Ad description
Claims on the 'About Us' page of www.leatherandsheepskin.com, a manufacturer of leather and sheepskin products, stated "Welcome to the Leather and Sheepskin Company. We are a subsidiary of Eastern Counties Leather which was founded in 1879 based in Sawston in the heart of Cambridgeshire. Eastern Counties Leather is one of the few remaining tanneries in the UK. It has a long history of manufacturing coats, gloves and footwear but in recent years has specialised in sheepskin rugs and chamois leathers. The Leather and Sheepskin Company was created to promote the best of British leather and sheepskin products on the internet. ... We have created an outstanding collection which represents the best of British and International leather and sheepskin products with both time-honoured and contemporary designs. Our suppliers use manufacturing techniques that bring together the best of traditional craftsmanship using carefully sourced and selected materials and modern production methods".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims misleadingly implied the products were made in Britain with British sheepskin, when they understood that was not the case.
Response
Eastern Counties Leather explained they collected cattle hides and sheepskins from all the abattoirs licensed by the Food Standards Agency in the East Midlands, and provided us with a list of those abattoirs. They had three separate manufacturing sites in the UK that used only UK sourced material for their products. However, they acknowledged they used a very small quantity of Australian sheepskins for two of their products, which accounted for less than 2% of their total product range. They considered the claim "We have created an outstanding collection which represents the best of British and International leather and sheepskins" made clear that not all of their products were made from UK sourced skins. Consequently, they believed the ad was not misleading.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the page claimed that Eastern Counties Leather was founded in 1879; was one of the last few remaining UK tanneries; and had a long history of producing leather and sheepskin products. It also stated that the company was created to promote, on the internet, the best in British leather and sheepskin products. We understood how the combination of those particular claims might create a general impression that Eastern Counties Leather used only British sourced materials. However, the page also explained that they had created a collection to represent the best of British and International leather and sheepskin goods. We therefore considered the page had not explicitly claimed that all of their products were made with British sourced hides and skins.
Eastern Counties Leather provided us with evidence which demonstrated they collected their cattle hides and sheepskins from all the appropriately licensed abattoirs in the East Midlands area. Out of their total range of 116 products, only two were not made with British sourced sheepskin and they accounted for less than 2% of Eastern Counties Leather’s product range.
We noted Eastern Counties Leather stated they had created a collection to represent the best of British and International leather and sheepskin goods. We considered that claim was sufficient to alert consumers to the fact that not all of Eastern Counties Leather’s goods were made with British sourced materials. We considered that claim together with the fact that over 98% of their goods were made with British raw materials was sufficient to support the general impression created by the ad.
The complainant believed that all of Eastern Counties Leather’s products were imported from China. The page stated that Eastern Counties Leather was one of the last few remaining tanneries in the UK. They confirmed that they had three manufacturing sites in the UK and sourced an overwhelming majority of their hides and sheepskins from UK based abattoirs. Although we noted the complainant's concern, we considered that Eastern Counties Leather had demonstrated their goods were made in Britain.
For the reasons given above, we concluded the ad did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
