Environmental Claims

Global concern about climatic change is making us all evermore aware that we may have a part to play in preserving the state of our planet. From companies implementing corporate social responsibility programmes and local authorities encouraging, if not enforcing, household recycling, the focus is now on demonstrating how environmentally friendly you are. Advertisers were quick to realise that environmental factors could play a strong part in consumers' buying decisions and are keen to emphasise their product's "green" credentials.

THE RULES
The advertising codes have always required advertisers to hold substantiation for all
factual claims. Specific rules with regard to environmental claims are stated in the codes.  These include:

* Clearly explaining the basis of any claim and qualifying where necessary. 

* Requiring claims such as "environmentally friendly" or "wholly biodegradable" not to be made without qualification unless advertisers can provide convincing evidence that a product will cause no environmental damage in the full life cycle of said product.
 
* Avoiding the suggestion that claims command universal acceptance where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or evidence is inconclusive.
 
* Avoiding the use of extravagant language as well as bogus and confusing scientific terms. If it is necessary to use a scientific expression, its meaning should be made clear. 

MISLEADING CLAIMS
Few manufactured products have yet been proven to be totally harmless to the environment.  Qualified claims such as 'greener' and 'friendlier' may be acceptable if advertisers can prove that the product gives an overall improvement in environmental terms when compared to their competitors' or their own products. As with every other sector, the burden of proof falls on the advertiser to prove the claims they make - not on the complainant or the ASA to disprove them.

ASA ACTION

Toyota (June 2007)
Ad for the Prius claimed "what if all cars were like the Prius, with its hybrid synergy drive technology, it emits up to one tonne less CO2 per year"  The complainant challenged whether the claim "it emits up to one tonne less CO2 per year" misleadingly exaggerated the environmental benefits of the car. On-screen text in the ad stated that the claim compared the Prius with "an equivalent family vehicle with a diesel engine" and made clear that calculations were based on an annual driving distance of 20,000km a year.  However, average annual distance driven by private cars in the UK was 13,440km.  We noted that the Prius emitted significantly less CO2 than some other cars with greater engine capacity, but we did not consider their evidence demonstrated that it emitted 1 tonne less than equivalent vehicles with diesel engines or that it took into account the average annual distance driven by private cars in the UK. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

Lexus (May 2007)
A magazine ad, for a Lexus RX 400h car, claimed “LOW EMISSIONS.  ZERO GUILT".  Ten complainants believed the claims misleadingly implied the car caused little or no harm to the environment and gave a misleading impression of the car's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in comparison with other vehicles.  TThe ASA acknowledged that, based on the evidence submitted by the advertisers, the CO2 emissions rate for the RX 400h was low compared to other cars in its class.  We considered, however, that the headline claim "HIGH PERFORMANCE.  LOW EMISSIONS.  ZERO GUILT" implied the vehicle's emission rate was low regardless of category and readers were likely to understand from it that the car caused little or no harm to the environment, which was not the case, and had low emissions in comparison with all cars, which was also not the case. We concluded that the headline claim was likely to mislead. 

Easyjet (April 2007)
A national newspaper ad stated “Because we operate Europe’s most modern fleet, our planes emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines.  Five complainants challenged the claim and whether the ad misleadingly implied that travel with easyJet was environmentally friendly. We considered that consumers were likely to understand that all airlines would cause some environmental damage and that the ad compared easyJet's environmental credentials with other 'traditional airlines rather than claiming that easyJet was environmentally friendly per se. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead on this point. However, we upheld the complaints abut the accuracy of the claim. Easyjet had based their calculations for the claim primarily on the number of passengers they could carry in their planes; because they could carry more passengers than most other airlines the CO2 emissions per passenger were 30% less.  They had sent no evidence which proved their younger planes had 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile. We considered that easyJet had inaccurately portrayed the basis of the claim and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

Volkswagen Group plc (Dec 2006)
Four complaints were received challenging a national press ad's claim "Low emissions ... CO2 emissions for the Golf GT TSI are lower than other engines with similar power outputs". The complainants were concerned that the claim "low emissions" was misleading because they believed that in a total emissions comparison, the vehicle sat in the fifth most polluting band out of seven bands. We considered that the claim would be understood to mean that the car had low emissions in comparison to all cars. Because it did not, the complaints were upheld.

Scottish & Southern Energy Group t/a Scottish Hydro Electric (Oct 2006)
The advertisers claimed "we plant trees to balance out the CO2 that your gas heating and household waste produces". We considered that consumers would understand the claim to mean that the advertisers would plant enough trees to absorb as much carbon dioxide as an average UK household's gas heating and waste produced. The advertisers did not provide us with evidence that this would indeed happen, and so they were asked not to repeat the claim without qualification. Complaint upheld.

Euroclad Ltd (Jun 2006)
An ad for roof and cladding materials claimed "all materials used are totally recyclable for zero environmental legacy". The claim was challenged as the complainant believed the advertisers used materials such as sealing tapes, sealants and plastic stick pins in their building systems, therefore, not all the materials used were recyclable. We also understood that the processes involved in the manufacturing and recycling of the advertisers' materials could harm the environment. As the advertisers did not provide evidence to show that their products did not cause environment damage throughout their full life cycle, and they acknowledged that all the materials used were not recyclable, they were told not to repeat the claim.

Monkton Group PLC t/a Good Energy (Jun 2004)
A national press ad attracted complaints that its claim "100% renewable electricity" was misleading because it implied that customers would receive all their electricity directly from renewable sources rather than the National Grid. The advertisers explained that they measured their customers' electricity supply and then fed an equivalent amount of electricity from renewable sources into the National Grid. We considered that readers could infer that if they chose this supplier, they would receive electricity generated from renewable sources. Because all electricity is supplied via the National Grid, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

Wind Farms
In recent years, the ASA has published several adjudications on advertising about wind farms. A particularly contentious area, the ASA has found itself considering complaints about literature either in support of wind farm development, or against it. In all cases, the ASA has set the same requirement: the parties involved need to be able to substantiate the claims that they make, whether stated explicitly or by implication. If you are interested in this advertising of this nature, the following links will take you through to adjudications on advertising either promotion wind energy, or anti-wind farm development:

The Two Moors Campaign (March 2007)

RWE npower t/a npower renewables (Feb 2007)

E.ON UK plc (Dec 2006)

Save Our Unspoilt Landscape (Nov 2006)

Save Our Scenery (Nov 2006)

Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (July 2006)

Galloway Landscape and Renewable Energy (Jun 2006)

Stop Dunmaglass Wind Farm (Nov 2005)

Npower Renewables Ltd (Jul 2005) 

Upperward Against Pollution (June 2005)
 
Innogy plc t/a National Wind Power Ltd (Jan 2005)

Ochils Environmental Protection Group t/a OEPG (Apr 2004)

Additional information
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade & Industry have produced a Green Claims Code setting the standards of information that the public can expect to be given about the environmental impacts of consumer products. To access the code click here.