ASA Adjudication on EDF Energy plc

Ad

A TV and internet ad for EDF Energy:

a. a voice-over in the TV ad stated "By 2020 EDF Energy aim to reduce the carbon intensity of CO2 emissions from their electricity productions by 60%". On-screen text stated "Aims based on improvements to EDF Energy's 2006 performance and is subject to change in the event of matters beyond EDF Energy's reasonable control".

b. the internet ad showed an image of an open book. Various images popped up from the book including trees, a green field with sheep grazing, a corn field and a countryside scene with wind turbines and a hot air balloon. The ad played a song and the words of the song were shown at the top of the ad: "It's not that easy being green. Having to spend each day the colour of the leaves ... But green's the colour of spring. And green can be cool and friendly like. I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful. And I think it's what I want to be". Text stated "If we don't save today, we can't save tomorrow ... Find out how EDF Energy is combating climate change".

Issue

1. Five viewers challenged whether the claim "By 2020 EDF Energy aim to reduce the carbon intensity of CO2 emissions from their electricity production by 60%" in ad (a) was misleading, because the vast majority of viewers would not understand the term 'carbon intensity' and would believe EDF intended to reduce their CO2 emissions by 60%.  

2. Two complainants, including People & Planet, challenged whether ad (b) misleadingly implied that EDF Energy was a 'green' energy supplier, because they believed they supported and invested in nuclear power and only a small proportion of their electricity was supplied by renewable energy.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. EDF Energy plc (EDF) said the TV ad was part of an ongoing national campaign aimed at raising awareness of EDF's published Climate Commitments. They said a key part of their commitment was to reduce the CO2 intensity of their electricity generation, by which they meant the amount of CO2 they emitted whilst producing a given volume of electricity.  They believed that was a more useful measure than 'absolute tonnes' of CO2 because it allowed their company to continue to monitor its performance in the area irrespective of increased generation capacity due to changes in demand.  They said an absolute target would not reflect the need to increase their electricity generation if demand increased. EDF said they could not control changes in national demand for electricity, which could increase dramatically by 2020 if, for example, electric cars or some other emerging technology became more common.  They said that adopting an 'absolute tonnes' methodology of monitoring CO2 emission reductions would therefore simply not be sustainable or allow for the activities of competing generators to be compared on a truly like for like basis.  EDF said, in that respect, not only did all of their main competitors use "carbon intensity" as a measure of CO2 emission reductions from generation but that approach was consistent with how all suppliers were required to give customers information about the energy source fuel mix of the electricity they supplied under the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005.  They said their approach was also consistent with the way in which suppliers of other products and services were beginning to communicate with their customers about CO2 emissions associated with the delivery of those products and services, e.g. supermarkets and food manufacturers.  EDF said although terms such as 'carbon intensity' might not yet be fully understood by all, they believed that should not prevent them from using such terms to raise awareness of the issues.  They said they had ensured that their website contained a full glossary of that and other terms that they realised might be less well understood by their customers.  

EDF said the ad was not an attempt to artificially inflate their commitment claim.  They said their analysis actually showed that they could have reasonably justified a claimed carbon intensity reduction of over 67%.  However, the key for them was to ensure that they had the most realistic and accurate measure for the target they wanted to achieve.  They provided a breakdown of how they would achieve the 60% reduction and the business plan that the aim was based on. They said their commitments in this area were linked to their business plans to replace existing coal fired generation plants with gas fired and nuclear generation plants together with increased development of renewable generation (such as wind) by 2020.  They stressed that the business plans were not based on assumptions but actual agreed strategy, elements of which were already in the course of being delivered (for example planning permission for the first gas fired plant had already been granted and the Government had now confirmed its approval to the development of new nuclear generation).  EDF said, however, that even based on their conservative analysis, the figures still revealed that EDF would in fact achieve an absolute reduction of 61% of CO2 emissions from its electricity production compared with 2006 levels.  They said that indicated that even if viewers had misinterpreted their TV campaign to mean that they aimed for an absolute reduction in CO2 emissions of 60% the ad was not misleading.

EDF also pointed out that following consultation with Clearcast the caveat "Aims based on improvements to EDF Energy's 2006 performance and is subject to change in the event of matters beyond EDF Energy's reasonable control" had been included in the ad to make clear to viewers that the claim was subject to matters outside of their control.  

Clearcast said due to the complexity of the script and the various elements included within it they had been very cautious in approving the ad.  They said they had considered the issue of whether viewers were likely to understand the difference between 'carbon intensity' and 'CO2 emissions' but following their discussions with EDF they had considered that 'carbon intensity' was a term that was common within the industry and would be understood by the viewer.  They said they were careful to ensure that the ad did not refer to 'carbon intensity' on its own or was used instead of 'CO2 emissions'.   They said they also considered that 'carbon intensity' was a more accurate and valid way of assessing EDF's CO2 emissions.  They said the claim was based on commitments EDF were undertaking now to achieve in 12 years time and, as the accompanying caveat explained, the comparison was based on 2006 figures but 'matters outside EDF's reasonable control' might make a claim based on CO2 emissions alone irrelevant.  For those reasons they said they believed the ad was not misleading.

2. EDF said the internet ad was intended to highlight the need to combat climate change and that that was something that both they and their customers needed to get involved in.  They said the ad highlighted that although taking steps to combat climate change might not be easy for either a large company or an individual customer, if people were passionate about securing the future of the planet, everyone needed to demonstrate their intent to tackle climate change head on.  

EDF said they were very proud of their record on 'green' issues and they provided details of some of their achievements in that area, for example they believed they were the first energy company to reward customers for reducing their energy consumption.  They said, however, they had deliberately avoided making statements such as "greenest energy company" or "greenest supplier" not only because of the problems with substantiating such claims but also because they understood that the term "green supplier" could mean different things to different people.  For that reason they had been careful to ensure that the focus throughout their ad was about lowering CO2 emissions and combating climate change.  They pointed out that the ad did not state that EDF was a 'green' supplier and the only references to 'green' were to recognise that they appreciated that it was not easy being green.  EDF said the ultimate role of the ad was to raise awareness of exactly what action EDF had taken to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change and what further action they were planning to take.  

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted 'carbon intensity' referred to the relative amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy or fuels produced.  We noted EDF had qualified the claim to make clear that the 60% reduction was based on a comparison with their 2006 performance and that it was subject to change in the event of matters outside of EDF's control.  

We noted the detailed breakdown of the 60% reduction claim which EDF provided showed that the reduction in their carbon intensity by 2020 would be 68% and that EDF had also modelled the predicted reduction levels that would take place if the amount of electricity increased beyond current expectations and even in that scenario the reduction in carbon intensity would be 67%.  We noted their calculations also showed that the reduction in absolute carbon emissions was likely to be 61% or 56% at the extra production level.   We noted those calculations were based on planned business strategies and EDF had factored in where some elements of those strategies might not be met.

We noted 'carbon intensity' was a measure that was used within the industry and that it was also used for reporting fuel mix as part of the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005.  We considered, however, that without qualification to explain its definition, most viewers were unlikely to understand its meaning and were likely to infer that it related to absolute carbon emissions.  Nevertheless, we noted EDF had demonstrated that if they achieved their aim they would also reduce their absolute carbon emissions by 60% and we therefore considered that qualification of the term "carbon intensity" was not necessary in this instance because whichever way they interpreted the claim viewers were unlikely to be misled.  We considered that because EDF had demonstrated that they had planned business strategies in place to achieve their aim of a 60% reduction in both the carbon intensity of their CO2 emissions and their absolute CO2 emissions, the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.2 (Implications), 5.2.3 (Qualifications) and 5.2.6 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted ad (b) did not make any direct claims that EDF was a 'green supplier', although we considered several images could be interpreted as "green" references, for example the green fields and the wind turbine, and the references to being 'green' in the song.  We considered, however, that consumers were likely to understand that the ad merely highlighted that EDF, although recognising the difficulties involved, wanted to take steps to tackle climate change and was asking consumers to get involved as well.  We noted if consumers clicked on the ad they were directed straight to EDF's internet microsite, which included detailed information about EDF's steps to reduce their carbon intensity, their investment in nuclear power and their intention to increase their investment in renewable energy.

We considered that consumers were unlikely to infer from the ad that EDF were a 'green' supplier and we therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)