ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Euroclad Ltd
Wentloog Corporate Park
14 June 2006
Industrial and engineering
An ad in Building Magazine, for Euroclad's roof and cladding materials, claimed "Sustainable construction is a major consideration for all building owners and developers. And it's why we've developed Euroclad Excel Systems. It's also why we insist on mineral wool insulation, steel and aluminium skin cladding and austenitic stainless steel fixings. All materials used are totally recyclable for zero environmental legacy â€¦". Kingspan Ltd (Kingspan) challenged:
1. the claim "All materials used are totally recyclable", because Euroclad's building systems also included materials like sealing tapes, sealants and plastic stick pins;
2. whether the mineral wool fibre used by Euroclad was 100% recyclable and
3. the claim "totally recyclable for zero environmental legacy".
CAP Code (Edition 11)
1. Complaint upheld
Euroclad said they had withdrawn the ad and they did not intend to repeat it. They said the claim "All materials used are totally recyclable" referred to the materials mentioned in the preceding text: "It's also why we insist on mineral wool insulation, steel and aluminium skin cladding and austenitic stainless steel fixings." Euroclad said a small amount of tape and sealant were used in all metal cladding systems. They said they apologised if their claim had been misinterpreted.
The ASA noted text preceding the claim referred to a list of materials that Euroclad said were recyclable. However, we considered that the claim "All materials used are totally recyclable" implied every material used by Euroclad was totally recyclable. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading. We noted the ad was no longer appearing but told Euroclad not to repeat the claim in future advertising.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
2. Complaint not upheld
Euroclad said they specified Rockwool mineral wool fibre for use in Excel Systems roofing and cladding. They provided us with a letter from the manufacturer which stated that their product was 100% recyclable. Euroclad said they also offered the cheaper option of glasswool and provided a letter from the glasswool manufacturer which stated that their product could be fully recycled after use.
Kingspan believed that the ad implied all the mineral fibre used in Euroclad's systems could be recycled after use at the end of a building's life. They pointed out that the mineral wool would become contaminated by the demolition and removal process making it impractical and costly to recycle. They believed the ad was misleading because the mineral wool was not likely to be recycled in practice.
We acknowledged that the mineral wool fibre used by Euroclad was fully able to be recycled. We considered that readers of Building Magazine were likely to understand the ad referred to mineral wool being able to be recycled not that the mineral wool would definitely be recycled after use in a building. We did not object to the claim.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.
3. Complaint upheld
Euroclad offered to amend the claim to state "recyclable for minimal environmental legacy."
We considered that the claim "totally recyclable for zero environmental legacy" implied Euroclad's materials caused no environmental damage at any point in their life cycle. We understood that the processes involved in the manufacturing and recycling of materials could harm the environment. We noted Euroclad had not provided substantiation to show that their materials did not cause any environmental damage throughout their full life cycle. We concluded that the claim was misleading. We welcomed Euroclad's offer to amend the claim and advised them to seek the assistance of the CAP Copy Advice team.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.2 (Environmental claims).