Ad description
A national press ad for Shell included the headline "LET'S GROW OUR OWN FUEL. LET'S GO. Helping to create new energy sources such as biofuels is something we're proud of at Shell. This renewable energy is one of the most effective ways of reducing CO2 from cars and trucks today. As one of the world's biggest distributors of biofuels we're playing a leading role in powering vehicles for now and for the future. Let's use cleaner energy. Let's go. [website address]".
Issue
ActionAid UK challenged whether the claim "This renewable energy is one of the most effective ways of reducing CO2 from cars and trucks today" was misleading, because they believed evidence showed that biofuels did not reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles when the full life-cycle of the fuel was taken into account.
Response
Shell International Ltd (Shell) stated that there was a consensus between three very different legislative bodies that biofuels can, and do, reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles and that this claim was backed up by a large body of evidence. They provided a list of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings that would be achieved by a wide range of biofuels sold within the EU and US and stated that these values were based on a "seed to wheel" life-cycle analysis of the biofuels. They also stated that this data was developed by the EU Commission in full consultation with biofuel producers and NGOs and was based on a wide consensus and a large body of scientific evidence.
They stated that this calculation took into account the full life cycle of the biofuel feedstock cultivation, including transport of the raw material to processing plants, crushing and processing to produce the biofuel and transporting and blending it to produce the finished fuel. They stated that it also included the transport of the fuel to the service station forecourts and its combustion in vehicles. They stated that it was standard practice in biofuel life-cycle analyses for the CO2 emissions produced when the biofuel was burnt to be considered cancelled out by the CO2 which was then absorbed when the biofuel was grown.
They stated that direct land use change (dLUC) occurred when there was new activity on an area of land and that it was local and observable and as such, carbon impacts could be measured. They stated that by contrast, indirect land use change (iLUC) occurred as a result of the unintended consequence of extra GHG emissions that may have been caused by displacing existing crops by biofuel production. They said this happened elsewhere and could not physically be observed and that measuring it therefore involved complex modelling.
They stated that it was a significant factor that there was no global consensus on how iLUC could be measured and that it was an ongoing matter of debate. They stated that although this was an area of debate, the US and European governments were satisfied that the GHG emissions savings did arise from qualifying biofuels and that they had been mandated accordingly.
They added that where biofuels were derived from waste products, iLUC and dLUC were not applicable and that it was not compulsory for them to be taken into account when examining the cultivation of biofuel feedstock where the land use had not changed. They stated that the EU figures did not include iLUC emissions but that if they had, the CO2 savings would still have been shown to be significant for biofuels such as sugar beet, which was one of the biofuels most commonly distributed in the EU.
They stated that in the US there were stringent rules about the use of biofuels and that iLUC and dLUC had to be taken into account when calculating CO2 savings/emissions. They provided evidence from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that included data which showed that a large number of biofuels grown in areas of America, and some biofuels from areas of Brazil, had lower CO2 emissions than gasoline, even when taking into account iLUC emissions. They also provided information on iLUC and dLUC data based on biofuel types which were produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purposes of mandating biofuel types in the US, depending on their GHG savings. They provided information from the EPA, based on biofuels that were relevant to the US, which stated that biofuels including corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, soy tallow or rapeseed biodiesel, which were types commonly distributed by Shell, did lead to reduced CO2 emissions. They stated that, although not globally agreed, the US Federal (US EPA) Renewable Fuels Standard (FRS-2) had used a very complex set of modelling to estimate both iLUC and dLUC for those biofuels. They stated that 90.31% of the biofuels distributed in 2010 consisted of those included in the CARB and EPA data and that this included iLUC and dLUC. They stated that the remaining 9.69% of biofuels distributed by Shell were based on the EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) and UK Renewable Fuel Transport Obligation (RFTO) data and iLUC data was not available on these fuels. They reiterated, however, that there was no consensus on how iLUC should be calculated and there was no obligation for the inclusion of iLUC by the EU in its RED or in the UK RFTO data, but that they had met the expectations that those biofuels qualifying for the Directive, should to be shown to comply with specific sustainability criteria designed to protect against the destruction of high conservation value areas such as forests and peatlands. They further supplied evidence which they believed demonstrated that for the last few years, they had either met or exceeded the non-mandatory targets for the GHG savings for biofuels. They added that dLUC figures were included in the EU and UK data and that they believed those CO2 savings figures to be conservative.
They believed that the data they had provided on biofuels demonstrated that those biofuels distributed by Shell did reduce CO2 emissions from cars and trucks, compared with petrol and diesel.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted Shell had provided CO2 emissions data for biofuels specifically grown in areas of the US and Brazil and for those relevant for distribution in the US and Europe, including the UK. We noted Shell had demonstrated that many of the common types of biofuel that were included in the data had the capability of reducing CO2 emissions compared to that of petrol when taking into account both dLUC and iLUC and when grown and processed on an industrial scale. We also noted it demonstrated that the biofuels it distributed from those that were available in Europe and the UK, were required to be sustainably sourced in order for them to count towards the EU RED targets and that this included a requirement that such biofuels should be sustainably sourced to protect against the destruction of areas rich in carbon capture.
We understood there was an absence of global consensus on whether iLUC should be included in the "seed to wheel" calculations when establishing CO2 emissions and that in those instances where it was agreed that it should be included, there was no consensus on how it should be measured.
We considered that the claim "This renewable energy is one of the most effective ways of reducing CO2 from cars and trucks today" would be understood by readers within the context of the text "Helping to create new energy sources such as biofuels is something we're proud of at Shell" and "As one of the world's biggest distributors of biofuels, we're playing a leading role in powering vehicles for now and for the future", and would be interpreted as a claim that the biofuels specifically distributed by Shell were effective at reducing CO2 in cars and trucks. We noted there were various complex methodologies concerning the indirect impact on the world as a result of growing biofuels and understood that there was no consensus in this area. However, we considered that the average consumer would understand a CO2 reduction claim for a biofuel to be based on a full life-cycle calculation which took into account the CO2 emissions that may have resulted from the removal of crops that existed on the land prior to growing that biofuel. We considered that there was a general understanding among consumers that some biofuels had been grown on areas of land that were previously home to areas that had captured large amounts of CO2, such as forests and wetlands, and that the removal of such areas which were rich in carbon capture would release this CO2 into the atmosphere resulting in a global environmental impact.
We understood that iLUC data was not always available for all biofuels and considered that in order to make a CO2 savings claim for a biofuel, advertisers should be able to demonstrate that they had taken reasonable steps to demonstrate that the previous land use of the biofuel(s) to which it was referring had been taken into account when presenting CO2 savings data or that it had shown that the data was taken from biofuels that had been sustainably sourced and that CO2 emissions figures had been measured appropriately.
We considered that Shell had demonstrated that the majority of specific biofuels it distributed were accounted for within the CARB and EPA data (which included iLUC and dLUC) and that the remaining biofuels had been sustainably sourced in line with the expectations laid out by EU RED. We also considered that it had demonstrated and that those remaining biofuels also met, or exceeded, the non-mandatory targets on GHG savings that that been set by RFTO. We therefore concluded that the claim "This renewable energy is one of the most effective ways of reducing CO2 from cars and trucks today" had been substantiated and that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 11.4 11.4 Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact. and 11.5 11.5 Marketers must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists. (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
