ASA Adjudication on British Association of Reinforcement

Ad

An ad, which appeared in a national press independent supplement about concrete, for the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), featured a picture of a globe with a dotted line between the UK and South America. The ad was headed "YOU DECIDE" and stated "REINFORCEMENT: MANUFACTURED SUSTAINABLY FROM 100% RECYCLED SCRAP METAL THAT IS LOCALLY SOURCED. OR, STEEL SECTIONS: UNSUSTAINABLY MANUFACTURED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES IMPORTED FROM THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?". Further text at the foot of the ad stated "REINFORCED CONCRETE MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE".

Issue

The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA) challenged whether the ad was misleading, because they believed 40% of reinforcing steel was manufactured abroad (from scrap exported from the UK) and then imported back to the UK.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The British Association of Reinforcement (BAR) said it was obvious that the ad was by a British company and therefore compared only the reinforcing steel produced in Britain with the 55% of steel sections that were imported into the UK in 2005. They said that was also highlighted by the fact that the symbolic vessel in the ad was docking in Britain. They said the message in the ad was twofold; firstly, that British reinforcing steel was manufactured more sustainably than British steel sections, and secondly, that raw materials were locally sourced for British reinforcing steel producers but were imported for British steel section producers.

BAR said there were two main ways of producing steel: the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) route and the Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (BOS) route. They said the EAF route used an electric current to melt scrap steel and recycle it in to new steel products. The BOS route used raw materials such as iron ore, coal and coking coal to manufacture steel using a two-stage process. They said the EAF route used one-third of the embodied energy (per tonne) and emitted one-sixth of the carbon dioxide (per tonne) when compared with the BOS route. They said all three British reinforcing steel producers used the EAF route. They said the only heavy section steel producing company in the UK produced via the BOS route. They said, therefore, they believed it was justified to state that EAF production (i.e. all UK produced reinforcement) was more sustainable than BOS production (i.e. all UK produced steel sections).

BAR said the UK was a net exporter of scrap steel, which meant that all UK EAF producers had an abundance of UK scrap from which to source their raw material. They said that because all three UK reinforcing producers could buy their scrap solely from UK scrap merchants, they could justify the claim that they sourced locally. They said the UK BOS producer imported iron ore mostly from Brazil and Australia with coal coming in from various countries including Russia and other Eastern European states. They said the local sourcing of materials was a key part of the sustainable manufacturing of reinforced steel and therefore was further substantiation of the sustainability claim in the ad.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the BSCA believed the ad was misleading because not all reinforcing steel was manufactured in the UK, and that steel had therefore made two long journeys (abroad from the UK and then back to the UK again). We noted the BSCA believed that undermined the implication in the ad that reinforcing steel was a more sustainable choice than steel sections.

We noted BAR's argument that UK manufactured reinforcing steel was more sustainably produced than steel sections and that it was made from locally sourced recycled scrap metal. However, although we also noted BARs argument that it was clear that they were responsible for the ad and, as the trade association for all UK manufacturers of steel reinforcement products, readers would realise that the ad was intended only to refer to reinforcing steel produced in the UK, we considered that that basis of the comparison was not clear. We considered that readers were likely to interpret the section on "Reinforcement" as a reference to all reinforcing steel sold in the UK. Because a large proportion of reinforcing steel sold in the UK was manufactured outside of the UK and had therefore been exported and then imported back to the UK again, we considered that the ad misrepresented the sustainability of reinforcing steel and was therefore likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1(Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

Action

We told BAR to make the basis of their comparisons clear in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)