ASA decision illustrates what omitting material information from Green claims means in practice

The ASA decision on an ad for Wessex Water is a very timely illustration of the very high standards that are currently being applied by the ASA and also the CMA in relation to green claims.

Wessex Water had produced an advert about its efforts to reduce the amount of sewage let into waterways as a result of storm overflows. The activities described in the advert were to address Wessex Water’s poor EPA rating (two stars out of a possible four) which means the Environment Agency considers them to be a company which requires improvement. This poor performance was widely reported in the press.

Wessex Water argued that the advert clearly and simply explained storm overflows and what they were doing to address the issue. They also argued that consumers would likely be aware of Wessex Water’s historic poor performance in this area as a result of the widespread reporting of the story in the press.  On this basis the TV ad had been approved by Clearcast for broadcast.

The ASA disagreed.

In their upheld ruling the ASA made various important points which illustrate how the advertising guidance and also the CMA’s green claims code are being interpreted by regulators.

1. The EPA score of two stars out of a possible four was material information that had to be disclosed to consumers because it contradicted the overall impression of the ad which was that Wessex Water was proactively taking steps to improve water management and reduce environmental damage.
2. Wessex water’s long-standing strapline, “For you. For life”, took on a different meaning in the context of the advert and contributed to this impression.  As did the use of the colour green to illustrate environmental improvement.
3. Although not explicitly part of the conclusions in the ruling the ASA did take account of the fact that Wessex Water were required under their licences and permits to reduce their environmental impact on the water environment.  I.e. the activities described in the advert were not voluntary moves by Wessex Water because it is a good corporate citizen but instead were mandatory requirements of their licence to operate.

Key takeaways

This ruling is part of a series of greenwashing rulings by the ASA.  Its conclusions are consistent with the CMA green claims code and the high standard that both regulators are applying in this area.  Perhaps the most important takeaway is that enforcement in relation to green claims is ongoing and active.

The second important takeaway is that the ruling illustrates that companies that have an overall poor record in relation to the environment or are in a business which is inherently environmentally problematic will need to disclose this information to consumers if they want to make green claims.

This is particularly the case if the imagery and colours used in the ad tend to suggest that the company is overall being very proactive on sustainability. 

Any company subject to sector regulation or who requires a licence to operate should be very cautious about presenting sustainability projects which are required as a matter of law or under a licence as being voluntary initiatives.

Finally Clearcast approval does not prevent the ASA (or CMA) investigating and finding an advert to be in breach.  In the current climate such an investigation is probably particularly likely in relation to any advert which makes environmental claims.