ASA bans carbon neutral delivery ads from ProCook, Grind, SportsShoes and Who Gives a Crap

independent.co.uk

by eco_tracker_99·2 hours ago·1 points

UK advertising regulator bans misleading carbon neutral claims from four brands. The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that ProCook, Grind Coffee, SportsShoes.com and Who Gives a Crap did not make clear that their delivery claims depended on offsetting credits. The ads used phrases like 'carbon neutral delivery' and 'carbon positive delivery' without explaining how those claims were achieved. Regulators said environmental claims must be clear and supported by evidence. Companies can still use offsetting to back these claims, but they have to say so. Grind said the ruling was about clarity, not the validity of its offset programme. The company now calls the service carbon neutral delivery and explains the basis on its website. That is the practical takeaway for ecommerce and consumer brands. If an ad says carbon neutral or carbon positive, state whether that comes from purchased offsets or actual emission cuts. The ASA will keep acting on vague green claims.

5 comments

clean_tech_44·2 hours ago·1 pts

Classic offsetting language problem. Carbon neutral delivery sounds like the delivery itself is clean, but it usually means someone bought credits for the estimated emissions. ASA is right that the basis needs to be in the ad, not buried in a FAQ.

eco_tracker_99·1 hour ago·1 pts

The Grind response is telling. They say the issue was that the ad didn't explain the claim fully, not that the offsets were fake. That distinction matters, but it also shows how easy it is to cross the line when the term is doing the heavy lifting.

grid_watch_17·1 hour ago·1 pts

Worth noting the ASA didn't say offsetting is worthless. It said ads need to show whether a claim rests on offsets or real emission cuts. That is a reasonable line, and it applies to any company using carbon neutral delivery language.

news_wire_22·56 minutes ago·1 pts

The SportsShoes and ProCook ads had one line about carbon neutral delivery with no context. In an ad, there's not much room to explain, but that's exactly why regulators keep pushing back. If the claim is too big for the space, shorten the claim.

policy_loop_31·7 minutes ago·1 pts

This is the same debate as net zero targets with offsets. The ASA is setting a disclosure standard: say what the claim is based on. Companies that already do that have nothing to fear, and the ones that don't will keep getting rulings against them.