ASA Adjudication on Citu Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for Greenhouse housing development, claimed "the UK's first carbon-negative* residential development. investments that don't cost the earth… the future of property investment zero-carbon, zero stamp duty". The asterisk led to a footnote that stated "*the renewable energy generated by the greenhouse and its wind turbine is more than the amount of energy that is used by the development itself. the excess energy produced then helps to offset against further carbon emitting energy production elsewhere, thus carbon negative. All information correct at the time of going to press".

Issue

1. The complainant challenged whether the claim "carbon-negative" was misleading because it ignored the carbon used in the construction of the development.

The ASA challenged whether the claim:

2. "carbon negative" could be substantiated; and

3. "zero-carbon" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Citu Ltd (Citu) explained that the Greenhouse development featured embedded renewable electricity generation sources, which produced enough to meet the energy needs of the development. They said they planned to include a 1 MW wind turbine and two smaller turbines on the roof of the building.  The flats also had several energy efficiency features.  Citu said the carbon negative claim was explained in the footnote of the ad, which made clear that the claim referred only to the energy used during the normal use of the development, i.e. the electricity usage of the flats when in occupation.

Citu sent data on the technical specifications for the electricity generation sources and the estimated electricity usage of the development when in normal use. They pointed out that the net electricity production from the wind turbine was significantly more than the development's requirements. Citu said they intended the excess to be fed back into the National Grid where it would serve to offset electricity generated from non-renewable sources.  Citu also sent data from their contractors on the levels of CO2 produced in the building phase for each of the flats. Although they had not included those CO2 emissions in the calculations for the carbon negative claim, they maintained that the data demonstrated that, over the lifetime of the development, the CO2 offset would cover that which was emitted during the construction.  

3. Citu pointed out that the development complied with the government definition of 'carbon zero'. They said the development produced no carbon. They acknowledged that carbon would be emitted during the construction phase but they again pointed out that the excess electricity produced by the development would offset that carbon through the electricity surplus sold to the national grid.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Citu intended the claim "carbon negative" to refer only to carbon used by the flats when occupied and the ad featured a disclaimer to that effect.  We considered that, even without the disclaimer, readers were unlikely to understand from the claim that Citu had taken into consideration the carbon produced during construction.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We note the technical data sent by Citu demonstrated that the embedded energy generation in the development would produce significant surplus electricity and that that surplus would be sold to the National Grid. We understood that the surplus would displace electricity produced by non-renewable generation. We note those sources of generation would have otherwise emitted CO2 in the process of generating electricity and considered that the surplus electricity from the Greenhouse would effectively offset that CO2. Because the development was self sufficient, emitting no CO2 itself, and produced surplus electricity that offset CO2 through the National Grid, we concluded that Citu had substantiated the claim.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted Citu referred to the government's definition of zero carbon, which classified developments that incorporated an embedded generation source and did not produce any CO2 as 'carbon zero'.  We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the claim "zero carbon" that no carbon would be produced from the homes during use. Because the development complied with the Government definition and because it produced no carbon during use, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)