Regulators ask how green is your advertising

By Sujata Das
Published: June 22 2009 03:00

British Gas's recent bouncing blue flame advert may have been cute, but the Advertising Standards Authority, the UK advertising watchdog, ruled that its "carbon zero" claims misled the public by implying that its fuel did not produce any carbon dioxide. The claim had been a play on words - BG had offset the emissions, producing a net effect on the atmosphere of zero. But the ASA ruled that this was not made clear enough.
In a similar vein, Kmart, the US discount department store, was lambasted by the US Federal Trade Commission last week for labelling some paper products as "biodegradable" - which is unacceptable unless a product can completely decompose within a reasonably short period of time under normal disposal methods.
Companies such as ExxonMobil, and Toyota's Lexus brand, have also been accused of so-called greenwashing, having fallen foul of regulations by claiming their products are friendlier or less damaging to the environment than they really are.
As more companies try to appeal to increasingly eco-conscious consumers, they are having to navigate how advertising rules and regulations apply to their environmental claims.
"Consumers are really concerned," says Matt Wilson of the US Advertising Standards Authority's public affairs department, which gives advice to both advertisers and the public on what is acceptable. "We received a record number of complaints about green claims last year, which had more than doubled from the year before, to over 300."
A key difficulty is the abundance of pseudo-scientific terms that are often associated with ecological claims. Advertisers are being discouraged from blinding consumers with science by using jargon. Expressions such as "carbon-neutral", "low carbon emissions", "wholly sustainable", "organic" and "100 per cent recycled" sound wholesome but they are potentially meaningless unless they have been properly contextualised.
"The advice that we give clients is to make sure they back up claims with evidence, be specific and clear, and most importantly to avoid overstatements," says Jonathan Isted, head of the environment, products and regulatory practice at Freshfields, the law firm.
All-encompassing wording such as "environmentally safe", "non-toxic", "ozone friendly" or "degradable" have all been targeted by regulators.
Companies are also advised to tone down advertising claims by using wording such as "more environmentally friendly than before", "kinder to the environment" and "ecologically improved formula". Where bold statements are used, they should be qualified, for example, if the claims are not based on a product's entire life cycle.
Other potential pitfalls include the misleading use of absolute claims instead of expressing them in relative terms.
The UK's Committee of Advertising Practice, which sets out codes of practice for print and broadcast adverts, is working with the government to tighten the rules.
While EU countries and the US are trying to develop existing general advertising rules into more specific regulations covering environmental claims, Scandinavian countries have already formulated clearer guidelines. These are also more stringent. For example, Norway forbids car manufacturers from advertising that they are "green" or "clean".
One example of successful green advertising that has avoided the common pitfalls is Procter & Gamble's "Turn to 30" campaign for its Ariel laundry detergent. After formulating the product to work equally well at lower temperatures, the campaign focused on convincing consumers to switch to lower temperature cycles on their washing machines. Damon Jones, director of communication for P&G UK, believes the campaign was a hit because the product worked and the message was credible. "We don't market our 'green' products any differently to our other products," he says. "Customers can see through hype. We don't want to be accused of greenwashing."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009