TV broadcast a commercial for Innocent Ltd.
Video-on-demand (VOD), and paid YouTube ads.
The TV commercial featured animated characters singing a song.
With the lyrics:We are ruining the planet.
We are doing real harm. And filling our bodies full of more
We should eat more beige food..” It showed images of
Buildings and vehicles that eliminate pollution, litter, and polluted water
brown unappetizing food. It continued:We’re
We are destroying the sea by messing with nature.
…”, accompanied with images of rubbish being thrown into
water. A boat with many characters, including a talking otter
The otter reached a waterfall. The otter replied, “Woah!
doing?”.The otter replied, “Ok, let’s
Try this instead“, then sang “Let’s get
It’s time to fix the planet. Fix it up!…” The
Scene transformed from a grimy and polluted environment into a more pleasant, greener one
Fresher version – see the image. The song went on.
“Nature’s delicious recipes can help us be more kind to our bodies
Food…”, while showing a picture of fruit being
It was squeezed into an Innocent drink bottle. The song ended.
“Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. Because there is no other planet B. If
We are looking after nature, she will look after us.
Please send me“. Finally, a voice-over stated, “.Innocent.
Small drinks with big dreams for a better life
YouTube and VOD ads were identical to all intents.
You can view the ad currentlyHere.
It’s catchy and animated with simple, attractive animations.
style, and all seems pretty…innocent. The ad did however get noticed.
Under the skin of some people, and the ASA thought that they had a
Twenty-six people complained. One of them identified himself.
as representing Plastics Rebellion. They complained that the ad
The total environmental benefit of the project was exaggerated.
The ad promoted products and was therefore
It is believed that the plastic bottles in the which the drinks are stored are not recyclable.
are sold by Innocent and are recyclable. However, they may contain some new materials.
plastics (i.e. They are not entirely recycled
Innocent responded to the complaints by stating that the ad was not intended.
It was a purpose-driven message, inviting consumers to join it
Journey of working towards a healthier planet. It was their belief that it
It was environmentally-friendly, which gave it the ability to make an impact.
That invitation. However, they claimed that there was no suggestion.
The advertisement that Innocent products could be purchased would lead to a
positive environmental impact.
They stated that if the complaint was upheld, the effect might
be to stop other brands and manufacturers taking steps
Information about positive environmental factors and how to communicate it
They were taking actions. While the Innocent smoothie container did not.
It did not appear in scenes that showed that Innocent was present.
Using ingredients derived from nature, it was created.
Innocent claimed that the imagery and words of the ad were intended to offend.
Encourage recycling, both in general and by bouncing frequently
Recyclable containers for umbrellas (to be recycled into a bin)
Particularly in relation innocent products (by showing someone).
You are next in line, dressed in a bottle costume with the innocent logo
To a recycling container
Innocent argued that the ad failed to make a specific statement.
environmental claim. However, they provided evidence to support the claim.
Their environmental ambitions were supported, which they considered.
They were able to make claims about their abilities.
Innocent stated they were a B Corp, which was a
Some companies have been granted certification by B Lab
Companies that have demonstrated high levels of environmental and social responsibility
performance. Innocent claimed that they had taken a pledge to be carbon-neutral.
Neutral by 2030 and had opened a carbon neutral factory that ran
Renewable energy and a system for cleaning that reduces water consumption
by 75% Innocent stated that the text at the end of the ad contained the text
“Find out more innocentdrinks.co.uk”. They said
After viewing the website, consumers chose to view it.
This ad would provide information about their various sustainability programs
Innocent stated that single-use plastics are not acceptable for their use.
The ad aimed to show that recycling is better that throwing away
away. They claimed that the advertisement contrasted with images of plastic in
Water with a world of green where plastic was reclaimed. They said
Their company’s focus was to use the least amount of resources.
plastic while also supporting recycling and their ambitions were to
By 2023, recycle 70% of your bottles. They stated that they would recycle 70% of their bottles by 2023.
This can be achieved through education and awareness, lobbying to improve the environment.
Recycling and deposit return programs. They also stated that they were
We are working to develop more sustainable packaging.
Innocent thought that the Competition and Markets
The latest guidance from Authority allowed companies to tell people
Their hopes and dreams for environmental improvement.
Innocent chose to do it in a lighthearted, engaging way.
The ad. They thought so, as the ad failed to make a
This is not a product-specific claim. It is a statement about the wider range of products.
They were able to support their environmental goals.
The ad does not mislead by claiming that the environmental ambitions were supported by evidence.
Their products have a total environmental benefit.
Clearcast, which approved the ad, stated that it was suitable for broadcast on TV.
The TV version of the ad made no statements.
Innocent’s actions or environmental benefits have been exaggerated
products or the company. They stated that the first section –
Included the statements “We’re messing with the planet.”
We’re destroying real goodness. We’re filling our bodies with more
We’re playing around with beige food
Nature is being harmed …”
These claims are generally accepted and refer to the overall state
The impact humans had on the environment, processed food, and the planet.
They claimed that the next part of the ad would include the
“Let’s fix up the planet. It’s time to fix it up.
…”; “Be kind to your body with nature’s delicious
Food …”, would be understood by viewers as a plea for them to try it.
Aligned with the efforts, turn around the damage done
Innocent was making healthier food, and they were making it.
Clearcast stated that they had requested evidence to back their claims
They claimed “Reduce, Re-use, Recycling” which they considered a “Rewards for your efforts.”
Call to Action They claimed that Innocent had described their drive to
They plan to sustainably source all of their ingredients.
Every bottle they made to be recyclable and carbon neutral
By 2030. They believed that the dream reference would be understood
as aspirational and that overall the ad would be interpreted to be an
A call to action for a better planet.
Future, and not as making specific environmental claims
The company or the products.
The ASA deemed that the ads drew strong association
Between Innocent Drinks, and a positive effect on the environment.
They acknowledged that the ad contained aspirational messaging.
Included imagery of people choosing natural foods and recycling
Choose to “reduce, reuse recycle“, the final
Line “Small drinks with big dreams for a better life
Planet” and a hyperlink to the Innocent site for more
information. The ASA concluded however that
WhileSomeThe ad would be understood by the consumer
This is simply to imply that Innocent had made an aspirational pledge to
Doing their part to make the environment better.
This was a call for action to everyone to do better.
The planeManyThe consumer would interpret the
The overall presentation of the ad should indicate that you are purchasing Innocent
Products was a choice that would be a positive for the environment
The ad did not show Innocent products being eaten.
Branding used in scenes that showed the planet being
While ‘fixing up’, they show people and animals how to relax in a
Green environment, planting trees and putting products in a
The ASA deemed this to be a direct result of the direct.
There is a strong association between taking positive actions and choosing Innocent beverages
Take action to improve the environment. The lyrics reinforced this message.
“Let’s fix up the planet. Fix it up!
Good…”, and “Reduce. Re-use. Recycle.
Because there is no other planet. If we’re looking after nature
She’ll be looking out for me“, which was considered by the ASA
This could be taken to mean that you are buying Innocent products
It was actively making a conscious choice to reduce and re-use, and was
A claim that Innocent was environmentally-friendly is a more general statement
It was found that their products were environmentally friendly.
Would help ‘fix up our planet’.
The ASA deemed that the ads would be understood as meaning that
Innocent was environmentally conscious, and that they purchased their
Products had environmental benefits. Therefore, the ASA requested to see
There was evidence to support this assertion.
After reviewing the evidence presented, the ASA
It was agreed that Innocent was taking various actions to achieve their goals.
Products that have a lower environmental impact. However, they must be mindful of the environmental impact of their products.
ASA concluded the evidence was not in support of the implied claim
Innocent products were a great way to save money.net
PositiveEnvironmental impact is more important than their full potential
The ASA highlighted that Innocent’s drink bottles were included
Plastic that is not recycled and that is made from raw materials
Further processing of these materials to create the
Bottles could have a negative influence on the environment.
The ASA accepted the complaints. They broke the rules.
BCAP Code for TV ad and CAP Code for YouTube and VOD ads
GovernanceAdvertising that is misleadingThe need
ForSubstantialPlease refer to the following:
The ads should not be repeated in their current form. The ASA
Innocent has been asked to ensure that future environmental ads are not made.
claims, and make the basis for those claims clear. Innocent was informed by the ASA
to make sure that their ads were not misleading as to the total
They have an environmental benefit from their products and that environmental
The claims were based upon the entire product lifecycle, unless stated otherwise.
Unless otherwise stated.
The ASA is pursuing brands that make environmental claims.
They do not believe they are fully justified or supported by
The purpose of the ASA and CMA’s crackdown on greenwashing
It is to pressure companies to do more to improve their products
They make their business practices more eco-friendly. They
This will enable companies to make specific, evidence-based statements about
Their environmental credentials. But, regulators will.
Advertisers should be discouraged from making broad environmental claims.
They cannot justify their actions unless they go beyond the call of duty.
It can be very difficult to sell products that have a significant price.
Quantity of plastic
This ruling is a warning to companies about the ASA.
Consider complaints not only from consumers, but also from campaign personnel
It is not difficult for a company justifying its investment.
Specific environmental claims are more risky than creating the
Impression that products made from non-recycled plastic are better
Even if the plastic was recyclable, it would in some ways be a
Positive choices for the environment.
It’s great for consumers to “reduce and reuse”.
Recycle” is not the only option, but there is a significant amount of recyclable plastic.
Companies that use packaging end up in landfills.
It will be difficult to convince people that plastic is not used extensively.
ASA claims that their products are a net-positive option for the
The complete ruling is available hereHere.
This article is intended as a general overview.
guide to the subject matter It is a good idea to seek specialist advice
Discuss your specific circumstances.