ASA Adjudication on EDF Energy Customers plc

Ad

Three TV ads, a press ad and a poster ad for Green Britain Day. The three TV ads were shown in sequence at various points during ad breaks.

a. The first TV ad featured a short sequence of a green coloured Union Jack blowing in the wind;

b. The second TV ad also featured the sequence of the flag blowing and finished with the EDF Energy logo in conjunction with the London 2012 Olympics logo and the launch date of their Green Britain Day;

c. The third TV ad showed images of the 1948 London Olympics and Britain around that period. A voiceover stated "London 2012 is our chance to lead the world in the fight against climate change, so on July 10th EDF Energy are launching Green Britain Day". A group of people were then shown cutting out a variety of different types of green fabric and sewing it together to make a Union Jack. The flag was then shown flying in the wind.

d. The press ad featured the green Union Jack with "10.07.2009" stamped across it. Text beneath the image stated "Brought to you by EDF Energy, sustainability partner of London 2012".

e. The poster featured the same image as the press ad, with the date across the middle. The poster had an EDF Energy logo beneath the image.

Issue

The complainants challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that EDF Energy was:

1. a 'green' energy company; and

2. a British company.

CAP Code

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2.  EDF Energy Customers plc (EDF) maintained that, as an energy company, they had sought to take the lead in tackling environmental and social issues facing the industry. They said they launched documents called Our Climate Commitments in 2007 followed by Our Social Commitments in 2008 to clearly define their role in dealing with those issues. EDF believed that they represented one of the biggest packages of environmental and sustainability initiatives launched by any major British company. They added that their stance was instrumental in enabling them to become the first company in the UK to be granted the status of Sustainability Partner of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics.

EDF said, as part of their Sustainability Partner role, they developed the idea of a campaign to raise awareness of the challenge of climate change in conjunction with the London 2012 Olympic Games. EDF maintained that the campaign was intended to provide a platform for a call to action as part of a campaign to motivate and inspire communities in Britain to take collective action to make Britain greener. They said the proposed campaign led to the creation of "Green Britain Day" and "Team Green Britain" initiatives, which they promoted through the ads under investigation.

EDF said they arrived at an image that incorporated elements of the Union Jack flag in a green colour palette because it was strongly symbolic of what they hoped to achieve through the campaigns. They stressed that the image was used to promote the launch of the Green Britain Day and Team Green Britain awareness campaigns and was not used to make claims related to EDF, beyond the fact that they were launching the campaign. They maintained that it was not used in conjunction with any claim or suggestion, direct or otherwise, that EDF itself was either 'green' or British. They pointed out that the campaign was supported by a wide set of stakeholders including both the Mayor of London and the Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change and organisations such as the Eden Project and Global Action Plan.

EDF said they were one of Britain's largest energy companies. They acknowledged that the ultimate parent company of EDF Energy (UK) Limited was EDF S.A., the main energy company in France. However, they pointed out that each of their businesses was entirely based in and supported by call centres across Britain. They said all of their businesses operated through public limited companies, which were all incorporated and registered in the UK. EDF also pointed out that they held UK statutory licences permitting them to operate in the relevant fields of supply, generation and distribution under the direct regulation and jurisdiction of the UK regulator, Ofgem. EDF said each of the companies was a wholly owned subsidiary of EDF Energy plc, another UK registered public limited company, which was originally incorporated in 1989 at the time the UK regional electricity boards were privatised. They pointed out that EDF Energy plc was wholly owned by EDF Energy (UK) Ltd, which was another UK registered company and was the ultimate UK holding company of the EDF Energy group of companies.

Clearcast said they were conscious of the ads appearing to portray EDF as a green company, which, they considered, was difficult to justify.  They said, however, they were satisfied that the idea was not to promote EDF as a green company but to promote their initiative of a Green Britain day, where they hoped to encourage the public to change their behaviour and attitude toward the environment.  Clearcast believed that viewers would infer that the ads were promoting Green Britain Day and Team Green Britain rather than EDF as a green company.

Clearcast also believed that, within the context of the campaign to launch Green Britain Day and Team Green Britain, the alteration of the flag did not mislead about the identity of EDF.  They pointed out that they made no attempt to claim they were a UK company and used the device simply as a visual aid to tie the two main strands of the campaigns together: a green initiative for the people of Britain.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ads did not make direct claims that EDF was a 'green' energy supplier or, more generally, a 'green' company. We considered that consumers were likely to be aware that EDF was a conventional energy provider that utilised mainly non-renewable sources of generation. Although we considered the green Union Jack imagery, and some of the sequences specifically in ad (c) could be interpreted as 'green' references, we considered that consumers were likely to infer merely that EDF was promoting launching the Green Britain Day campaign that emphasised the importance of taking steps to tackle environmental issues rather than EDF's green credentials. Consequently, because we considered that consumers were unlikely to infer from the ads that EDF was a 'green' company, we concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and  49.2 (Environmental Claims) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (Misleadingness) and 5.2.6 (Environmental Claims) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted EDF was registered and based in the UK but noted several of the complainants' point that they had a French parent company EDF S.A. However, we noted the ads did not state explicitly that EDF was a British company. Although we noted the ads featured the image of a green Union Jack and ad (c) featured imagery and a voice-over that emphasised a British campaign to address environmental issues, we considered that consumers were unlikely to infer that EDF Energy was a British company. We therefore concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (Misleadingness) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)