| |
 |
| Shell advert that the ASA has upheld a complaint about |
Record numbers of complaints have been levelled at
major businesses who "severely exaggerate" their environmental
credentials, the advertising watchdog will say next week. Airlines,
oil companies and car manufacturers have all been censured for adopting
the practice known as "greenwash" to cash in on consumers' growing
ecological concerns.
In 2007 the number of
environment-related complaints more than doubled from fewer than 150 in
2006 to well over 300, according to the Advertising Standards Authority
which is due to publish its annual report on Wednesday.
Lord
Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the ASA, said it was one of the
fastest-growing areas of complaint and now formed a significant part of
the watchdog's role.
"Because environmental issues
- climate change in particular - are coming very strongly to the top of
the political agenda, a lot of companies are thinking 'This is clearly
a matter of public concern - let's see if it will help us sell our
products'," he said in an interview with The Telegraph.
"What we are seeing are claims about being carbon
neutral, zero carbon emissions and use of words like 'sustainable',
'organic', '100 per cent recycled' or 'greenest car in its class'.
"We have come across quite a number where claims are exaggerated or misleading or, in some cases, severely exaggerated."
A
number of the complaints against national and international advertisers
were upheld, including Ryanair and Toyota, with Shell identified as one
of the worst offenders.
It placed a series of
newspaper adverts featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging from
the chimneys and the claim "we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers".
However,
Friends of the Earth complained that it implied most or all emissions
were used, whereas the true figure was just 0.325 per cent of its CO2
output. The ASA upheld the complaint.
"This is an
extreme example but what they were doing was taking their bit of good
environmental practice and making a big claim about themselves and
their products," said Lord Smith, the former culture secretary.
Where
a complaint is upheld the ASA can force the offender to change an
advert or withdraw it altogether, which could result in a company
losing a multimillion pound advertising campaign while gaining a
mountain of bad publicity.
"Any misleading in
advertising is bad for the consumer and not particularly helpful for
the company because they will be found out," said Lord Smith.
"I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their 'we grow flowers' claim because it's such a ridiculous claim."
He
admitted that dealing with environmental complaints was "breaking new
ground", which meant having to deal with them on a case by case basis.
However, in June the ASA will bring all parties round the table to develop a framework for future ecological advertising.
"We
are hoping that by having a serious discussion with advertising
experts, companies and environmental organisations we will be able to
head off some of the growing problems by putting some proper guidance
in place," said Lord Smith.
"Companies are
obviously keen to find new messages that will help them sell their
products. I have no objection to them doing that provided they are
doing it truthfully and don't exaggerate."
Mike
Childs, Friends of the Earth's political director, said: "Mounting
concern about green issues has persuaded many businesses to take real
action to reduce their environmental impact.
"Unfortunately
too many companies have responded by making misleading claims about
their activities. Industry must respond to the huge environmental
threats that the planet faces. But this must be through a genuine
commitment to protecting the planet, and not by trying to fool the
public with advertising 'greenwash'." Read rest...
|
