A TV ad for Persil washing liquids included environmental claims, including that the products were “kinder to our planet”. A complaint to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority questioned whether this was misleading and could be substantiated.
The ASA decided that this was a comparative environmental claim, meaning that the basis for the claim must be clear. Comparative environmental claims can be justified under the CAP Code :
“…for example, if the advertised product or service provides a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser's previous product or service or competitor products or services and the basis of the comparison is clear.”
In this case, the basis for the comparison was not clear:
“The ad did not state or explain the basis of the comparative claim, such as whether the advertised liquid detergents were “kinder” in comparison to Persil’s own previous products or other products.”
The fact that the ad included various strands of Unilever’s “green” messaging such as “dirt is good” didn’t help the advertiser’s cause here.
Also, the Code requires that:
“Environmental claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product or service, unless the advertisement states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle.”
Although the ASA acknowledged Unilever’s actions to reduce the environmental impact of their products, the response lacked evidence or analysis to demonstrate the overall environmental impact of the products over their full life cycles, compared with Persil’s own previous products or other products, in support of the claim “kinder to our planet”.
In part the decision provides a useful reminder that to comply with marketing law, in addition to observing specific substantiation claims, advertisers should pay attention to the basics of comparative claims and ask themselves: “compared to what?”
Comments