphasize they are working on solutions, but avoiding claims that flying is already green. They focus on justifying ongoing emissions by pointing to concrete investments (fleet, SAF) rather than promises of carbon neutrality today. Even so, consumer watchdogs remain vigilant, and the EU is implementing an updated directive in 2024–25 to explicitly prohibit greenwashing in marketing[93].

Patterns and Strategies of Justification

Across both Southeast Asian and European airlines, several common strategies emerge in how they reconcile public sustainability rhetoric with the reality of rising or steady emissions:

• Framing Progress in Relative Terms: Airlines almost universally highlight efficiency metrics (per passenger or per ton-km emissions) instead of absolute emissions. By claiming “emissions per flight are down X%” or “new aircraft cut fuel burn by 25%”[9], they create a narrative of improvement even if total emissions grow with more flights. Lufthansa’s citing of a 1% intensity drop in 2024 while total CO₂ rose 16% is a clear example[3][1]. This “efficiency smoke screen” is a way to justify continued growth – essentially saying we’re emitting more only because we’re serving more passengers, but each passenger’s footprint is a bit smaller. It’s a valid metric, but it can mislead if consumers equate efficiency with overall climate performance. Regulators now stress that efficiency gains don’t equal sustainable flying if the net impact is still rising[88].
• Invoking Future Solutions (Techno-optimism): Both regions’ airlines heavily bank on future technology in their green narratives. Whether it’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel, hydrogen aircraft, electric planes, or carbon capture, the promise of future breakthroughs is used to assure the public that today’s emissions are being addressed in the long run. For instance, airlines highlight pilot projects and research partnerships (e.g. Airbus zero-emission concepts, Boeing ecoDemonstrator). SAF is the centerpiece: every airline studied has publicized its SAF usage despite it being <1% of fuel mix, often citing a potential “80% CO₂ reduction” in lifecycle emissions of SAF[50]. This is technically true under ideal conditions, but such statements omit that SAF supply is minuscule and may not significantly dent emissions for years[15][94]. The climate nonprofit Carbon Tracker warned in 2025 that “fossil fuel assets are being locked in on the promise of SAF” – i.e. airlines keep buying new fossil-fueled planes, assuming SAF will later make them green, which might be a dead end if SAF fails to scale[17][95]. Nonetheless, portraying a confident outlook on technology is a core justification strategy: it lets airlines argue that growth now is fine because solutions are on the horizon. Critics label this “undue optimism” and part of greenwashing if used to deflect from making deeper changes now[70].
• Offsetting and “Carbon Neutral” Claims: Many airlines attempted to offer carbon-neutral flying options via offsets or SAF credits, effectively telling customers they can “fly guilt-free.” This has been a flashpoint for accusations. In Europe, regulators identified such practices – like claiming paying a fee can fully counteract CO₂ – as potentially misleading[24]. KLM’s lawsuit specifically took issue with suggestions that its reforestation offsets or biofuel usage made flights sustainable[96]. Ryanair and easyJet (not detailed above) also faced scrutiny for carbon-neutral claims. In Southeast Asia, we haven’t seen major airlines outright advertise “carbon neutral flights,” but the introduction of offset programs (e.g. Malaysia Airlines planning one[18]) could invite similar debates. Offsets are increasingly criticized as greenwashing tools if airlines use them in lieu of real emissions cuts. The pattern is a classic “pay and forget” strategy – shift the focus to external projects (forests, renewable energy elsewhere) to compensate for flight emissions, even though the planes still emit CO₂ at altitude. Going forward, we see airlines softening “carbon neutral” language due to regulatory pressure – for example, British Airways (IAG) stopped using that term in ads by late 2023 after UK authorities signaled a crackdown. Overall, the reliance on offsets is a key part of the justification arsenal (claiming climate responsibility while keeping operations largely unchanged), but it’s now widely viewed with skepticism.
• Buzzwords and Vague Labels: Airlines liberally use terms like “eco-friendly,” “green,” “sustainable,” “responsible” in marketing – often without qualification. Southeast Asian airlines have branded flights or tickets with green labels (VietJet’s “eco-tickets”, Garuda’s “Green Flight” concept), and Europeans have used slogans like “sustainable aviation” in promotions. This vague language is a hallmark of greenwashing. Regulators from Singapore’s ASAS to the UK’s ASA have explicitly warned that generic green claims must be qualified – what exactly is greener or sustainable about it?[36][97] If an airline says “fly green” but only refers to, say, a small SAF percentage or a new plane that’s slightly more efficient, that’s not an absolute green solution. The pattern of using feel-good terminology is common across airlines. It’s part of a strategy to shape public perception that the airline is on the side of the environment. However, as seen, it has backfired legally. The emerging best practice (and likely future rule) is that airlines will need to use precise language: e.g. “fly on a plane that is 20% more fuel-efficient than older models” instead of “fly eco-friendly,” and avoid implying zero impact. The crackdown on KLM, Lufthansa, AF, etc., is forcing this change.
• Highlighting Ancillary Green Efforts: Another strategy is to publicize smaller-scale sustainability initiatives – recycling programs, plastic reduction, wildlife conservation sponsorships, green employee uniforms, etc. These efforts can be genuinely positive but do not address the bulk of emissions from jet fuel. Airlines often bundle them in sustainability reports to demonstrate a holistic commitment. For instance, Philippine Airlines might mention saving paper with e-tickets, or Vietnam Airlines points to planting 50 hectares of forest and using biodegradable materials onboard. The pattern is to create a halo of environmental stewardship, even if those initiatives have negligible effect on the airline’s carbon footprint. NGOs sometimes call this “sprinkling of green” – it doesn’t hurt, but it can distract from the main issue (emissions). Such tactics haven’t led to regulatory action (since running a recycling program isn’t misleading in itself), but when airlines then claim “we’re a sustainable airline” citing those things, that’s when it edges into greenwash.
• Defensive Communications and Stakeholder Engagement: When accused of greenwashing, airlines have employed a defensive strategy of engagement and reframing. KLM’s response to the lawsuit was to express satisfaction that the court provided clarity and to claim it welcomes the dialogue – essentially trying to appear as a good-faith actor that might have erred but is willing to improve[98][82]. Lufthansa, after ASA rulings, issued statements that it regrets any misunderstanding and will provide more information next time[64][99]. This pattern – respond but downplay the issue – is about damage control. Airlines often argue semantics (e.g. “the tagline was open to interpretation”[100]) and reiterate their real sustainability investments to distinguish themselves from outright greenwashers. They also step up stakeholder engagement: for example, after criticism, some European airlines are involving independent panels or NGOs to advise on their sustainability communications (to pre-empt future accusations). We see an industry trend toward voluntary codes of advertising for green claims, precisely because airlines want to avoid more lawsuits.

Conclusion: Reality Check and Future Outlook

The investigation above reveals a clear pattern of inflated green claims colliding with hard emissions data. Many Southeast Asian airlines in 2024–25 proudly proclaim their commitment to sustainability – yet their actual carbon emissions remain high or growing, and concrete reductions are sparse. In Europe, airlines have gone even further in marketing themselves as climate-friendly, only to face legal and public backlash when those claims proved overblown. Common strategies – emphasizing efficiency, invoking future tech, using offsets, and green buzzwords – have been used across regions to justify why airlines can continue business-as-usual (or even expand) while still appearing aligned with climate goals.

However, regulators and consumers are increasingly perceptive. Greenwashing accusations have prompted corrective actions: from Singapore’s ASAS banning misleading ads[46], to European courts and watchdogs forcing airlines to drop or clarify claims[79][86]. The public reaction also shows a shift – there is growing cynicism toward slogans like “fly green” and greater demand for evidence of sustainability, not just promises. When KLM’s CEO says buying efficient planes and biofuel isn’t greenwashing[66], campaigners retort that those steps are insufficient and must not be oversold[81]. Similarly in Asia, a campaign like VietJet’s claiming “eco-flying” was quickly called out as deceptive[36][46].

Going forward, airlines will likely adjust their strategies:
– Marketing will become more factual (e.g. specifying percentage of SAF used, improvements made) rather than claiming “zero impact” or using abstract eco-phrases.
– Sustainability reports will need to reconcile the gap between short-term rising emissions and long-term net-zero goals, perhaps by outlining credible interim targets and transparently reporting progress (or lack thereof).
– Airlines might pivot to talking about “decarbonizing aviation in the long run” and their role in it, rather than implying that any individual flight today can be truly green. The focus may shift to systemic change (fleet transformation, industry R&D) rather than placing the onus on consumers to offset.
– Regulators in Southeast Asia could introduce guidelines (as Singapore is doing[53][54]) to prevent greenwashing, learning from Europe’s stricter stance.

In summary, the comparison between Southeast Asian and European carriers highlights that greenwashing is a global concern in the airline industry. European airlines have already been called out in 2024 for practices like presenting marginal measures as major solutions and using misleading advertising[79]. Southeast Asian airlines, while generally more cautious in messaging so far, are not immune – as seen with VietJet and the general pressures to showcase climate credentials. Both sets of airlines use similar justification strategies, rooted in efficiency improvements, future fuel hopes, and offsetting – strategies that have limits and have drawn criticism for creating a false sense of sustainability. The pattern of rising emissions being explained away by “we’re doing our best with technology and will improve later” is prevalent across the board. The challenge ahead is whether airlines can move beyond this pattern by delivering measurable emission cuts, or whether continued growth will make their green promises ring hollow.

As it stands in 2025, scrutiny is intensifying: airlines will be expected to align their words with actions, or face further accusations of greenwashing from regulators and the public. The aviation industry’s credibility on climate action will depend on greater transparency and honesty about the tough road ahead to truly reduce emissions, rather than justifying them with clever marketing.

Sources:

• Southeast Asian airlines’ sustainability pledges and campaigns – official reports and news (e.g. Singapore Airlines Sustainability Report 2024[55][6]; Thai Airways news[25][12]; Malaysia Airlines press[5]; Vietnam Airlines press release[11][10]; Eco-Business report on VietJet[40][101]).
• Regulatory and industry critiques – Singapore ASAS ruling on VietJet[46][36]; Latham & Watkins on APAC greenwashing laws[54]; EU Consumer Protection investigation[84][24]; Carbon Tracker analysis of aviation climate plans[14][95].

European cases – ASA rulings on Lufthansa, Air France, Etihad (The Guardian)[86][88]; Dutch court verdict on KLM (Reuters)[79][81]; statements by airline CEOs (Reuters, Skift)[65][66]; NGO perspectives (Guardian, Possible)[90]

The post Singapore Airlines Joins VietJet and KLM Exposed in Explosive Greenwashing Scandal and Called Out for Selling the Eco-Friendly Lie as They Have Been Busted for Climate Deception in the Skies and Misleading Sustainable Claims: Everything You Need to Know appeared first on Travel and Tour World