Consumer goods giant Unilever has received a reprimand from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) due to the unclear environmental claims made in its advertisement for Persil washing liquid.
An initial complaint challenging the claims by Unilever in its brand's advertisement, such as those inferring that packaging for Persil washing liquid uses 50 per cent recycled content, questioned whether they were ‘misleading and substantiated’.
After an assessment of the ad and concluding that it breaches the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP), ASA has now supported this complaint.
Unilever advertised the brand as ‘kinder to our planet’ with a focus on two features to make the liquid detergent ‘kinder’. Firstly, its capacity to wash at lower temperatures to save energy and secondly, the packaging bottle containing 50 per cent post-consumer recycled plastic, ‘reducing their use of virgin plastic and carbon derived from fossil fuels’.
According to ASA, Persil responded to the complaint by saying that the initiatives were part of a ‘Clean Future programme’ by Unilever, launched in 2020. This programme aims to ‘eliminate fossil fuels and ensure net zero carbon emissions in cleaning products by 2030’.
Persil also claimed that the products in the ad had been proven effective at removing stains in a cold wash at 30 degrees Celsius and it is ‘indisuputable that washing clothes at lower temperatures saved energy’. As well as this, the company highlighted that the products had been ‘proven effective’ in a quick wash of 60 minutes, which can also save energy.
These responses were supported by Clearcast, an organisation that pre-approves British television advertising. Clearcast told Unilever that: “The advertiser was drawing attention to the improvements they had made to enable consumers to reduce their energy bills without compromising the quality of the laundry experience, and taking into consideration the bottles were made with recycled plastic to reduce waste, the basis for why Persil was kinder to the planet was very clear”.
However, ASA concluded that the ad breached the BCAP Code on advertising, which requires that ‘the basis of environmental claims must be clear’. When adhering to the code, absolute claims must also be supported by ‘a high level of substantiation’ – but claims such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ can be justified if the advertised product provides ‘a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser’s previous product or competitor products’.
As a result, ASA stated: “We acknowledged that the ad highlighted the liquid detergent products were effective at removing stains in ‘cold’ washes at 30 degrees Celsius in ‘quick’ 60-minute cycles, with bottles that were comprised of 50 per cent recycled plastic.
“However, we considered the basis of the comparative claim ‘kinder’ was likely to be ambiguous to viewers. The ad did not state or explain the basis of the comparative claim, such as whether the advertised liquid detergents were “kinder” in comparison to Persil’s own previous products or other products.”
Despite the ad showing the benefits of the detergents ‘being effective in cold and quick cycles and the use of recycled plastics’, ASA decided that ‘it was not clear if those were new or recent developments’. It was also ambiguous whether these features were new to the advertised detergents or ‘applied more widely to Persil’s range of products’.
Alongside this and the absence of evidence demonstrating that ‘the full life cycle of the product had a lesser environmental impact compared to a previous formulation’, the Association concluded the ad was ‘likely to mislead’.
This is not the first time Unilever’s messaging has been called into question. In June, an investigation by news agency Reuters uncovered discrepancies between Unilever’s public statements on its single-use plastic packaging and its action to phase out the material’s use.
The company is one of the largest producers of multi-layered sachets – prevalent in developing countries and used to sell everyday products, such as laundry detergent, shampoo, and toothpaste. Hanneke Faber, the company’s President for Global Food and Refreshments, told investors in 2019 that the packaging is “evil because you cannot recycle it.”
However, Reuters found that eight months later, Unilever avoided new legislation in Sri Lanka to phase out the sachets.
Commenting on the reprimand, Unilever said: “We are disappointed with the ASA adjudication as this TV advertisement was intended to communicate how Persil removes tough stains in quick and cold washes as well as how all Persil liquid detergent bottles now contain 50% recycled plastic. We are committed to making on-going improvements to all our products to make them more sustainable and will continue to look at how we can share this with our shoppers.”
Get our weekly digest
resource.co article ai
How will the government and DMOs address the challenges of including glass in DRS while ensuring a level playing field across the UK?
There's no easy solution to include glass in the DRS while maintaining a level playing field. Potential approaches include a phased introduction of glass, potentially with higher deposits to reflect its logistical challenges. The government and DMOs could incentivise innovation in glass packaging design and subsidise dedicated return points for glass-handling. Exemptions for smaller businesses unable to handle glass might also be necessary. Any successful solution will likely blend several approaches. It must address the differing priorities of devolved administrations, balance environmental benefits with logistical and cost implications, and be supported by robust consumer education campaigns emphasizing the importance of glass recycling.