Kingspan Ltd Greenfield Business Park No. 2 Greenfield Holywell Flintshire Wales CH8 7GJ Number of complaints: 1

Date: 10 September 2008 Media: Brochure Sector: Industrial and engineering

Ad
A brochure, for Kingspan ECOsafe Insulated panels, made various claims about the product.

Issue
Quedron Ltd challenged the claims:

1. "Kingspan ECOsafe insulated panels have a commercial value for disposal at the end of life subject to transport costs" because they believed the claim could not be substantiated.

2. "The cost of processing panels through shredder plants is approximately cost neutral with the transport costs from the site being covered by the scrap value of steel.  Economics for specific buildings will be dependant on transport distances, and the market value of steel scrap at the time of disposal" because they believed disposal was not cost neutral because of the disposal costs of the insulated panels' plastic core and landfill tax.

3. "Average Income Per m2:£0.10p" because they believed the claim was unrealistic and could not be substantiated; and

4. "Cradle to Grave Diagrams" because they believed the graphs exaggerated the performance of the products.

The CAP Code:

3.1;7.1

Response
1., 2. and 3. Kingspan said no Kingspan ECOsafe panels contained any Ozone Depleting gases or CFCs and they achieved additional credits in BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) for having Low Global Warming potential. They said the brochure contained details of two case studies where Kingspan Insulated Panels were disposed of and which they believed supported the claims. They said they believed it was important to note that all the challenged claims appeared in the same brochure and that they should be seen in the context of each other. They believed the claim challenged in Issue 1, for instance, should be seen in the context of the claim in Issue 2 that followed it on the same page and the case studies which appeared on the next page.

They said that in the first case study a shredder plant operator paid £50 per tonne for panels, which amounted to £8,504. In that case, transportation costs were £10,785, making the net cost for disposal £2,281, or £0.18 per square metre.

They said that in the second case study a shredder plant operator paid £11 per tonne for panels and provided transport as part of the package, which generated a net income of £0.10 per square metre.

They said it was industry practice to refer to quantities in the equivalent of square metres. They said that, although the case studies dealt with quantities and values that related specifically to each situation, each case study entailed several different transport loads, each of which had a different value per square metre depending on the size of the load and the amount of work involved on site. To avoid giving the impression that each load had the same cost or value, they used the term "average" when referring to the overall costs or income associated with each  case study. Because of the likely level of industry expertise and experience a reader of the brochure was likely to have, they believed the costs or income stated in each case study, even though they were described as "average," would be understood to relate to the specific case study in which they appeared and not to the costs or income that were likely to result in other, similar jobs.

Kingspan said the work was carried out by an independent company and that every aspect of disposal, including all transport and processing costs and landfill tax, were taken into account. They supplied billing and handling details for each case and an explanatory letter from the waste management company concerned.

They said the brochure was designed specifically for people with expert knowledge of insulated panels and the cladding industry and that it was requested by and sent to industry professionals rather than members of the general public.

4. Kingspan said they had used the Building Research Establishment's (BRE) Environmental Profiling Methodology and that the results that the methodology gave were plotted on the "Cradle to Grave Diagrams." They said the methodology was used as the basis for rating construction systems by the Green Guide to Specification. They supplied certificates and an explanatory document from BRE that showed environmental profiles for several specifications of their product, including the two that were illustrated in the diagrams.

Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that this claim was based primarily on the two case studies for which Kingspan had provided the additional, background details. We noted that the disposer was prepared to pay a cost to dispose of the material which would be off-set against the cost of transporting the material. We noted that it was not necessarily the case that the cost the disposer was willing to pay would always outweigh the cost of transporting the material for disposal but that the text "subject to transport costs" was designed to qualify the claim. We considered the specialised sector at which the brochure was aimed was likely to recognise that the price of steel as a commodity and the cost of transporting panels for disposal were likely to vary and were likely to understand the term "commercial value" to mean that the cost the disposer was willing to pay for the panels would off-set the cost of transporting them and reduce the overall cost of disposing of them but would not necessarily result in a profit or income.

2. Not upheld
We noted that, as in 1 above, the claim was based primarily on the two case studies for which Kingspan had provided the additional, background details. We noted that the disposer was prepared to pay a cost to dispose of the material and that that amount would off-set the total disposal cost of the material. We noted that the first case study showed a relatively small net cost for disposal and that the second case study showed a relatively small net income from disposal and that the calculations had taken account of every aspect of disposal, including all transport and processing costs, the disposal costs of the insulated panels' plastic core and landfill tax. We also noted the specialised sector at which the brochure was aimed and considered they were likely to understand the context in which the claim was made. We concluded Kingspan had substantiated the claim that the processing of panels through shredder plants was approximately cost neutral.

3. Not upheld
We noted that, as in 1 and 2 above, the claim was based primarily on the two case studies for which Kingspan had provided the additional, background details. We noted that the disposer was prepared to pay a cost to dispose of the material and that this amount would off-set the total disposal cost of the material. We noted the specialised sector the brochure was aimed at and Kingspan's explanation that the case study comprised several different-sized and differently-costed loads and that the "average" referred to was an average of the values that made up that study. We noted that the case study appeared alongside a second case study where the outcome was a net cost. We considered readers were likely to understand that the outcome of the case study related to that example only and concluded that Kingspan had substantiated the claim.

4. Not upheld
We noted Kingspan's explanation; the advice they had taken from BRE when compiling the graphs and the certificates from BRE that showed the environmental profiles for the products featured in the graphs were identical in scale to the report they had provided. We considered Kingspan had substantiated the performance claims the graphs made for their products and that the use of the range in the graphs did not exaggerate the performance of their products.

On points 1, 2, 3 and 4 we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action
No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)