Background
Three issues were investigated and all were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for wood and fuel burning stoves, in July 2011, was titled "The greenest stoves on earth CLEARVIEW STOVES" between pictures of woodland and a stove. Claims on the page stated "Welcome to Clearview Stoves, the leading dedicated manufacturer of clean burning wood and coal multi-fuel stoves in the world. We have created a range of multi-fuel stoves that combines state of the art engineering and clean burning efficiency with beautiful designs."
Claims on a page headlined "Clearview Pioneer 400 Woodburning Stove" stated "The Clearview Pioneer 400 Stove is the highest specification small stove ever built. Fuel efficient it can burn only one kilo of wood an hour ...". Claims further down the page stated "This rugged 5kW stove is equally at home in a country cottage, a modern apartment, mobile home or boat. The Pioneer is highly fuel efficient - it can burn just one kilo of wood per hour. Guide output 1 - 5 kW".
Issue
Dean Forge Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "The greenest stoves on earth";
2. "The Clearview Pioneer 400 Stove is the highest specification small stove ever built"; and
3. "The Pioneer is highly fuel efficient - it can burn just one kilo of wood per hour. Guide output 1 - 5 kW" because they understood that the stove would require in excess of one kilo of wood in order for it to sustain 5 kW for one hour.
Response
1. Clearview Stoves Ltd (Clearview) said they had always believed in sourcing components and materials close to their factory, when possible. They said they used Welsh steel specifically rolled for them, with all waste material being returned for re-use, and also used locally sourced fuel. They said all their stoves were available in green and designed by Greenall. They said they were the first company to build a clean burning multi-fuel stove and the first to have one approved for use in smoke-control areas. They said they had the largest dedicated wood stove factory in the UK and had provided recycling facilities for almost 30 years. They said they had their own nursery for future planting and their own sawmill and operated an efficient delivery system which ensured that their vehicles were despatched full.
Clearview said their products were renowned for longevity and often maintained by the customers themselves, which reduced the need for fuel-hungry call outs and servicing. They said they heated much of their business premises with waste heat from production processes and had planted and maintained forests for 20 years, which produced environmental benefits.
2. Clearview said the information required to substantiate their claims was set out on their website and outlined the specifications for the Pioneer 400 product.
3. Clearview said their products were renowned for their controllability or "turn down ratio". They said 1 kg per hour was a slow burning fuel consumption which they had recorded over a 24-hour average burn period. They said it was the low or minimum output, rather than the high, that was of most importance to their customers. They said they had not claimed that the maximum output could be obtained with minimum fuel and believed that customers would understand the link between the level of use and fuel consumption.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim that Clearview's products were the "greenest stoves on earth" was an absolute claim that required robust substantiation which showed that those products were more environmentally friendly than any other stove on the global market, when the environmental impact of those products was assessed over their full lifecycle.
We noted the response provided by Clearview but we had not received any evidence in support of the claim. In the absence of such evidence we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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), 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons), 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. and 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. (Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
We considered the claim that the Clearview Pioneer 400 Woodburning Stove was the "highest specification small stove ever built" was capable of substantiation using robust, comparative current and historic whole-market data. While we again noted the response from Clearview, in the absence of evidence to support the claim, we considered that it had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
3. Upheld
We noted Clearview's argument that they had not claimed that the maximum output was available from the minimum fuel but we considered that the claim "Fuel efficient - it can burn only one kilo of wood an hour. Guide output 1 - 5 kW" would be interpreted by readers to mean that the stove could produce anything from 1 to 5 kW with that amount of fuel. Because we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the claims breached 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).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told Clearview not to make performance, environmental or comparative claims about their products unless they held robust evidence to substantiate them.
