1. & 3. Not upheld

The ASA noted the documentation submitted by RTG. We considered that most consumers would infer from the claim, "World's first Carbon Neutral taxi company", that RTG was the first taxi company to reduce its carbon emissions to net zero through a combination of reducing emissions and offsetting the remainder using robust and verifiable schemes. We did not consider that consumers would infer from the claim that taxi journeys were environmentally friendly per se.

The ASA understood that the WBCSD-WRI GHG Protocol (the GHG Protocol) used by RTG was a widely used and internationally recognised standard for assessing a company's carbon emissions. We noted that using such a standard was a core element of generally accepted best practice in terms of accounting emissions as part of a carbon neutrality claim. We noted a number of key factors needed to be taken into account when considering the robustness of an 'offset', that is, the type of unit purchased to reduce net emissions to zero. We understood that the units purchased by RTG, ‘Voluntary Carbon Standard’ (VCS), were broadly comparable in quality to other established units such as ‘Carbon Emission Reductions’ (CER).

We noted the independent third party report submitted by RTG, which outlined how the GHG Protocol was used to assess RTG's carbon emissions. We noted that the GHG Protocol called for emissions to be reported under three 'scopes': Scope 1 included direct GHG emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company such as company owned vehicles; Scope 2 included emissions from the generation of electricity, heat and steam generated off-site; Scope 2 included all other 'indirect' emissions such as waste disposal and staff commuting. We understood that under the GHG Protocol, companies had to account for all Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions but that accounting for Scope 3 emissions was optional.

We noted that emissions from the taxi fleet made up the overwhelming majority of emissions generated by Radio Taxis and, although RTG's taxi drivers were self-employed and owned their own vehicles, meaning that taxi fleet emissions fell under the optional 'Scope 3' heading, we considered it necessary for these emissions to be included in the calculation if the ad was not to be misleading. We noted that they had been. We also noted that other Scope 3 type emissions had also been included in the report; we therefore considered that RTG had gone beyond best practice.

We considered that RTG had followed generally accepted best practice methodology for reporting carbon emissions. We noted that RTG had purchased offsets in the form of VCS, which were of a sufficient quality to be considered useful in substantiating carbon neutrality claims. We therefore concluded that RTG had substantiated the claims.

On these points we investigated the website under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.38 (Other comparisons) and 11.1 and 11.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

The ASA noted it was generally accepted that carbon neutrality involved the energy consumption or 'fuel burn' of the vehicle in question; with other external and indirect emissions, such as those related to the infrastructure or manufacture of vehicles, lying outside of the scope.

We noted the website stated, "Why not reduce your own Carbon footprint by using Radio Taxis Group services". We considered that consumers would understand from this that by choosing RTG for their taxi journey the carbon emissions involved in the energy consumption of the taxi vehicle would be offset by RTG, reducing the net emission of that journey. Because the documentation submitted by RTG in relation to their CarbonNeutral ® certification showed that they offset the carbon emissions of their taxi fleet, we concluded that this claim had been substantiated.

On this point we investigated the website under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.38 (Other comparisons) and 11.1 and 11.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

4. Upheld

We noted the website outlined RTG's "Carbon reduction and offset strategy", which included, "Constant Renewal and upgrading of taxi fleet". We noted that Addison Lee Plc said they understood RTG's drivers were self-employed and that the taxi vehicles were not owned by RTG. In light of this Addison Lee Plc objected to the claim, "Constant Renewal and upgrading of taxi fleet" because they believed it exaggerated RTG's ability to replace older vehicles with newer, cleaner models.

We noted RTG said they had implemented schemes to give their drivers discounts or more favourable terms in order to purchase newer vehicles. However, we considered that the average consumer would infer from the claim, "Constant Renewal and upgrading of taxi fleet", that RTG had direct control over the composition of their taxi fleet and were engaged in an ongoing process of upgrading the vehicles; thus ensuring that RTG's taxi vehicles were more likely to be newer, cleaner models. Because we understood that this was not the case we concluded that the claim had misleadingly exaggerated RTG's ability to determine the composition of their taxi fleet.

On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1 (Environmental claims).