Advertising watchdog receives record complaints over corporate 'greenwash'

Will Ashley-Cantello, guardian.co.uk 1 May 08;

The number of complaints lodged to the advertising standards watchdog relating to environmental or green claims has more than quadrupled in the past year, according to a report released this week.

The annual report from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) shows that in 2007 the ASA received 561 complaints about environmental claims in 410 adverts, compared with just 117 complaints about 83 adverts the year before – a more than fourfold increase.

The ASA has already censured several high-profile companies including Suzuki, Shell, Ryanair and Toyota for the practice of "greenwash" – where companies are found to have misled consumers on their environmental practices as a business or of the particular benefits of a product or service.

A complaint against the oil giant Shell was upheld by the advertising watchdog last year over a press advert that showed refinery chimneys emitting flowers.

Environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth was among those who complained about the advert, which ran with the slogan, "Don't throw anything anyway. There is no away."

Friends of the Earth said the ad's central image - of refinery chimneys spewing out flowers - misrepresented the environmental impact of Shell's activities.

So far this year, a press advert for Suzuki has come under fire for claiming that the Grand Vitara was in the same "CO2 tax band as the Mazda MX5". This provoked complaints that the statement was misleading on its green credentials because the Mazda MX5 is in tax band F, which is the second highest emitting group, and some models of Grand Vitara are in higher tax band G.

In 2008 there have been 109 complaints to the ASA on 59 separate adverts with environmental claims. This is a slight decrease since 2007, possibly representing a greater awareness in companies and consumers for misleading green advertising, the ASA said.

"While the market for green products was new, it was easier to mislead because the terms were not as well understood," said the ASA's communications and policy manager, Lynsay Taffe. "Quite a few organisations have been trying to raise awareness on this issue, as well as ourselves, so hopefully that has encouraged companies to be more careful."

The ASA's annual report also revealed that alongside images of violence and weapons, the number of complaints on advertiser's green claims became one of the two key emerging issues for consumers in 2007. Claims that products and services were carbon "neutral" or "zero" or "negative" were particularly open to challenge, as were statements claiming products to be "100% recycled" or "wholly sustainable".

The ASA last year commissioned independent research into the public's understanding of environmental claims in advertising, and found high levels of awareness of environmental messages, but confusion about what certain terms meant. Terms such as "sustainable" and "food miles", were often misunderstood, the ASA found.

In response to this steep increase in complaints, the ASA moved last year to stem the incidences of misleading or false environmental claims in advertising by offering training to advertisers on how to promote their green credentials through ASA's sister body CAP, the Committee of Advertising Practice,

Elsewhere this week, communications firm Futerra released a "Greenwash guide" which aims to help the public and business identify and avoid "greenwash" language and warns that rising incidences of "annoying" and "dangerous" greenwash advertising are threatening the "growth of the green pound".

Futerra's report, which was based on primary research of the top 10 advertising agencies, 39 of the major media sellers of advertising space and ASA data, found that the industries subject to the highest number of upheld complaints were motoring and utilities (including energy and water companies) with over two-thirds of total complaints between them.

Futerra says that increasing incidences of greenwash are a problem for both consumers and those businesses with genuine environmental aspirations. Its guide says that if it is easy for businesses to make false or misleading environmental claims and benefit from sales to "green consumers" then there are fewer incentives for businesses to make real steps to improve their environmental performance.

The report also found that most greenwash is actually due to "ignorance and/or sloppiness" rather than deliberate intent because businesses and advertising agencies do not have a system for filtering it out. None of the UK's biggest advertising agencies claim to have training or guidelines for their staff on what is a justified environment claim and, in fact, only one of the top 10 advertising agencies in the UK has a policy to pick out greenwash.

Solitaire Townsend, chief executive of Futerra, said: "Greenwash isn't simply annoying; it's dangerous. Well meaning people who want to buy 'green' are getting confused and disheartened. During a time of economic belt-tightening if green products and services are to survive; then people have to trust them."

A further report published this week outlined how companies could improve their communication of the environmental credentials of their products. 'Ecopromising', a report released by UK sustainable development charity Forum for the Future, found that the current and growing mass of environmental claims and ecolabels has confused many consumers and created uncertainty about which claims to trust and how best to make environmentally friendly purchases.

Concerns were also expressed that "greenwash can provide confused or reluctant customers with an excuse to do nothing".
Futerra's 10 signs of Greenwash

These are the things to look out for on advertising and packaging that can indicate when a company is trying to use greenwash to sell its product or service, according to Futerra's Greenwash guide..

1. Fluffy language
Words or terms with no clear meaning, e.g. "ecofriendly".

2. Green products v dirty company
Such as efficient light bulbs made in a factory which pollutes rivers.

3. Suggestive pictures
Green images that indicate an (unjustified) green impact eg flowers blooming from exhaust pipes.

4. Irrelevant claims
Emphasising one tiny green attribute when everything else is "ungreen".

5. Best in a bad class?
Declaring you are slightly greener than the rest, even if the rest are pretty terrible.

6. When it's just not credible
"Ecofriendly" cigarettes anyone? "Greening" a dangerous product doesn't make it safe.

7. Gobbledygook
Jargon and information that only a scientist could check or understand.

8. Imaginary friends
A "label" that looks like third party endorsement ... except it is made up by the company itself.

9. No proof
It could be right, but where's the evidence?

10. Outright lying
Totally fabricated claims or data.