|
Advertisers warned about 'green' claims
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has issued new guidance to marketers as an increasing number of brands attempt to cash in on the green factor.
It has warned that companies wanting to promote themselves, their products or their services as ‘environmentally friendly’, need to be aware of how the ASA will interpret this type of claim and the sort of evidence that is needed to substantiate them.
To date the CAP and ASA have seen claims for many different ‘green’ products ranging from electricity, houses, paints, cars, clothing, investment trusts, fridges, paper, credit cards, furniture, beauty products and many more.
The temptation to over-claim in a market in which consumers will often pay a premium for environmentally friendly products or have more brand loyalty to an ‘ethical’ marketer is enormous and set to increase.
However, in 2007, the number of consumer complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about green claims in ads doubled in comparison with 2006. A claim that is deemed to be misleading by the ASA can result in a campaign having to be changed or withdrawn.
Marketers have been advised that they need to: explain the basis of environmental claims; qualify claims where necessary; acknowledge whether informed debate exists; use a ‘cradle to grave’ assessment when considering a product’s environmental impact; hold robust evidence for claims and comparisons and avoid misleading consumers by using confusing or pseudo-scientific claims.
To date, the ASA has ruled that utility companies have misleadingly implied that the energy consumers used was direct from ”renewable“ sources whereas it came from the National Grid. Similarly, ”carbon offsetting” or being ”carbon neutral” are relatively new concepts to the public and marketers are urged to take care.
Claims such as “environmentally friendly” should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage taking account of the full life cycle of the product from manufacture to disposal.
“Such claims are extremely difficult to prove,” warns CAP. “Less absolute claims, such as ‘friendlier’, ‘greener’ or ‘kinder’ are generally less risky but marketers must nevertheless hold evidence for the veracity of the claim and make the basis of the comparison clear.”
Marketers of products that do not damage the environment should also not claim that the product has been changed to make it safe.
If a product is, by its sheer nature, environmentally damaging, marketers should not imply that by improving it they have stopped an adverse impact. For example, a four-wheel drive might be “greener” if its manufacturer has lowered its emissions but is unlikely to be “green”. It is, of course, legitimate to advertise the environmental ”improvement” that the product has undergone.
For informed comment and knowledge of the issues affecting marketers go to www.utalkmarketing.com the authors of this article
|
