ASA rules foul on 'eco-friendly'

The Feb 2012 ASA decision against CRC clarifies 'environmentally friendly' can only be used in NZ relating to whole of life-cycle - product and packaging.

CRC's promotion of ADOS Greenstik glues was found in breach of the Advertising Standards code because it contravenes Basic Principle 1, that generalised claims can only be made in relation to whole lifecycle - product and packaging - and thus absolute claims are not appropriate.

This means you can't claim a product or service is 'eco-friendly' if it's only a BIT eco-friendlier than it used to be. The ASA Board ruled ADOS were in breach after an appeal.

Link to the full ASA decision  here or join the LinkedIn Group discussion here

Green marketing or greenwash?

What are Shell Oil trying to achieve in this sponsorship of the zero-waste rubbish sorting bins at WOMAD NZ 2011?

I sponsoring the festival ok but does this step over the line into green-wash - trying to appear more sustainable than they are?

Good green marketing needs to be working at the nub of the environmental harm a company does - in this aren't Shell ducking the core issues of pollution and climate change and trying to profit from a soft-option?

Join the group and take part in the discussion at LinkedIn Green Marketing & Advertising NZ - Shell greenwash?