ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

A paid-for Google advertisement for Superdry, seen on 30 June 2025, stated “Superdry: Sustainable Style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability […]”.

The ASA challenged whether the claim was misleading. Superdry stated that the purpose of the ad was to highlight that it manufactured, sourced and sold products across a range of categories with sustainability attributes and credentials, which consumers could purchase to form a wardrobe. Superdry said consumers would understand the claim to mean that products within the collection were either stylish, had sustainable attributes, or both, and that the ad did not suggest that all Superdry products were sustainable.

Superdry explained that the ad was a Google Performance Max advert, meaning it was an automated, goal-based advertisement and that consumer search behaviour determined where users landed on the Superdry website. The sustainability attributes and credentials were clearly set out on relevant product pages. It assessed raw materials and products against standards and certifications produced by the Textile Exchange (an independent third party) and provided examples of product listings and associated transaction certificates showing fabric composition and what this meant.

Superdry said it determined sustainability using a three-pillar approach set out in its FY24 Sustainability Report, which includes;

• being lower impact on the environment via the use of low impact materials;
• moving towards net zero; and
• communicating with integrity.

It stated that 64% of garments, footwear and accessories purchased in FY24 contained sustainably sourced materials and submitted their Full Product Order Book as evidence. Superdry acknowledged on reviewing the ad that the full life cycle of its products was not publicly available and as such it had been produced in error. The ad was therefore removed. However, Superdry did not consider the ad to have misled consumers.

The ASA assessed the ad against the CAP Code and CMA guidance on environmental claims in the fashion retail sector. It considered that the claim was unqualified and absolute, that its basis was unclear, and that Superdry had not provided evidence demonstrating that its products had no detrimental environmental impact across their full life cycle. The ASA concluded that the claim was likely to mislead and was therefore in breach of the CAP Code.

This ruling forms part of a wider investigation into the retail sector, using AI through the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring System.