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 ProCook, a kitchenware retailer, seen on 8 June 2026 stated “Next Day Delivery Available - Carbon Neutral Delivery".
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad made the basis of the claim “Carbon Neutral Delivery” clear.
Response
ProCook said they had withdrawn the ad from circulation, had no intention to run it again, and that it was part of a legacy marketing campaign. They explained that the carbon neutral delivery was provided by a third-party delivery company that had both reduced their actual emissions and offset the remaining. They believed the ad’s “Carbon Neutral Delivery” claim would be understood as meaning the delivery of their products from their premises to the customer’s premises, would be carbon neutral and that emissions produced during this would be mitigated via an offsetting programme.
ProCook did not expect that the claim would be understood as relating to any emissions that occurred prior to delivery to the customer, such as from the manufacturing, transportation to the UK, storage or packaging of their products.
The ad had clicked through to their website’s home page. ProCook explained that they were conducting an internal audit of all historical ads to ensure that no similar legacy environmental claims remained active.
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 ProCook’s view that the claim “Carbon Neutral Delivery” would be understood as meaning that the delivery only, rather than the earlier stages of the life cycles of their products, would be “Carbon Neutral”. We considered the claim, as it was presented in the ad, would be understood by consumers as meaning that steps had been taken to ensure that the delivery of those products did not result in a net increase in the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere, but, from the ad, it was ambiguous if that was achieved via offsetting credits or via the actual removal of any sources of emissions.
We understood the claim depended on the use of offsetting credits. However, there was no information in the ad that made that clear, which we considered was necessary to explain how the carbon neutral 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, therefore, it was not so limited that ProCook 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 ProCook had removed the ad and were reviewing their marketing to ensure no similar claims appeared elsewhere. However, as the ad had omitted material information that explained the basis of the “Carbon Neutral 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 ProCook Ltd to ensure that they made the basis of all environmental claims clear, including in relation to what extent any “Carbon Neutral Delivery” claims depended on the use of offsetting credits or the actual removal of any source of emissions.
