Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
A website for an online clothing retailer, www.howies.co.uk, featured various claims about the fabrics used in its clothing.
The home page included the claim "We make high quality, low impact clothing, for everyday life and everyday sport".
A web page, accessed through a link titled "Organic Cotton", was headed "COMMON SENSE COTTON". Text stated "We all think that cotton is one of the most natural things around - remember your old comfort blanket when you were a kid? Yeah, like that - all cosy and safe and familiar. The truth is it simply isn't as 'natural' as we'd all like to think. Cotton is one of the most heavily sprayed crops grown by man, with a myriad of insecticides used on it during the growing process. And you can bet the shirt on your back that those nasty insecticides stay on that cotton for the whole time you wear it too. Common sense says that can't be doing you any good. That's why, wherever possible, we use organic cotton - cotton grown without any of the nasty stuff - so you needn't worry about anything bad rubbing off on you. Now that's comforting to know".
On a web page for a T-shirt, text stated "Plant This Thought ... Hemp is renowned for being one of the most environmentally friendly and versatile crops grown by man. It requires as little as half the amount of water to grow as cotton does. It is easily sustainable year on year and requires absolutely no irrigation. Hemp doesn't need any pesticides or herbicides to grow either, as it is naturally antibacterial. And that's great for you, the farmer and the field. It also makes an amazingly comfortable fabric of course. It's beautifully soft and gets better and better with age. Now that makes it one clever little plant".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim that the advertiser's products were "low impact" was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the web page headed "COMMON SENSE COTTON" misleadingly implied the advertiser used organic cotton in their products to a greater extent than they did; and
3. the claims under the heading "Plant This Thought" misleadingly implied the product contained a higher percentage of hemp than it did.
Response
1. Howies said they had been using organic cotton to make low impact products since 1999. They required their suppliers to provide them with certificates to confirm that relevant products were made from organic cotton; they provided a copy. They said their whole product development process focused on the use of high quality or low impact materials, and their policy of making small production runs avoided over-supply and waste. For example, all their printed 100% organic cotton T-shirts were printed when ordered by the customer, which reduced production waste and carbon output.
Howies said they had added polyester to some styles that were previously 100% organic cotton; adding polyester increased the life of some styles as the garments would keep their shape and wear better, and a report from an environmental consultancy company showed that adding polyester reduced the carbon footprint of a garment. One of their organic cotton products to which polyester had been added was a pair of jeans which they had sent for testing to recalculate the garment's carbon footprint and to assess its lifespan against regular denims of the same weight.
Howies said that, for their clothing which repelled water, they used a treatment which did not use solvents or other substances which were hazardous to the environment or to workplace health and safety, and the process did not create any hazardous waste. Howies also explained that from 2013 their winter jackets, which had previously used low impact polyester insulation or down, contained a type of wool wadding which was from wool that would normally go into building insulation or carpets. They had spent two years developing the wadding, which had been stabilised using a low impact addition.
With regard to their supply chain, Howies said they had moved a significant proportion of their garment production and fabric sourcing from the Far East to Europe. They had not yet calculated the impact of doing so, but considered it evident that the transportation footprint would be greatly reduced. They said they had also moved to reduce their packaging impact by switching from paper to plastic; that seemed counter-intuitive but it reduced their carbon footprint by 3.3 tonnes per year. They only used plastic which could be recycled, so the resource was not lost and small plastic particles from degradable plastics did not end up in the environment. Howies believed that none of their direct competitors made a similar level of commitment to a low impact supply chain.
2. Howies said their Autumn 2013 range comprised 94 products, which included 25 products made from 100% organic cotton, and 12 products with a mix of organic cotton and manmade fibres. They said the number of products they offered which were made from organic cotton had remained fairly stable since around 2005, but over the years they sourced new fabrics for specific purposes, such as for their biking clothing range.
Howies said the "COMMON SENSE COTTON" web page listed eight products, and contained high-level information on why they used organic cotton. They said seven of the products were 100% organic cotton, and the eighth was 66% organic cotton and 34% polyester. They said all items on their website specified the full content of the fabric clearly, and all items on the web page were covered by the certification from their suppliers. They said they made no claim in the ad about the percentage of organic cotton in each garment; the information instead related to the common sense of growing cotton that had not had insecticides sprayed on it.
3. Howies said the "Plant This Thought" copy was only featured on five product pages on their website, for the five garments which included hemp. The copy provided information about hemp, and appeared below an image of, and information about, the product. The content of the fabric of the garments were clearly displayed on the right-hand side of the page.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim that Howies' products were "low impact" to be an absolute claim that the lifecycle of all their products, from manufacture to disposal, had only a small impact on the environment. We would therefore expect to see documentary evidence relating to all aspects of the lifecycle of all their products which demonstrated that was the case. We noted Howies had provided information about specific aspects of the lifecycle of some of their products and more general information about how their business practices were intended to reduce the environmental impact of their clothes. However, we had not seen adequate substantiation to support the claim in their advertising. Whilst we acknowledged that Howies had taken a range of steps to reduce the environmental impact of their clothing, which might support a claim that their products had a lower environmental impact than previously, we concluded the absolute claim "low impact" had not been substantiated.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification),
11.1
11.1
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
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.
and
11.4
11.4
Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact.
(Environmental claims).
2. Not upheld
We noted the web page provided a general explanation of why Howies considered organic cotton to be better than non-organic cotton, and then stated "That's why, wherever possible, we use organic cotton ... Now that's comforting to know". We considered consumers would understand that to mean that Howies used organic cotton in their products wherever possible, but that not all products were made with organic cotton. We considered there was no implication that any particular percentage of Howies' products were made with organic cotton, or that all products which included organic cotton were 100% organic cotton.
We noted the web page also featured images of eight products. We considered that in the context of the web page, consumers would expect all those products to be made, at least in part, of organic cotton. We understood that all the featured products did use organic cotton, and furthermore we noted that in order to purchase the products, website users must first visit the relevant product pages which included details of the exact percentage of organic cotton included in the products. Consumers who were particularly interested in purchasing 100% organic cotton products were therefore able to check the exact content of organic cotton in specific products before purchase. We concluded the ad was not misleading to consumers.
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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) 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 noted the information under the "Plant This Thought" sub-heading appeared only on web pages for products which contained hemp. We noted that information appeared towards the bottom of the web page, below an image of the product and information about the content of the fabric of the garment, including details of the percentage of hemp in the fabric. Whilst we understood that hemp formed the lesser part of the fabrics, we noted the "Plant This Thought" section did not make any statements as to the amount of hemp used in the garments, but gave general information as to why Howies considered it a good addition to their fabrics. We considered there was therefore no implication that the product contained a higher percentage of hemp than it did. We concluded the ad was not misleading to consumers.
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.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Howies Ltd not to make absolute claims such as "low impact" unless they held substantiation to support the claim.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
11.1 11.3 11.4 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.9
