01_Shell's flower emitting chimneys
02_Lexus' "Zero Guilt" campaign
Complaints rise
Complaints to the ASA about environmental claims in advertising increased dramatically in 2007. We received 561 complaints about environmental claims in 410 ads, compared with just 117 complaints about 83 ads the year before.
Claims that products and services were carbon “neutral” or “zero” or “negative” were particularly open to challenge, as were statements about CO2 emissions or absolute claims such as “100% recycled” or “wholly sustainable”.
Greenwash?
As the number of complaints about green claims grew, the ASA commissioned independent research into the public’s understanding of environmental claims in ads. The research results revealed high levels of awareness of environmental messages, but also confusion about what terms mean.
Claims about carbon emissions and green tariffs were among those most likely to confuse consumers, but terms such as “sustainable” and “food miles” were also misunderstood. Those researched admitted to not reading the small print or explanatory text in ads, which advertisers may use to explain bold headline claims about environmental impact.
Flower power?
During the year, a series of rulings by the ASA set benchmarks for all advertisers to follow. Shell’s press ad depicting industrial chimneys emitting flowers instead of smoke was ruled to be misleading because it implied that Shell used at least the majority of their waste CO2 to grow flowers, whereas the actual amount was a very small proportion when compared to the global activities of Shell.
Another ruling, against Ryanair, judged the claim in one of the airline’s ads that aviation accounts for just 2% of emissions to be misleading. The ad invited readers to send a protest to the Treasury about UK Air Passenger Duty, but did not make clear that the 2% figure referred to global aviation emissions, not those from UK flights which account for 5.5%.
Environmental claims were also prevalent in motoring ads. Lexus’ headline claim in a magazine ad “High Performance. Low Emissions. Zero Guilt” was ruled misleading because the text in the ad which clarified the claim was not prominent enough and the claim “Zero Guilt” implied the car caused little or no harm to the environment.
