BDM103 task 6 in Y drive: find example ASA upholding complaint and not upholding complaint regarding environmental claims
—Research
one example of a complaint being upheld and one example of a complaint not
upheld.
(for
the code and standard assigned to you in class)
—Provide
information on the following –
oWhat
was the nature of the complaint?
oWho
were the parties involved?
oWhat
was the outcome?
o
oASA
Link –
First impressions
Businesses should be careful that the overall impression created about a product is not misleading.
Seeking to convey an image of being environmentally friendly by using scenery in advertising, or designs featuring images or icons associated with the environment such as dolphins or plants, will breach the Fair Trading Act if that imagery is found to create an impression which cannot be substantiated.
Likewise, care should be taken when choosing a business or product name, that the name does not use environmental terminology or imply green credentials that cannot be substantiated.
Complaint upheld:
Complainant:
S. Duncan
Advertisement:
The Green Stuff
Complaint: The
website advertisement at www.thegreenstuff.co.nz
advertised a multi-purpose cleaner “The Green Stuff.” Wording said:
“Non
Toxic
Non Flammable
Biodegradable
Food Safe
Environmentally Friendly”.
Complainant, S.
Duncan, said:
“Type: Web site
Where: Wednesday 15th October 2008. On the
Web. It is called The Green Stuff. Who: The Green Stuff
Product: Multi Purpose Cleaner
Complaint -
They advertise to be environmentally
friendly yet when speaking to the owner by phone he said they don't claim to be
environmentally friendly because it is a grey area. It has ammonium in the
product also.”
http://old.asa.co.nz/display.php?ascb_number=08549
Deliberation
The Complaints Board
carefully read the correspondence relevant to the complaint and the
advertisement. It noted Complainant, S. Duncan, was of the view that the
advertisement was misleading where it made the claim “environmentally friendly”
as there was “ammonium” in the product.
The Chairman directed
the Complaints Board to consider the complaint with regard to the Code for Environmental Claims Basic
Principles 1 and 3, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c).
Turning to Basic Principle 1, the Complaints Board noted the wording
where it said:
“… absolute claims for environmental benefit, either stated
or implied, are not appropriate.
eg "Environmentally friendly"
….
are absolute claims and therefore not acceptable.”
The
Complaints Board took into account the explanation received on behalf of the
Advertiser that the claim had been be removed from the product labeling, but
the website advertisement had been overlooked. It noted that an apology was
tendered for this omission. However, as the Advertisement stood, the Complaints
Board said it was technically in breach of Basic Principle 1.
It
then considered the fact that the Complainant said the product contained
ammonium, when in fact the advertisement said it contained alkydimentyl
ammonium -chloride, and also claimed that the product was ammonia free. The Complaints Board reiterated its long-held
position that it was not an arbiter of scientific fact. However, it noted that
in the instance before it the Advertiser had not provided substantiation that
alkydimentyl ammonium-chloride was ammonia free. It accepted that there had
been time constraints regarding preparation of the response. However, the
Complaints Board ruled that the Advertisement was in breach of Basic Principle
3 in respect of this claim.
The Complaints Board
ruled to uphold the complaint.
Complaint not upheld:
Complaint 08/460
Complainant: P. Scott
Advertisement: McDonald’s Restaurants
(NZ) Ltd
Complaint: The
television advertisement for McCafe featured shots of coffee being made in a
McCafe as well as the coffee beans being picked in the rainforest by workers. The
voice-over included: “McCafe is now serving a stronger, smoother, more
enjoyable coffee that not only tastes great, it’s great for the environment too.
Made with 100% Arabica Beans. It’s New Zealand’s first to be sourced from
rainforest alliance certified farms. This means the coffee beans are grown in a
way that helps to improve workers’ income, the communities and the environment.
McCafe new coffee blend. A great deal for workers and a great tasting coffee
for you.”
Shown on screen during part of the advertisement is the following web
address:
Complainant, P.
Scott, said:
“Type:
Television
Where: Channel 3
Auckland
Approx. 8:17 pm
25 August 2008
Who: McDonalds
McCafe
Product: McCafe
Coffee
Complaint -
The
advertisement breaches the code for environmental claims by using a
generalised, absolute claim. The ad stated that McCafe coffee is "great
for the environment".”
Deliberation
The Complaints
Board carefully read the relevant correspondence and watched the television advertisement. It noted
Complainant, P.
Scott, was of the view that the
advertisement breached “the code for
environmental claims by using a generalised, absolute claim” where it stated
that McCafe coffee is "great for the environment".
The
Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the complaint with reference
to the Code for Environmental Claims, Basic Principles 1 and 3, also 3(a), (b)
and (c).
Turning to the
advertisement, the Complaints Board noted that the full claim
said: “McCafe is now serving a stronger, smoother, more enjoyable coffee
that not only tastes great, it’s great for the environment too.”
This claim was
qualified with: “Made with 100% Arabica Beans. It’s New Zealand’s first to be
sourced from Rainforest Alliance Certified Farms.”
Accordingly, it
agreed that the message promoted a blend of coffee which was new to New Zealand
and McCafe, and was sourced from Rainforest Alliance Certified Farms. It also said that “great” was in the nature of
a “generalised” rather than an “absolute” claim.
The next part of
the advertisement said: “This means it is grown in a way that helps
to improve workers’ income, the communities and the environment.”
This, in the
majority view advised that the advertised product had an environmental
advantage and was an improvement on its previous method of manufacture.
Accordingly, the majority of the Complaints Board said the voice-over and
graphics in the advertisement clearly communicated to the consumer, the basis
for the claim, and that it was able to be substantiated, meeting the
requirements of Basic Principle 3(a). The majority also said the claim met the relevant local or international standards as appropriate which
was required by Basic Principle 3(b) and, in
accordance with the requirements of Basic Principle 3(c), clearly
explained to the consumer, the nature of the benefit.
Accordingly, the majority said it was not in breach of Basic Principles 1
or 3 of the Code for Environmental Claims.
On the other hand, the
minority was of the view that the claim was questionable when assessed in
respect of Basic Principle 1. Although
the coffee beans may have been grown and harvested in an environmentally
conscious manner, the environmental benefit did
not appear to cover the complete life-cycle of the product and its packaging
taking into account any effects on the environment of its distribution, use and
disposal. Thereby the minority said the advertisement contained an exaggerated
claim which was likely to mislead the consumer, and in the minority view the
advertisement was in breach of this Basic Principle.
However, in accordance
with the majority view, the Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Not Upheld
No comments:
Post a Comment