Misleading advertisements

The Advertising Standards Authority's code for environmental claims states absolute claims for environmental benefit - either stated or implied - are not appropriate. The code says phrases such as "environmentally friendly", "environmentally safe", "environmentally kind", "product X has no effect on the environment" "100% ecologically sound" are absolute claims and therefore not acceptable.

Qualified claims such as "environmentally friendlier/safer/kinder" may be acceptable where the advertised product, service or company can demonstrate "a significant environmental advantage over its competitors or a significant improvement on its previous formulation, components, packaging, method of manufacture or operation". All claims must be able to be substantiated, meet relevant standards and clearly explain the nature of the benefit.

Three car companies have so far found themselves before the ASA for misleading environmental claims.

The "Grrrrrreen" Saab

GM Holden's ad for the "Grrrrrreen" Saab appeared in newspapers last year. The ad asserted: "Every Saab is green. With carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range." The company's claim to carbon neutrality was based on the 17 native trees that Saab plants for each new car sold. Purchasers are told the trees off-set carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated in the first year of the vehicle's life.

The ASA ruled the ad was misleading and contained unsubstantiated claims. Commenting on the issue of carbon neutrality, it said the ad as a whole gave the "impression that the entire range of Saab vehicles was 'carbon neutral'". This is clearly not the case, given at most that emissions will be offset only in the first year of a vehicle's life.

The same Saab ad has been run across the Tasman - and GM Holden now faces court action by the Australian Competition and Commerce Commission. The Commission has taken legal proceedings against the company under the Trade Practices Act, alleging the ad was misleading and made false representations. The case is currently before the Federal Court.

"Mean but Green" Landrover

Motorcorp Distributors found itself before the ASA over claims in a newspaper ad for a Landrover Range Rover. Beside a photo of the vehicle were the words "Mean. But Green. The New Turbo Diesel V8." In smaller print, the ad described the car as "the most potent, most refined, most economical diesel-powered Range Rover. Ever."

Motorcorp Distributors defended the ad, claiming the reference to the vehicle as green "simply relates to the reduced CO2 emissions" from the new model. It pointed out the Rover's "old V8" engine produced CO2 emissions of 352g/km. In comparison, the new engine manages 299g/km.

But the ASA said it did not consider that such a relatively small reduction in CO2 emissions was adequate for supporting the use of the term "green". It said the term implied that a product was environmentally friendly or had a low environmental impact. This would be hard to sustain, as the Rover produces CO2 emissions more than three times higher than hybrid cars on the market.

"Environmentally Friendly Turbo Diesel"

A Holden television ad also came under scrutiny last year. Placed by Holden New Zealand, the ad showed images of Holden vehicles with the caption "Environmentally Friendly Turbo Diesel". Following a complaint to the ASA, Holden voluntarily withdrew the ad. The company also told the ASA that "in future, references to 'environmentally friendly' will be replaced with the phrase 'Smart Turbo Diesel'".