Innocent—the Coca-Cola-owned drinks brand which claims to produce “natural, delicious drinks that do good for the planet”—has seen its animated “Little Drinks, Big Ideas” campaign banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in Britain. This could impact the future direction of its and other brands’ environmental marketing messaging as a result.
The advertising campaign by Mother London, which began mid-2021, features a group of people—including boardroom executives—singing, “We’re messing up the planet. We’re messing up real good. And filling up our bodies with more beige food than we should … ” before a guitar-playing otter turns up to change the point of view of the song to people actively “fixing up the planet” instead.
The outcome of the review came from a complaint by a division of Extinction Rebellion, Plastics Rebellion, about the brand’s use of plastic bottles, which went against the appearance it was a brand doing good for the world.
In the original notification sent in December, seen by Adweek, 26 complaints were made around the campaign last year claiming that it was “misleading” and challenging the environmental benefit of the product.
Innocent’s ad ran across TV, video on demand and paid-for on YouTube.
Plastic Rebellion’s Protest
Last summer, Plastic Rebellion wrote to the brand asking for the campaign to be removed. When they felt ignored, they staged protests at Innocent’s offices in London. The first saw three protesters dressed as strawberries and bananas stage a sit-in protest before being carried out and arrested by police. The second saw the group project the phrase “Guilty of Greenwashing” beneath the Innocent slogan on its building, while the third saw them accompanied by a TV producer who planned to create a film explaining the mission of the group.
Another protest took place outside the Shoreditch offices of Mother where, someone dressed as the advert’s otter and carrying a guitar, led the group to sing a new version of the song featured in the campaign before the costumed singer pretended to suddenly die on the sidewalk.
The next stage was to complain to the ASA, which led to an investigation that took over five months to reach a conclusion.
Environmental claims
Through its website, Innocent goes to great lengths to outline its environmentalism claims and how it is responding to the climate emergency, including its ambition to be carbon neutral by 2025 and that its factory in Rotterdam is “the world’s most sustainable” for producing healthy drinks.
“To reach that goal, we’re trimming out carbon from every part of our supply chain and building one of the most sustainable factories the world has ever seen. Based over in Rotterdam, it’s going to take millions of miles off the road, waste fewer precious resources and run on 100% renewable energy. Have a read of the below to find out what else we’re doing to hit our 2025 target,” it explains.
In a timeline, the brand states that in 2004 it began to work with the Edinburgh Center for Climate Change and developed a partnership with the carbon trust two years later leading to its recycling strategy, which included bottles that were 50% recycled plastic and another 15% from plant plastic. The company did a test using 100% recycled plastic in 2007 but was forced to revert backward in 2011 when it discovered that the quality was not “up to scratch”.
By 2023, the company has said it aims to reduce the amount of plastic in each bottle by cutting out 2,500 tonnes. By between 2025 and 2030, Innocent has promised that all bottles will be 100% recycled and made with 50% recycled plastic and 50% plant plastic.
What next for the brand?
In its defense, Innocent said the purpose-led message of the campaign was to encourage consumers to work towards a healthier planet, which its environmental credentials allowed it to do. It added that it did not believe that it made any statements that a positive environmental impact would be reached through buying any of its products—and claimed that by upholding the complaint it might “stifle” other companies from communicating environmental actions too.
It also said that the ad did not make any claims towards its packaging being better than any other and that it promoted recycling.
Clearcast, which works with brands and agencies to ensure their advertising passes code standards, explained that while working on this campaign, it believes that the ad’s reference to dreams would be interpreted by viewers as “aspirational” towards a better planet, rather than make specific environmental claims about the company.
The outcome
In upholding the complaint, the ASA decided that the viewer would watch the ad and conclude that “purchasing Innocent products was a choice, which would have a positive environmental impact.” The watchdog has decreed that, as a result, the ads were “misleading” and must not appear again in their current form and that future environmental claims by Innocent Drinks must be made clear.
“We also told Innocent to ensure that their ads did not mislead as to the total environmental benefit of their products and that environmental claims were based on the full lifecycle of the products, unless stated otherwise,” added the outcome section of the publication, which could mean a new direction being taken for the brand’s marketing entirely in future.
Underpinning a lot of environment claims is a complex science … you cannot enter these sorts of claims lightly
Miles Lockwood, director of investigations and complaints for the ASA
The decision is a significant one for the ASA, as it comes six months into the introduction of a focus into the growing environmental claims being made by companies, explains Miles Lockwood, the organization’s director of investigations and complaints, who compliment’s Innocent handling of the process as being “very down the line.”
Lockwood recognizes that there is a growing number of brands now making environmental claims, which he describes as a “complex area” of advertising regulation where businesses “can go wrong.”
“Underpinning a lot of environment claims is a complex science, the need for detailed evidence—you’re often looking at a whole lifecycle—so you’ve got to think about your whole value chain and quite often that value chain extends beyond your own direct control. If you’re going to make a whole lifecycle change, you’ve got to think about what’s going on in the manufacturing chain … you cannot enter these sorts of claims lightly,” he adds.
While pleased to have reached a conclusion, spokespeople for Plastic Rebellion told Adweek that they felt the process had taken too long—and that the result would make little difference as the campaign had already ended.
Speaking of the campaign, the spokesperson added: “This matey attitude of ‘We’re Innocent Drinks and we’re all friendly,’ it’s just complete bollocks. Obviously, we would love Innocent to stop using plastic but—to be realistic—that’s not likely to happen in the short term, so companies like this should just cut out the greenwashing. It’s infuriating they can get away with this sort of thing.”
Brands must be ‘more mindful’ of environmental claims
Duncan Reed, a partner for TLT Solicitors who works with brands when they face ASA complaints, said that those claiming to be environmentally friendly were facing higher scrutiny and that they would have to be “more mindful” of their packaging as they face more scrutiny on the claims they make.
“The evidence will boil down to what the average customer thinks when you’re making these types of claims and, therefore, is the average customer likely to be misled by what you’re saying? That is difficult with greenwashing and correct green claims in general. Categories of customers will have a different level of knowledge and awareness about green credentials and the emphasis that they put on those.”
Reed highlighted the potential for Innocent to appeal the decision but warned that it could mean double the publicity when it came to another negative ruling.
Last month, the ASA ruled against milk brand Oatly, which has also made environmental claims that it said were also “misleading.”
