Complaint number: 25/288
Complaint on behalf of: Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc and Climate Clinic VUW
Advertiser: Zespri Group Limited
Advertisement: Zespri Group Limited Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 24 November 2025
Outcome: Settled – Advertisement removed.

Advertisement:
The Zespri Group Limited website advertisement included a section called “The Carbon Footprint of our Kiwifruit”. The text included the following: “…The carbon impact of each stage in the supply chain is shown in Figure 2 with shipping being the largest part. The next largest component was consumer emissions, which are those associated with transport to and from the retailer and fruit waste (including the skin)…”. The pie graph chart in Figure 2 was headed “Contribution of each stage in the supply chain to the carbon footprint of Zespri kiwifruit produced in New Zealand and consumed globally”. The percentages for the contributors were allocated as follows: Shipping – 43%, Consumer – 31%, Packhouse/Coolstore 11%, Repacking/Retailer – 8%, Orchard – 6% and Port – 1%.

Complaint: Complaint against Zespri Group Limited (ZGL) Carbon Footprint Advertisement
1 Introduction
1.1 The complaint is brought by Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc and Climate Clinic VUW.
(a) LCANZI is a not-for-profit incorporated society of legal experts who accept that the scientific evidence shows that climate change will cause global catastrophe unless we cut emissions now and achieve zero net carbon emissions by 2050.
(b) Climate Clinic VUW is a student-run environmental advocacy group at Te Herenga Waka.
1.2 The complaint is against the advertisement depicting the breakdown of carbon emissions on ZGL’s website. ZGL is the largest kiwifruit producer in Aotearoa.
1.3 This complaint is broken down into the following three constituent parts:
(a) Part 2 discusses the relevant standards;
(b) Part 3 applies the standards to the present case and articulates our complaint, visually represented in Appendix A;

(c) Part 4 canvasses several recommendations for consideration if the complaint is accepted.

2 The standards
2.1 LCANZI and Climate Clinic VUW argues that the pie chart on ZGL’s website is inaccurate and materially misleading, and thereby constitutes a breach of rules 2(b) and 2(h) of the Advertising Standards Code (ASC).
(a) Principle 2 of the ASC provides that: [a]dvertisements must be truthful, balanced and not misleading.
(b) Rule 2(b) of the ASC provides that: “[a]dvertisements must not mislead or be likely to mislead, deceive or confuse consumers, abuse their trust or exploit their lack of knowledge. This includes by implication, inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, unrealistic claim, omission, false representation or otherwise.”
(i) It is irrelevant as to whether ZGL intended to mislead the consumer. The ASA must examine, objectively speaking, whether the advertisement, in fact, misleads the consumer.
(c) Rule 2(h) of the ASC provides that: “[e]nvironmental claims must be accurate and able to be substantiated by evidence that reflects scientific and technological developments.”
(i) This advertisement qualifies as an environmental claim within the terms of the Guidance Note on Environmental Claims in Advertising.
(ii) Indeed, the advertisement is an absolute claim which notes the complete life cycle of the kiwifruit. However, ZGL has not substantiated such an absolute claim, as required by the Guidance Note. It is unclear how the consumer share of emissions was calculated.

3 Essence of the complaint
3.1 According to the chart, consumer emissions encompass nearly a third (31%) of total emissions in the lifecycle of Zespri Kiwifruit. This makes consumer emissions second only to emissions from shipping. On their website ZGL claims consumer emissions are calculated by estimating the transport to and from the retailer and the fruit waste (including the skin).
3.2 According to a ZGL representative, the standards used to calculate consumer emissions have changed, whereby consumer emissions to and from stores will be excluded “going forward”. Further, the representative said “consumer emissions % will be significantly lower when we next report our footprint”.
(a) A reasonable consumer looking at ZGL’s website would reasonably expect that the carbon percentage breakdown of Zespri Kiwifruit is accurate. As a result, they would reasonably be deceived into thinking that consumer actions make up a large portion of emissions in the lifecycle of Zespri Kiwifruit, and therefore, they are to blame for a substantial portion of emissions.

(b) Further, consumers should reasonably expect one of the largest horticultural businesses in Aotearoa to update their carbon reports, especially given the emphasis Zespri places on being environmentally sustainable and “carbon positive”. It is difficult to imagine how those standards could be achieved without regular accurate reports.
3.3 However, the current emissions breakdown on ZGL’s website was calculated in 2019, based on a 2017 crop, using outdated standards. There is no clear indication of when the next carbon footprint report will be released. Further, there is no disclaimer that the numbers are outdated, wrong or otherwise misleading on ZGL’s website, therefore constituting a blatant omission.
(a) As provided by recent case authority (24/131 Kenvue, Listerine Television, 24/182 Woolworths NZ, Milkrun Email, 24/199 Delivereasy, Digital Marketing, 25/098 Ponant, Print), fine print or disclaimers are not determinative. Rather, the overall impression that the consumer reasonably understands from the advertisement is what matters. Therefore, the fact that advertisement has a 2019 date stamp is largely irrelevant to whether or not the advertisement is materially misleading.
(b) ZGL now admits to the error (in an email exchange in April 2025) but has not taken remedial action to fix it. See Appendix B.
3.4 This is not a mere trivial error. This is a substantive inaccurately which underplays the role ZGL in the emissions of their Kiwifruit by overstating that consumers are significantly responsible for ZGL’s emissions.
3.5 Zespri may claim that the existence of the 2019 date means that consumers are reasonably aware that it is outdated.
(a) However, the lack of any disclaimer that this is the case and it does not align with their updated standards is a relevant omission which contributes to the misleading nature of the advertisement.

4 Recommendations
4.1 I urge the Advertising Standards Authority to uphold this complaint in accordance 25/035 Lulu Funk, Digital Marketing, whereby ZGL has the option of amending or removing the advertisement.

5 Conclusion
5.1 ZGL has shifted a large portion of the blame for its carbon emissions onto the consumer through an outdated and incorrect claim, based on ZGL’s current standards, upon ZGL’s own admission.
5.2 Despite this ZGL has not removed the outdated and incorrect information from its website, continuing to mislead consumers 6 years after its creation.
5.3 This is a clear case of greenwashing that the ASA has jurisdiction over. Thus, in the interest of accuracy and deterring advertisers making wilful or careless misleading claims, the ASA should uphold this complaint on the basis of a breach of rules 2(b) and 2(h) of the ASC.

Relevant Codes: Advertising Standards Code – Principle 2, Rule 2 (b) Truthful Presentation, Rule 2 (h) Environmental Claims;

Advertiser response: I refer to your letter concerning the above complaint in relation to a webpage hosted on the Zespri.com domain (https://www.zespri.com/en-NZ/sustainability-carbon-footprint) titled “The Carbon Footprint of our Kiwifruit” (the “Content”). The complainants have asked for this complaint be considered in relation Rules 2(b) and 2(h) of the Advertising Standards Code (ASC).

Zespri is committed to helping people, communities, the environment, and consumers thrive through the goodness of kiwifruit. We uphold a high standard of social responsibility in our advertising and promotions, and are proud of the role we play in taking New Zealand kiwifruit to consumers around the world and the significant value this delivers back to New Zealand.
We acknowledge the concern raised by the complainants in relation to carbon footprint information displayed on our website. Our view is that consumers would typically recognise that the data is presented as at a historical point in time (noting it is clearly dated) and that the information is not otherwise misleading. The PAS 2050 Carbon Footprint Standard utilised in Zespri’s product lifecycle assessment remains an up-to-date global reporting standard that is used to measure a product’s lifetime contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Within that context, we consider that the Content offers an informative perspective of the greenhouse gas emissions linked to the lifecycle of New Zealand-grown kiwifruit calculated at the applicable time

However, with a view to finding a pragmatic solution to this issue, Zespri has removed the Content as part of a wider refresh of our website that we are undertaking. Given the above information, Zespri requests this complaint be considered: Settled.

Decision: The Complaints Board Chair had accepted the complaint to go before the Complaints Board to consider whether the Advertising Standards Code had been breached. As part of the self-regulatory process, advertisers have the option of amending or removing their advertising after receiving a complaint. In this case the Advertiser confirmed they had removed the advertisement.

Given the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement with the process by removing the advertisement, the Chair ruled the complaint was settled.