Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Golden Leaves, www.goldenleaves.com, for funeral provision, seen in November 2021 included a box on the homepage with the text “How can I have a Green funeral?”, “Choosing an environmentally-friendly funeral not only assists your loved ones, but also makes a positive statement of intent to help preserve the world in which we live.”
A page titled “Green funerals” included “Our Green Funeral Plans are kind to your family, kind to the environment.” Further down the page, the ad stated “Our green funeral plan can include options for natural and biodegradable coffins made of sustainable materials including wood, willow and wool […] The entire carbon footprint of a funeral service may be offset by tree planting in conservation areas or by donating funds to preserve endangered rainforests around the world. Additionally, on your behalf, Golden Leaves funeral plans will even contribute to an environmental fund that combats climate change for the benefit of future generations.”
A page titled “Eco-Coffin Range Green Funerals UK Golden Leaves Funeral Plan” included the text “Explore our selection of coffins to include in an eco-friendly funeral in the UK”. Below that, the ad included an image of a coffin and the text “Glade Veneer – Our Glade Funeral Plan comes with a classic style veneered coffin. This traditional coffin is made using FSC-certified Ecologique board, oak veneer style wood finished with water-based polish. Manufactured by J C Atkinson, the UK’s premier eco-friendly coffin manufacturer, you are assured that you are purchasing quality green coffins.”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. the descriptions of wooden and MDF coffins as “eco-friendly” and “green”; and
2. the references to a “green” and “environmentally-friendly” funeral.
Response
1 & 2.Golden Leaves Ltd responded that they sold not just coffins, but whole funeral plans based around environmentally friendly principles. With reference to the coffins they said these came from a third party and were sourced specifically because they had higher environmental standards than other similar coffins. They provided a life cycle analysis that had been carried out to assess the environmental impact of those coffins to support the claims. They said that the environmental impact of the coffin should be assessed alongside the whole plan which included tree planting and conservation donations which would help to offset the carbon emissions of the funeral.
Golden Leaves said that the claims that their coffins and also funerals were “green” or “eco-friendly” should be understood as part of their whole package offer of a funeral plan which they had designed to promote an environmentally conscious message. That included the promotional material itself, produced with water based inks on recycled paper, the sustainable nature of the coffin types used and carbon offsetting strategies, e.g. replacement tree planting and rainforest conservation donations. They provided information about how that was achieved.
They said that part of their package included the option for consumers to contribute to an investment fund that only invested in environmentally friendly projects; information was provided about the fund.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. The Code also required that absolute claims be supported by a high level of substantiation, and that marketers base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication stated otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims ““Explore our selection of coffins to include in an eco-friendly funeral in the UK” and “Manufactured by J C Atkinson, the UK’s premier eco-friendly coffin manufacturer, you are assured that you are purchasing quality green coffins” to mean that the coffins that they were buying would have either no impact or an overall beneficial impact on the environment. Because the claims were unqualified, we considered that consumers would understand them to be absolute claims about the total environmental benefit specifically of the coffins, over their full life cycle including burial or cremation.
The life cycle analysis assessed the cremation impact and particulate emissions of a range of coffins when burned. It also assessed the total impact of the manufacture and distribution of different types of coffin. The life cycle analysis did contain information about which kinds of coffin might have a lower impact than others, however, it did not state that any type of burial or cremation would have a neutral or positive environmental benefit.
Because the evidence that had been provided to us did not demonstrate that there was no negative impact on the environment over the full life cycle of the coffins, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code 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), 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. Upheld
The claim “How can I have a Green funeral” appeared alongside “Choosing an environmentally-friendly funeral […] makes a positive statement of intent to help preserve the world in which we live”.
The page stated that the funeral plans offered would “minimise the funeral’s impact on the environment” and described the ways in which that would happen including that “The entire carbon footprint of a funeral service may be offset by tree planting in conservation areas or by donating funds to preserve endangered rainforests”. The page clarified “Woodland Conservation” and “Supporting the Rainforest” to mean that “a sapling will be donated for planting in woodland” and “you may sponsor a tree in a rainforest which needs protection from commercial exploitation” respectively. The page also detailed other ways in which their funeral plans provided environmental benefits including “a selection of eco-coffins” and the option to buy into a fund that “helps fund the installation of energy efficient measures into the homes of the elderly and those most in need”.
We considered that consumers would understand from the page, taken as a whole, that the claim “Green funeral” would mean that all apects of the funeral and its life cycle would have a neutral or positive effect on the environment. Whilst we acknowledged that the page said that the plans were designed to “minimise the funeral’s impact on the environment”, we considered that claims such as “the entire carbon footprint […] maybe offset” and “an environmentally-friendly funeral” which “makes a positive statement of intent to help preserve the world in which we live” would be understood to mean that choosing the plans would result in an overall neutral or positive environmental impact.
We therefore needed to see evidence that all aspects of all funerals covered by the plans including manufacture, delivery, transport, burial, cremation, memorial service and other parts of the whole life cycle of the funeral would have no negative impact on the environment. We understood that the plans offered included carbon offsetting or conservation options to ensure that the carbon emissions involved in the funeral were offset elsewhere. We were, however, neither provided with evidence as to how that was calculated to cover the whole life cycle of the funeral nor whether such schemes were credible. We considered that, in order to demonstrate the absolute claim that the funeral was “green” or “eco-friendly”, we needed the evidence to demonstrate that the funeral would have no negative impact on the environment.
We acknowledged that some of the money paid by consumers into a fund which was claimed to invest ethically into companies and funds that benefitted the environment. However, it was not clear from the literature that had been provided to us, to what extent that justified the funeral plans claiming they were environmentally friendly.
Because we considered that consumers would understand the terms “green” and “environmentally-friendly” in the context of the ad to be absolute claims about the whole life cycle of the funeral, and because the evidence did not support that purchasing a funeral plan from Golden Leaves would have a net neutral or positive impact on the environment, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code 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), 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Golden Leaves not to state or imply that their products had a net neutral or positive environmental benefit unless they held substantiation that demonstrated this across their whole life cycle. We also told them to ensure that the basis for the environmental claims were made clear to consumers.
