Eco Windows 5 Central Street Halifax West Yorkshire HX1 1HU Number of complaints: 1

Date: 1 October 2008 Media: Regional press Sector: Household

Ad
A full-page, regional press ad showed several pictures of different designs of UPVC windows and was headed "eco windows - economical on price - ecological on design."  The "e" of "eco" was shown in the form of a tree and the "i" of "windows" was dotted with a leaf. Body copy stated "We supply the most up to date materials to prevent heat loss. Argon filled sealed units with K glass at no extra cost." A contact telephone number was shown at the bottom of the page.

Issue
A reader challenged whether the claim "ecological on design" was misleading because he believed the manufacture and end of life disposal of UPVC windows had an adverse environmental impact.

The CAP Code:

7.1;49.2;49.1;3.1

Response
Eco Windows said UPVC was recyclable and avoided the chopping down of trees that was involved in the manufacture of wooden windows. They sent information from the manufacturer of the windows they sold which they believed explained the grounds for their claim in more detail. The information stated that the products the manufacturer made helped reduce pollution by improving thermal efficiency and that their aim was to make the overall impact of their activities neutral or positive. It said there were many ways of achieving that, ranging from "good housekeeping" to the use of carbon credits to offset carbon emissions. It said that, when judged by objective criteria, the overall impact of the PVC industry in the UK and globally was positive. It said the fossil fuel content of UPVC was approximately 43% and that the chemical used in its manufacture, ethylene, resulted from when oil was refined. They said it had also been demonstrated that ethylene could be derived from renewable organic feedstocks. It said the amount of dioxins that were released during the manufacture of UPVC were smaller and less harmful in comparison with other sources such as other industrial activity, solid waste incinerators and accidental fires.

It said UPVC could be disposed of safely in landfill or modern incinerators, but that that would become less necessary as recycling initiatives increased. It said the UPVC industry, in conjunction with the Building Research Establishment (BRE), had studied the recycling potential of UPVC and estimated that it could be recycled four times without significant degradation.

The information said a material's sustainability needed to be assessed in terms of social and economic benefits as well as environmental impact. It said that as well as it being possible to re-use UPVC, they believed it was increasingly possible that it would be manufactured from organic matter in future rather than from fossil fuels. The information also said the turnover of the UPVC industry was more than £17.5 billion; that it represented 2.1% of the UK's GDP and made a substantial contribution to social and economic success in the UK.

The information made the following statements: "PVC-U windows and doors reduce heat loss and therefore the building requires less heating and so emissions are reduced; windows and doors made from PVC reduce the need to chop down trees; PVC is recyclable and so need not be incinerated, thus reducing emissions; PVC-U windows do not need painting and therefore don't consume materials or generate associated waste and the entire process - from PVC production to window installation - takes place within the UK thereby minimising transportation and fuel consumption and reducing carbon dioxide emissions." The information then went on to list quotations from a campaigning organisation, a university professor and a Minister of State testifying to the benefits and safety of PVC.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the points put forward by Eco, through the information provided by the manufacturer of the windows, to support their claim. We noted that the manufacturer's aim was to make the overall impact of their activities neutral or positive and that they had considered the sustainability of UPVC in very broad terms - from the day to day use of their product in window construction to the longer term manufacture, disposal and recyclability of it and that that they took into account social and economic benefits as well as environmental impact.

We also noted, however, that the information stated that the manufacture of UPVC from organic materials and the ability to recycle it to construct new UPVC window frames from old ones was still in its early stages and that opinions were divided on whether the manufacture, use and disposal or recyclability of UPVC could be seen as sustainable in terms of environmental impact. In particular, we noted that the current manufacture and disposal of UPVC entailed the use of fossil fuels and landfill. We considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim "ecological on design," in conjunction with the green colouring and the tree emblem that appeared in the advertiser's name, that all aspects of the manufacture, use and disposal/recyclability of Eco Windows's UPVC windows were considered to have beneficial, or at least neutral, impact on the environment, and that despite any environmental impact the product still resulted in a net positive, or at least neutral, effect on the environment. Because the evidence Eco had provided did not show that was the case, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental claims).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Eco Windows to remove the claim "ecological on design" from their ad.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)