1. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad stated "ec-H2O (TM) technology converts water into a superior cleaning solution that cleans better ... compared to traditional cleaning chemicals and methods". We considered that, in this context, the reference to traditional cleaning materials and methods was likely to be understood by consumers to refer to scrubbers that used chemical detergents. We also noted that under the heading "Cleans Better" the ad stated "Scrubbing with ec-H2O removes more bacteria than scrubbing with detergents based on third party and customer testing. The technology leaves no chemical residue so your floors retain that polished look, reducing burnishing and strip/recoat cycles". We considered that the presentation of the ad meant that consumers were likely to understand that this was the basis for the claim "cleans better". We also considered that, in the context of the ad, consumers were likely to understand that Tennant were basing the claim "superior cleaning solution" on the fact ec-H2O "cleans better, saves money, improves safety and reduces environmental impact".

We understood that the third-party testing referred to in the ad compared the cleaning effectiveness, in a soft drink bottling plant/warehouse, of ec-H2O against a Tennant machine using traditional chemicals.. We noted that the measurements used in this study included organic load reduction, measured using ATP testing, and bacteria reduction, measured using CFU (colony forming unit) testing. We also understood the customer testing mentioned in the ad referred to a number of case studies, and that these had been provided to us. We noted these studies utilised ATP testing only, and not CFU testing, but that they did refer to these tests in relation to bacteria. We considered that because the claim "cleans better" was based in part on bacterial reduction, consumers would expect it to be supported by robust evidence that ec-H2O removed more bacteria than did detergents. We noted that Tennant believed ATP had become a commonly used and accepted method of assessing soil levels, potential for bacterial reproduction and cleaning results, and that there was a correlation between ATP measurements and bacteria levels as measured through CFU testing. We considered that the evidence supplied by Tennant indicated that in certain contexts ATP could be used as one measure of cleanliness. However, we did not consider the evidence demonstrated that ATP could be used to support a claim in relation to bacterial reduction. We understood that ATP could consist of a number of different substances, such as food residue, and that bacteria was only one of these, and that some organic materials would have naturally occurring levels of ATP. We also noted one article supplied by Tennant specifically referred to the difficulty of correlating ATP readings with CFUs. We therefore considered that evidence in relation to ATP was not sufficient to support the claim that ec-H2O removed more bacteria than detergents.

We noted the third-party test used CFU testing which involved swabs being taken at five different areas within the site over a period of three days, and that there was approximately a 5% difference in average bacteria reduction between ec-H2O and chemical scrubbing. However, we considered the number of measurements taken was small, and did not consider Tennant had demonstrated the results were statistically significant. We also noted the report did not appear to have considered whether other factors may have influenced the results. We therefore considered the evidence was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claim.

We considered that the ad made clear that the claim "ec-H2O (TM) technology converts water into a superior cleaning solution that cleans better ... compared to traditional cleaning chemicals and methods" was based on ec-H2O removing more bacteria than detergents, as well as saving money, improving safety and reducing environmental impact. However, because Tennant had not provided sufficiently robust evidence to substantiate the claim in relation to bacteria, we concluded it was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.38 (Other comparisons).

2. Not upheld

We noted Kärcher (UK) Ltd (Kärcher), the complainant, believed the claim that ec-H2O reduced costs and environmental damage caused by the use of detergents exaggerated the benefits of the product, as they did not believe equivalent or superior results could be achieved without the use of detergents. We considered that, because the claim compared the impact on the environment of ec-H2O with that of a "conventional scrubbing method", consumers would expect the product to clean to a standard that meant they could use it in place of a scrubber dryer that used detergents, as otherwise the comparison would be misleading.

We noted that there were no industry standard tests for scrubbers. We took expert advice in relation to the evidence provided by Tennant. Our expert advised that it appeared from the evidence that there were circumstances where ec-H2O was less effective at cleaning in general than conventional products, particularly where the soil load was very heavy or the soil was very difficult to hydrate. However, we noted that the evidence referring to this was from laboratory testing rather than "real-life" testing. Our expert advised that the four "real-life" studies indicated that on average, using ec-H2O led to improved cleaning results in terms of both ATP reduction (an indicator of organic material) and floor gloss readings, compared to traditional detergents. We noted these studies took place in a bottling plant that had heavy floor soils, a retailer distribution centre, and two supermarkets. We considered these studies represented a reasonable range of situations in which customers were likely to use scrubbers.

We noted Kärcher did not believe ec-H2O was capable of cleaning better than plain "unactivated" tap water, and that the evidence of real-life testing supplied by Tennant compared ec-H2O to detergents rather than plain water. However, we also noted Kärcher stated detergents were used approximately in 80% of cleaning operations with scrubbers, and considered this meant comparisons between ecH2O and traditional detergents were of most relevance to consumers. We also noted the comparisons in the ad specifically referred to chemicals and detergents. We considered the evidence suggested there may be some situations where ec-H2O would not be as effective in general cleaning as conventional cleaning products, particularly if there was a high level of staining or a very high soil load. However, we considered that customers purchasing a scrubber would be aware of whether or not they fell into these categories and would consider this when purchasing a scrubber, particularly because they were expensive machines and expected to last a number of years. We also noted the ad did not claim the product cleaned better in all circumstances. We considered the evidence provided by Tennant demonstrated consumers would be able to use ec-H2O in place of their chemical scrubber-dryers.

We noted the ad qualified the claim to reduce environmental impact by stating "ec-H2O reduces the impact of cleaning operations on the environment by up to 98% based on third-party study by EcoForm. Scrubbers equipped with ec-H2O technology scrub three times longer with a single tank of water using 70% less water than conventional scrubbing methods". Our expert advised us that the Life Cycle Assessment, which compared ec-H2O to a typical chemical-based floor cleaning system, was professionally undertaken and that its conclusions appeared sound. Our expert considered that savings on packaging waste may not be as large as the report suggested as it assumed machines were used five times a week, and many machines may not be used this often. Our expert also advised us that it appeared that ec-H2O scrubbers used up to 70% less water than conventional scrubbers, although the evidence suggested that the average water savings were slightly less than this. For this reason he believed the overall water saving suggested in the Life Cycle Assessment may be slightly too high. We noted that some of the evidence supplied by Tennant related to tests conducted on prototypes, where the flow rate was set at 60%, rather than 70%, although we also noted that the flow rate was likely to reduce slightly when the amount of water in the tank diminished. However, because our expert advised us that, in general, the evidence demonstrated ec-H2O created only a fraction of the environmental impact associated with chemical-based floor cleaning, we considered that this was unlikely to materially affect consumer perception of the benefits of the product.

We considered the evidence supplied by Tennant demonstrated that ec-H2O could clean to a standard that meant consumers could use it in place of a scrubber-dryer that used detergents. We also considered that the evidence demonstrated ec-H2O saved money and reduced environmental damage in comparison to cleaning with detergents. We therefore concluded that the claim did not mislead or exaggerate the benefits of the product.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration), 3.38 (Other comparisons), 11.1 and 11.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.