Shell get their wrists slapped for lying in an advert

Spotted in this weeks Advertising Standards Authority adjudications was a complaint about a print ad from Shell International. The ad printed in the UK national press stated that "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions". Ignoring for a minute that any corporation actually has to invest today's profits for the future profits of it's shareholders, otherwise it would be doing them a disservice, such is the wanky nature of the modern business model the ad went on to say

Text at the top of the ad, attributed to Shell's Chief Executive, stated "A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future". Further text at the bottom of the ad stated "The challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable. As our 2007 results show, we're investing heavily in new technology and assets to safeguard the interests of our shareholders and future generations. In Canada we're harnessing our global network of technical and financial expertise to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposit. In the USA we're helping to build what will be the nation's largest refinery. And we're exploring a new generation of biofuels made from non-food sources. Difficult yes, impossible no". The ad then directed readers to full details of Shell's 2007 results on their website.

The accuracy of this advertisement was challenged by the World Wildlife Fund UK on 2 fronts, namely whether:

1. by harnessing the potential of the Canadian oil sands deposit, Shell was helping to provide a sustainable future; and

2. by helping to build the largest refinery in the US, Shell was helping sustainable energy production.

As a result the advertisement was investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims), in other words they were accused of making shit up in order to hop onto the environmental bandwagon.

To summarise the ruling both complaints were upheld, Shell were playing fast and loose with the facts and particularly by claiming that making a larger oil refinery they would be assisting with sustainable energy production when in fact they would be increasing CO2 emissions overall, and by describing oil sands as sustainable when according to the WWF they are actually one of the dirtiest energy sources.

Unfortunately all the ASA are able to do is instruct Shell not to run the ad again, but the chances are more people saw it than will see the ruling so I doubt that they are that bothered.

The rather lengthy response from Shell, and the full ruling from the ASA can be read here, and the response from the WWF UK is here.