Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website for Carpet Recycling UK, www.carpetrecyclinguk.com, included a web page headed "Recyclers > What Can Carpet Be Recycled Into?" which included a list of ways in which carpets could be recycled. Under "Recycling" it stated "Carpet Tiles can be recycled by separating the nylon fibres from the bitumen backing. The nylon fibre can be recycled back into yarns and used in new carpets. The bitumen backing can be recycled into applications such as roofing and road surfaces". Further text stated "Equestrian surfaces: Mixed Synthetic carpet is shredded and mixed with rubber crumb and sand, to form a surface for equestrian usage", "Polypropylene recovery: Carpets with polypropylene face fibre and polypropylene backing can be shredded granulated and extruded into pellets which can be moulded into plant pots or buckets. This technology has been trialled on post consumer carpets, further trials are needed to test this on an industrial scale" and "EFW [Energy from Waste]: Carpet of all composition and construction can be used for Energy from Waste due to its high calorific value. Carpet is shredded and made into a fuel flock to replace coal in cement kilns".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "The bitumen backing can be recycled into applications such as roofing and road surfaces" was misleading and could be substantiated, because he did not believe that type of recycling took place; and
2. the claims that recycled carpets could be used for "Equestrian surfaces";
3. "Polypropylene recovery"; and
4. "EFW" were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Carpet Recycling UK Ltd said they were a not-for-profit membership association set up to increase the uptake of carpet recycling. They said their activities included finding new end uses for recycled carpets, facilitating relationships between those who want to recycle and recyclers, lobbying, providing support to recyclers and research. They provided documents to demonstrate their work in these areas.
1. Carpet Recycling UK said bitumen backing was recycled into applications such as roofing and road surfaces by a carpet manufacturer based in the Netherlands. They provided a document from the manufacturer which gave details of their recycling programme.
2. Carpet Recycling UK said the use of carpet fibres in equestrian surfaces was a well-established commercial practice. They provided a presentation by a County Council given at a 2013 conference as part of a programme focused on waste management and another document from a fibre recycling company detailing the benefits of using shredded carpet waste as equestrian surfaces. They said shredded carpet waste was used as an environmentally friendly and cost-effective alternative to traditional equestrian surfaces.
3. Carpet Recycling UK said the claim made clear that the technology was available for polypropylene recovery, but that further tests were required before this could be undertaken commercially. They provided a third-party report which they said demonstrated this.
4. Carpet Recycling UK said the practice of using carpets for energy recovery was widespread across Europe due to the high calorific value of the material. They provided a presentation by a third party which they said demonstrated this. They also provided a screenshot from a website for a UK company which stated they processed carpets for various uses and that the waste products were then mixed with other pre treated materials to produce fuel pellets for use in cement kilns. They also provided a 2012 case study from a carpet manufacturer that operated a recycling scheme which included the use of material not suitable for recycling as secondary fuel for use in cement kilns.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The evidence provided demonstrated that at least one company that operated internationally, including in the UK, separated the bitumen backing from carpet tiles and recycled it for use in applications such as roofing and road surfaces. We therefore concluded the claim had been substantiated.
On this point 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.
2. Not upheld
The evidence provided demonstrated that carpet was recycled and used for equestrian surfaces by at least two companies in the UK. We therefore concluded the claim had been substantiated.
On this point 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.
3. Not upheld
We considered the claim made clear that whilst polypropylene recovery was possible, it was not currently carried out commercially. The report detailed trials and laboratory work that had been carried out into the viability of polypropylene recovery, and concluded that it was a possibility for some types of carpets, although commercial viability depended on a number of factors. We therefore concluded the claim had been substantiated.
On this point 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.
4. Not upheld
We considered that the evidence supplied demonstrated that carpet could be used for EFW and that it was carried out in the UK. We therefore concluded the claim had been substantiated.
On this point 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.
