Z Energy apologises over ‘getting out of petrol’ ad as fossil fuel greenwashing faces global reckoning

Sunday, 2 November 2025

Z Energy has apologised for an advertising campaign that declared it was “in the business of getting out of the petrol business”, after settling a landmark greenwashing case brought by environmental and consumer advocates.

The case – lodged in 2023 by Consumer NZ, the Environmental Law Initiative and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc (LCANZI) – alleged that Z’s Moving With The Times campaign misled consumers about the company’s commitment to cleaner energy and the scale of its climate transition.

Z said it does not consider its advertising misleading, while the plaintiffs “have a contrary opinion”. Both sides agreed to disagree.

The case marks one of the most significant challenges to corporate green claims in New Zealand, amid growing international scrutiny of how fossil fuel companies market their environmental credentials.

Z’s campaign – launched in 2022 with the tagline “We’re in the business of getting out of the petrol business” – was part of a wider brand reset from Saatchi & Saatchi under the theme “We’re for moving with the times”.

The campaign featured a clip directed by Māori filmmaker Ray Edwards and a waiata from musician Rob Ruha, promoting Z’s ambitions to move to cleaner energy while “creating a better Aotearoa”.

At the time, Z said the campaign reflected its shift toward sustainable energy solutions and investments in electric vehicle charging.

But environmental groups said the messaging was misleading, given the company remained one of the country’s dominant petrol retailers and continued to profit from fossil fuel sales.

In a statement issued on Sunday, along with newspaper advertisements, Z Energy apologised “for any confusion caused” by the campaign.

It said it remained committed to supporting customers through the energy transition and to ensuring its communications were “accurate and aligned with our values”.

Z Energy chief executive Lindis Jones said the company did not believe customers had been misled, but acknowledged the importance of clear communication.

“Given our role in the economy and what we sell, and our ambition, it’s critical that anything we say to customers now or in the future is not misunderstood,” he told the Sunday Star-Times. “That’s why we felt it was worthy of an apology.”

On the intention behind the campaign, Jones said it was meant to be “bold and provocative,” and to encourage people to see Z differently, not just as a fuel retailer.

“The statement was made alongside many other messages and was designed to provoke thought about the work we were doing and the strategy and plans we had in place,” he said.

Jones acknowledged that environmental claims are difficult for consumers to verify. “Accuracy matters, and it’s incumbent upon organisations to be clear and fair in their communications.”

But he said companies faced challenges in communicating environmental ambitions.

“One of the concerns I have is that it’s easier to say nothing, and the bridge from saying nothing to doing nothing becomes smaller.”

He pointed to Z Energy’s emissions reporting, since almost a decade ahead of requirement. “That transparency built trust, but it also exposed us to scrutiny that some might consider unnecessary. We’ve learned a lot from this case, and the tests around greenwashing are quite clear.”

Jones also called on the Government to take a greater lead in supporting New Zealand’s energy transition. He pointed to infrastructure bottlenecks, such as negotiating with multiple electricity distributors to expand EV charging networks, as one of the biggest constraints on decarbonisation.

Clear regulations and market certainty, he said, are essential for companies to invest confidently in projects that support the low-emissions transition.

He also cited the challenge of decarbonising the aviation sector, particularly establishing a market for sustainable aviation fuel. “It’s going to take many years, potentially up to a decade,” Jones said.

‘One of the worst examples of greenwashing’

Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy said the settlement showed that Z had been held to account. He maintained the campaign was misleading.

“Our goal in taking this case was to hold Z Energy accountable. Today’s public apology by Z Energy, which is featured in newspapers across the country, shows that we have achieved that.

“Although Z Energy’s campaign said the company was in the business of getting out of the petrol business, it wasn’t actually intending to get out of the petrol business. Or at least not any time soon.”

Duffy said Consumer NZ believed the campaign represented “one of the worst examples of greenwashing in New Zealand’s history”.

“Our settlement allows for us to agree to disagree with Z Energy on that,” he said.

Greenwashing is a marketing tactic where a company makes false or exaggerated claims about being environmentally friendly to boost its reputation.

LCANZI and ELI said the case highlighted gaps in New Zealand’s ability to regulate misleading environmental marketing.

They took the case after the Commerce Commission rejected a complaint that the campaign breached the Fair Trading Act, saying that could only be determined by the courts.

“In this case, three small not-for-profits joined forces to call out a big corporate entity for greenwashing,” said Jessica Palairet, executive director at LCANZI.

“While the government and regulators are currently missing in action, we have shown that we are not afraid to step in to fill that gap. This case sends a clear message to other major businesses: if you cross or sail close to the line on green claims, you run the risk of being very publicly held to account.”

The groups said Z Energy’s acknowledgement that petrol and fossil fuels were major contributors to climate change was significant, as was its agreement that the Government had a crucial role in facilitating the energy transition.

“Having one of New Zealand’s largest emitters join our call for the government to step up and better support climate action is extraordinary,” Palairet said. “We need a robust plan to transition away from fossil fuels, and Z Energy agrees with our stance that the government needs to step up to make this happen.”

Matt Hall, director of legal and research at ELI, said New Zealand’s system relied too heavily on voluntary compliance.

“The government has a crucial role in facilitating the energy transition, particularly in relation to the transport sector,” Hall said. “Collectively we are calling for bipartisan policies and strategies to achieve our climate targets, so businesses and consumers can navigate the transition confidently.”

He said the plaintiffs were pleased Z Energy acknowledged that consumers found it hard to verify green claims, and that businesses must be truthful for markets to work properly.

“We will continue to monitor the claims of major polluters, including Z Energy, to ensure they are meeting this standard,” Hall said.

Global greenwashing reckoning

The case comes as regulators and courts overseas ramp up scrutiny of misleading environmental marketing by major energy companies.

Earlier this month, a French court ruled that oil major TotalEnergies misled consumers by claiming it could become carbon neutral by 2050. It ordered the company to remove the statements from its website or face daily fines, the first time France’s greenwashing law has been applied to a fossil fuel company.

“The wave of accountability is spreading,” Hall said. “Z Energy’s apology follows an apology from Energy Australia in the settlement of a greenwashing case brought by Australian Parents for Climate Action, and comes at the same time as a landmark ruling in France against TotalEnergies’ greenwashing advertising. Outcomes like this show that the pressure is working.”

He added: “Ultimately, the only way to prevent consumers from being misled by any aspect of fossil fuel advertising is to completely ban it.”