Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads making carbon neutral delivery or similar claims. The ads were identified for investigation through both intelligence gathered by the ASA and the use of the Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 11 November 2026.
Ad description
A paid-for Google search ad for Grind, a coffee retailer, seen on 12 June 2026 included the headline “Grind Coffee Delivery”. Text beneath stated "Speciality Coffee, Delivered [...] Coffee From The Grind Roastery, Delivered To Your Door Each Month. Carbon Positive Delivery [...]".
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad made the basis of the claim “Carbon Positive Delivery” clear.
Response
Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind said they expected consumers to understand "Carbon Positive Delivery" as referring to the carbon emissions associated with the delivery or shipment of orders placed through their website. The claim did not refer to emissions that occurred earlier in their product's life cycle, such as from the coffee's cultivation, harvesting, processing, roasting, or the manufacturing of the packaging. It just referred to the emissions associated with "Delivery". They explained that, via a third-party service, they were able to offset the estimated emissions from each delivery by funding a carbon removal scheme, and that they had not intended consumers to understand that the delivery of their products produced no emissions or that their entire supply chain was carbon positive. With search ads being of limited space, they offered further information on their website, and that reinforced that the ad's claim only applied to the delivery of their products.
They said a decision had been made, over a year ago, to replace references to "Carbon Positive" to "carbon neutral" as that term was easier to understand and had become more widely adopted. They explained that in their subsequent review the search ad was missed and that they were working to change and clarify future references to the delivery of their products being carbon neutral.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear and stated that unqualified claims could mislead if material information was omitted. CAP Guidance on “Misleading environmental claims and social responsibility in advertising” stated that advertisers should avoid using unqualified carbon neutral claims, and because information explaining the basis for those claims helped consumers’ understanding, such information should therefore not be omitted. It further stated that accurate information about whether (and the degree to which) the claim was based on an active reduction of carbon emissions or based on offsetting should be included in ads to ensure consumers understood the basis on which carbon neutrality was achieved. The ASA assessed the ad in question against the CAP Code, having regard to the CAP Guidance.
We accepted Grind’s view that the claim “Carbon Positive Delivery” would be understood as meaning that the delivery only, rather than the full life cycle of their products, was “Carbon Positive”. The meaning of the term was ambiguous, and consumers were likely to interpret the claim as either broadly synonymous with ‘carbon neutral’, which was in more widespread use, or that “Positive” suggested Grind’s efforts were more impactful than a ‘carbon neutral delivery’ scheme. However, from the ad, the meaning of the term and the basis for how exactly it was achieved, including whether it was via the purchase of offsetting credits or via the actual removal of any source of emissions, were unclear.
We understood the claim depended on the use of offsetting credits and Grind had intended to have the same meaning as carbon neutral. However, neither of those points were clear in the ad, which we considered were necessary to explain how the carbon positive status was achieved, including by outlining whether, and the degree to which, the claim depended on an active reduction of carbon emissions or if it was based on the use of offsetting credits. While the ad was short-form and subject to space limitations, it had a limit of 270 characters and it was therefore not so limited that Grind could not have made the basis of the claim clear so that consumers could proceed with their consumer journey in an informed manner. In addition, the ad’s landing page did not include information that explained the basis of the claim.
We welcomed that Grind were working to change and clarify future references to the delivery being carbon neutral. However, as the ad had omitted material information that explained the basis of the “Carbon Positive Delivery” claim, we concluded it was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form investigated. We reminded Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind to ensure that they made the basis of all environmental claims clear, including in relation to what extent any “Carbon Positive Delivery” claims depended on the use of offsetting credits or the actual removal of any source of emissions.
