ASA Adjudication on The Waste and Resources Action Programme Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for recyclenow.com (recyclenow), featured a cartoon of a mother and son visiting their local bottle bank. The boy began depositing bottles in the bank. The voice-over stated "Guess what. Making bottles and jars out of recycled glass uses a lot less energy than making them from scratch. In fact, recycling just one glass bottle saves enough energy to power a washing machine for 10 minutes … or run a light bulb for almost an hour … that one recycled bottle could run a television for 15 minutes … or a computer for 20 minutes ...". The boy was shown putting an empty glass bottle into the recycling crate in the kitchen. The voice-over continued "Recycle. The possibilities are endless." On-screen text stated "recycle the possibilities are endless." The website address for recyclenow and the WRAP logo also featured.

Issue

One viewer challenged whether the ad was misleading by exaggerating the potential energy savings that could be generated from recycling glass.  He understood that, because glass was frequently transported around the country for re-melting or was exported, any environmental benefit was negated.

BCAP TV Code

Response

recyclenow explained that the claims were based on the energy savings that could be made from making bottles and jars from recycled glass (cullet) compared to manufacturing them from raw materials (virgin glass).  recyclenow told the ASA that, after collection, cullet was screened and crushed at recycling plants.  Those were usually located near the glass manufacturing plants where both virgin glass and cullet were melted and subsequently moulded into bottles and jars.

They explained that 81% of UK glass collected for recycling was recycled in the UK and added that glass manufacturers had traditionally been based in the Yorkshire area, because of the plentiful supply of raw materials. Around 50% of glass manufacturers were located in Yorkshire and so most cullet was processed there.  They said recycling plants were nevertheless located around the UK, primarily near glass manufacturers.  They said not all cullet would be of the required standard to be re-used as jars or bottles. The remaining 19% was therefore exported to Europe where standards for glass containers were not as high.

recyclenow explained that when making virgin glass, energy was used in the extraction and transportation of the raw materials; the use of cullet avoided such energy consumption.  In addition, the furnaces used to melt the virgin glass for moulding had to be heated to high temperatures; the furnaces did not have to be set to the same high temperatures when working with cullet.  recyclenow pointed out, however, that the calculations upon which they based the energy savings in the ad related only to the energy used to melt virgin glass as compared to cullet; the energy savings were therefore 'furnace' energy savings and were based on an average glass bottle weighing 263 g.  They submitted a copy of the calculations and explained that the figures reflected the furnace energy savings to be made from recycling all colours of glass - clear, amber and green.

recyclenow told the ASA that, since the ad had been on air, they had conducted further research which took into account energy savings based on 226 g and 340 g bottles made from virgin glass and from cullet.  They explained that the calculations for virgin glass included energy used in the extraction and transportation of raw materials and the calculations for cullet included energy associated with collecting, transporting and preparing the material.  The calculations also included the energy used in the manufacture of the bottles and their transport to the store where they would be sold.  recyclenow said those results showed even greater energy savings than their initial calculations and provided us with a copy.  The data for their calculations was supplied by British Glass, the UK glass industry body, but they also obtained supplementary data from internationally recognised databases such as Ecoinvent and BUWAL.

They said they had no plans to use the TV ad again.

Clearcast endorsed recyclenow's response.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the visuals showed the boy and his mother depositing bottles at their local bottle bank and the end shot showed their home with bottles in a crate ready to be taken to the bottle bank for recycling.  We considered that viewers were likely to infer from the claim "Making bottles and jars out of recycled glass uses a lot less energy than making them from scratch" that energy savings calculations were based on a comparison of making a glass bottle from raw materials (which included the extraction and transportation of the raw materials to the glass manufacturing plant, as well as the manufacturing process, which involved melting and moulding the virgin glass into a glass bottle) as compared to making a glass bottle from cullet (which included the collection and transportation of cullet to the recycling plant, processing at the recycling plant, transportation to the glass manufacturing plant, as well as the manufacturing process, which involved melting and moulding the cullet into a glass bottle).

We noted recyclenow's initial calculations were based on a comparison only of the 'furnace energy used to manufacture a glass bottle from virgin glass or cullet; the melting stage.  We considered that those calculations did not support the implied claim in the ad.

We noted recyclenow had carried out further research in the form of life cycle studies after the ad had been on air.  We were concerned that they had not conducted that research prior to the ad being broadcast.  We nevertheless noted the new calculations took into account energy used in the extraction and transportation of the raw materials for making virgin glass and the transportation of the raw materials to the glass manufacturing plant.  The new calculations also took into account the energy used in the collection and transportation of cullet to the recycling plant, energy used processing the cullet and transportation to the glass manufacturing plant.  They took into account the energy used in the manufacturing process for both virgin glass and cullet.  We noted the new calculations showed greater energy savings than recyclenows initial calculations.  We therefore understood that the energy savings claims in the ad underestimated the potential energy savings that could be made and did not therefore exaggerate the potential energy savings that could be made from recycling glass compared to making glass bottles from scratch.  We concluded that the ad was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.3 (Qualifications) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

We reminded recyclenow of the need to hold adequate substantiation for their claims before broadcast and told them to ensure that they did so in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)