The greenwashing files Greenwashing cases
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has highlighted several benchmark rulings that have helped to define what constitutes 'greenwash' and set a standard for different industries on how they advertise.
Eurostar advertisement featuring aerial view of Eurostar terminal
Eurostar Group Ltd
The advert: An email and press advert claiming that Eurostar ran 'carbon neutral journeys'.
The complaint: That the claim was misleading because Eurostar trains had to pass through the Channel Tunnel, which produced emissions as a result of its internal refrigeration systems. Other complainants were concerned that the energy used in constructing the trains, track, stations and the tunnels had not been taken into account when offsetting the journeys.
The ruling: The ASA did not uphold the complaints as it was satisfied that the journey itself was being properly offset using a robust and verifiable system. It remarked that Defra did not have an accepted definition of 'carbon neutral', and ruled in this case that it would be unreasonable to expect Eurostar to cover other emissions such as those generated from Eurotunnel.
British Gas is Britain's largest supplier of gas and electricity
British Gas Trading Ltd
The advert: A TV ad in 2008 from British Gas featuring a blue, then green, flame suggested its new dual fuel package was 'zero carbon'. It contained small print stating: 'relates to offsetting schemes'.
The complaint: That 'zero carbon' implied the fuel it used was carbon free and did not produce carbon dioxide – whereas the complainants understood that, as gas is a fossil fuel, carbon dioxide would be a by-product of its use.
British Gas explained that 'Zero Carbon' was the name of its domestic dual tariff for gas and electricity, which was backed by 100% renewable electricity and offset the carbon emissions generated by a customer's energy use.
The ruling: The ASA ruled that, as gas is a fossil fuel, carbon dioxide would be a by-product of its use – but that viewers were likely to infer from the 'zero carbon' that gas supplied by British Gas was carbon free. The ASA concluded that the small print contradicted the overall impression of the ad and that the ad could mislead. It ruled the ad should not be shown in its current form again.
Shell advertisement featuring illustrated profile view of refinery
Shell Europe Oil Products Ltd
The advert: A national press ad for Shell showed chimneys from an oil refinery producing flowers, along with the text: 'We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers, and our waste sulphur to make super-strong concrete. Real energy solutions for the real world.'
The complaint: That the image of chimneys emitting flowers misrepresented the environmental impact of Shell's refineries and the claim 'we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers' misleadingly implied Shell used all its waste CO2 to do this.
The ruling: The ASA concluded that most readers were likely to interpret the claim 'we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers' to mean that Shell used all, or at least the majority, of its waste CO2 to grow flowers, whereas the actual amount was a very small proportion when compared with Shell's global activities. It was shown that only 0.325% of its emissions were used to grow flowers.
On the image, the ASA ruled that 'most readers were unlikely to interpret it as a depiction of reality', so the first complaint was not upheld.
Lexus advertisement featuring a Lexus RX 400h vehicle
Lexus (GB) Ltd
The advert: A magazine ad for a Lexus RX 400h car was headlined: 'High performance. Low emissions. Zero guilt.' At the bottom of the ad, text stated '...CO2 emissions 192g/km'
The complaint: That the claims 'low emissions' and 'zero guilt' misleadingly implied the car caused little or no harm to the environment and gave a misleading impression of the car's CO2 emissions in comparison with other vehicles.
The ruling:The ASA ruled that, though the vehicle's CO2 emissions rate was low compared with other cars in its class, the headline claim implied its emission rate was low regardless of class. 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. The text was not prominent enough or linked to the headline claim.
Because of that, and because the words 'zero guilt' implied the car was environmentally friendly, the ASA concluded that the headline claim was likely to mislead.
