ASA Adjudication on NXEC Trains Ltd

Ad

A magazine and national press ad for National Express East Coast trains (NXEC) showed an aeroplane taking off from a runway. Accompanying text stated "'Wha-hey, look at that carbon go!' Significantly lower your carbon emissions with National Express East Coast trains*". The asterisk was linked to smallprint text that stated "*Source: Best Foot Forward independent study. For more information on how train travel can help reduce your carbon footprint and to view the study in full, log on to nationalexpress.com".

Issue

Transport Watch and a member of the public, formerly of the transport industry, challenged whether:

1.  the Best Foot Forward study was independent as claimed, because they understood that it had been commissioned by National Express; and

2.  the claim "Significantly lower your carbon emissions with National Express East Coast trains" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.  National Express (NE) explained that Best Foot Forward (BFF) were selected to undertake the comparative study because they were a recognised leader in carbon footprinting.  In addition, BFF had particular expertise in transport having recently worked for a car manufacturer and been involved with a sustainable mobility project for an environmental group.  NE said the methodology used in the study was fully described in the report and there was a comprehensive list of data sources in the reference section.  They said NXEC provided BFF with data specific to their services, but the report and its method structure and design was that of BFF.  

NE believed a true test of independence was whether the methodology and data contained in the BFF report was robust and they were confident that they were.  NE submitted the report in full for the ASA's attention.

2.  NE said it was widely acknowledged that the train was an environmentally preferable form of transport.  They pointed out that the BFF report indicated that average loaded NXEC services generated between one-third and one-seventh of the total emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2e) per passenger than those emitted from the equivalent plane journey, depending on route, when an average per passenger emission figure was calculated for journeys taken from the five London airports.  They said this assumed the carbon intensity of the electricity used to power the electric trains was the average for the UK national grid.  They said, as an aside, the BFF report noted electric trains actually used electricity sourced from British Energy, who generated electricity from nuclear power, and the relative advantage was actually greater; this figure could not be used in the main assessment, however, because carbon accounting protocols determined that an average figure relative to the national grid should be used.

NE explained that the main figures used in the BFF report related to average load factors, but the report recognised the variability arising from this as well as from other factors that could arise in this type of uncertainty analysis such as electrical energy losses resulting from the distribution of the electrical supply throughout the rail network, but still demonstrated a carbon benefit of travelling by train.  NE believed the government's White Paper, "Delivering a Sustainable Railway", quoted an average load factor across the day for inter-urban services as 45.7% and noted this indicated spare capacity across the rail network.  The average load factors used in the BFF report (44%) were based on actual services, where overcrowding was not a problem, and were slightly less than those quoted in the White Paper.  They explained that one of the studies referenced in the White Paper used an assumed load factor of 40% in its calculations relating to the performance of rail over other modes of transport, but as this was an assumed figure, it was not as reliable as that used in the White Paper or NXEC's own data.

NE said, in accordance with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidelines, on greenhouse gas reporting, the study did not take into account any indirect emissions associated with construction or maintenance of the supporting infrastructure for the different modes of transport included.  They said, similarly, it did not incorporate data relating to onward journeys, which, they believed, was very significant for aviation since there was a high dependency on cars for travel to and from regional airports.  NE also pointed out that the analysis in the report made no assumption for the need for additional capacity and so emission from any large scale new construction did not feature in the calculations.

They said the report took a conservative approach to the emissions factor in relation to the electricity used by electric trains.  They explained that the figures were expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents, which took into account any global warming potential of other greenhouse gases, and, in keeping with best practice guidance on greenhouse gas reporting, used an average of 0.557 kgCO2e/kWh for electricity from the national grid in 2007, despite the fact that the carbon intensity used by electric trains was significantly lower at 0.105 kgCO2/kWh.  They said the exact fuel mix used to generate traction electricity did affect the environmental performance of their services and the report did not make predictions about future environmental performance, but believed, with the increase in renewable energy sources, the carbon intensity of the national grid was likely to reduce.

NE explained that the average CO2 emissions figure claimed in the BFF report was 42 g per rail passenger and was based on data from the traction electricity and diesel usage of the rolling stock at NXEC: at 39 g CO2e per passenger kilometre, electric trains were more efficient than diesel trains, where emissions were rated as 48 g CO2e per passenger kilometre.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA understood that the report referred to in the ad, "Determining the carbon footprint of the East Coast line and alternative transport modes", was compiled by BFF, a sustainability consultancy, following their own analysis of greenhouse emissions for car and air travel in contrast to those estimated for select train journeys on the NXEC network.  We also understood that data relating to the rail element of the comparison was sourced from NE and the conversion factors for electricity and diesel from DEFRA.  We noted the report had been commissioned by NE to inform and support their advertising campaign on the carbon benefits of travelling by train on the East Coast line.

Although we appreciated that the calculations were conducted by BFF without input from NE, we considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim "independent study" that the analysis had been undertaken completely independently of NE.  We noted, however, NE had supplied the figures for use in the calculations and paid for the analysis to be carried out.  Because the study had not been conducted independently of NE, we concluded that the claim "independent study" in this context was likely to mislead.      

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2.  Not upheld

We understood that the complainants were concerned about the ad's impression that carbon emissions for rail travel were significantly lower than with air travel for several reasons.  They were concerned that the load factors used in the calculations were inaccurate, that large scale construction and maintenance of the rail network would increase emissions as would the increased use of coal in the fuel generation mix, all of which would affect the reported average CO2 emissions figure of 42g per rail passenger kilometre.

We considered that readers of the ad were likely to interpret it as suggestive of a comparison between the carbon emissions likely to be realised as the result of a plane journey against those of the same journey using National Express East Coast trains at the time the ad appeared.  For that reason, we considered that emissions as a result of construction and maintenance of the rail network were unlikely to have featured in the comparative analysis calculations and it was not unreasonable for BFF not to have incorporated those calculations into their analysis.

We considered the complainants' further objections.  Although we considered that it was reasonable to query the impact of an increase in coal in the fuel mix for electricity supply on CO2 emissions, we understood that the report used current Defra figures relating to the electricity supply.  Because we considered that the claim was likely to be interpreted as indicative of a comparison between two modes of transport at the present time, we also considered that it was reasonable to use the current fuel generating mix in the calculations.  In addition, we understood that the actual source of power with regard to train electricity supply was likely to result in lower average figures than those incorporated into the BFF analysis.  

With regard to the load factor, we understood that the figures used for rail travel were calculated averages using the data from actual NXEC services throughout the day and were not national averages for rail travel generally.  We also appreciated that the complainants were concerned that the rail load factor used, although apparently indicating spare capacity, did not give an accurate picture of travel on some peak services, where they believed overcrowding was a problem.  They had further explained that, if the problem of overcrowding was addressed, then the resulting decrease in the number of passengers would in turn result in a lower load factor and higher per passenger kgCO2e.  We considered, however, that because the load factor figures were taken directly from NXEC's actual current experience (where overcrowding was not a cause for concern) and the source of the claim was clearly stated in the ad, it was not misleading to use that load factor in this specific set of calculations, which related directly to a measurement of CO2 emissions in relation to NXEC current services with those from corresponding air travel.

We concluded that the claim "Significantly lower your carbon emissions with National Express East Coast trains" had been substantiated and was unlikely to mislead readers about the comparative benefits of per passenger CO2 emissions of travelling with NXEC trains.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons), 49.2 and 49.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad should not appear again in its current form.  We told NXEC to remove the claim "independent study" in relation to the BFF report "Determining the carbon footprint of the East Coast line and alternative transport modes" in future marketing.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)