Motoring

A 6 second video pictured a bird’s eye view of a car driving on a country road. The voiceover stated “Make a better choice when you fill up at Maxol. Choose Premium fuel at your local Maxol service station” while on screen text read “Make a better choice when you fill up at Maxol.” before transitioning to the end frame of the advertisement that featured the Maxol Premium logo positioned above the text “Learn more at maxolcarbonneutral.ie”.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading on the basis that they believed the environmental and climate claims in the advertisement suggested that the fuel was carbon neutral which the complainant stated was not the case.

The complainant considered the advertisers’ engagement in small-scale tree planting and community projects would take many decades to offset the greenhouse gas emissions produced by their fuels, and that the advertisement dramatically overlooked the damage that their fuels would do to planetary and human health in the meantime.

The complainant said that the advertisement had made the statement of ‘carbon neutrality’ without any supporting information and that this was inaccurate, ambiguous, and based on omission and the absence of substantiation meant that consumers would think the claims were objectively true because no qualification or information was being offered. The complainant also stated there was no information to substantiate the advertising claim, because they considered that the carbon offsetting scheme used did not live up to the claims that they were making.

The complainant considered that the advertisement was selling a ‘solution’ that offered no fix, but required consumers to pay extra for a premium product based on the unsubstantiated claim that it was better for the climate than their other fossil fuels.

The complainant stated that the advertisement claims only related to offsetting the emissions of the advertisers’ premium fuels once they were in the vehicles that used them and said that this did not include the exploration for oil, its extraction, refinement, nor the transport to the consumer, nor the harm that the product would do in the atmosphere once it was burnt. The complainant said that because of this, it did not represent the lifecycle of their product.

The complainant said that they considered the advertisement was misleading about the supposed benefits of the fuels by equating them with a carbon offsetting scheme that offered no evidence of working and had repeatedly been shown to be a greenwashing tool by leading climate scientists. The complainant stated that many of the ‘carbon offsetting’ schemes that were fossil fuel projects which increased greenhouse gas emissions production in order to capture small amounts of greenhouse gases for energy generation. The complainant referred to a ‘methane recovery project’ the advertisers were investing in that burned methane, a greenhouse gas 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Further Information:

The ASA Executive noted the landing page that the URL in the advertisement linked to. They noted that the website contained a variety of content including
• claims that “With every litre of Maxol premium Fuel you purchase, we offset your emissions through investments in certified carbon offset projects.”,
• a section on “At the heart of our local communities” which set out that “Maxol partners with local nonprofit organisations to support our local community” including ‘the planting of 10,000 trees across Ireland through the Trees on the Land Initiative.
• A section on ‘Global Projects’ with the statement “Maxol supports carbon offset projected around the world to offset your vehicle’s’ emissions”

The ASA Executive noted the landing page that the URL in the advertisement linked to. They noted that the website contained a variety of content including

• claims that “With every litre of Maxol premium Fuel you purchase, we offset your emissions through investments in certified carbon offset projects.”,
• a section on “At the heart of our local communities” which set out that “Maxol partners with local nonprofit organisations to support our local community” including ‘the planting of 10,000 trees across Ireland through the Trees on the Land Initiative.

• A section on ‘Global Projects’ with the statement “Maxol supports carbon offset projected around the world to offset your vehicle’s’ emissions”

The advertisers stated that the advertisement in question was six seconds in length and used simple, neutral visuals of a car driving in the countryside. They advised that Its intent was to inform consumers that Maxol had launched a programme to support more sustainable practices and to direct them to a dedicated website where full details of their carbon offsetting and environmental initiatives were set out.

They stated that the advertisement did not claim that the fuel itself was inherently “carbon neutral” nor did it state that using their fuel eliminated environmental impact. They said that rather, they clearly stated that the residual emissions were balanced through certified offsetting projects.

The advertisers stated that they were transparent in that they operated a voluntary offsetting programme that compensated for carbon dioxide emissions associated with the combustion of Maxol Premium Fuels. They said they did not claim that the fuels were free of environmental impact, nor that they eliminated emissions. But rather, they said they clearly stated that the residual emissions were balanced through certified offsetting projects and advised that this distinction was central and that the claim was qualified, limited to tailpipe emissions, and transparently explained on their website.

The advertisers stated that the wording “Make a better choice” was advertising language used to convey the fact that when customers chose their Premium Fuel as opposed to regular fuel, they offset the tailpipe emissions associated with the customer’s fill via certified carbon offset projects. They stated that at no point did the video advertisement explicitly state “Maxol fuel was carbon neutral.” Instead, they said it provided a call to action to visit the website for further information. They said this was far from exploiting consumer credulity and that the advertisement empowered viewers by encouraging them to seek out detailed information before forming a conclusion. They further noted that they did not consider their communication to have been misleading or exaggerated. They said their claim was expressly linked to their participation in certified carbon offsetting projects with supporting information publicly available at the website on screen.

The advertisers noted that the complainant suggested that offsetting was scientifically discredited. The advertisers stated that this misrepresented both the science and the EU’s regulatory stance. They advised that while offsetting was no longer accepted under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) for compliance purposes, voluntary offsetting remained a legitimate and internationally recognised mechanism when transparently described and properly certified. They stated that the EU’s development of the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF, 2022) further illustrated that offsetting was not being rejected but standardised and improved. They quoted the UNIPCC and stated “The deployment of carbon dioxide removals to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero…emissions are to be achieved” which they stated was counter to the complaint’s claim that the UNIPCC debunked carbon offsetting.

The advertisers stated they were committed to transparency and consumer education and that their offsetting programme was voluntary, undertaken in good faith, and represented a credible way for customers to support carbon mitigation.

The advertisers provided the Executive with independent end-of-year audit reports for the programme for calendar the years 2023 and 2024. They advised that these reviews, conducted by EY, provided external assurance on the accuracy of their emissions calculations and the retirement of carbon offsets.

They stated that the 2024 EY Review Report for example, confirmed that 26,593 mt of CO₂ emissions associated with their fuel usage was fully offset through verified carbon credit retirements. They stated that a report for the full 2025 year would be available in 2026.

Complaint Upheld:

The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

The Council noted the advertisement claims “Make a better choice when you fill up at Maxol. Choose premium Fuel at your local Maxol service Station” and “Learn more at maxolcarbonneutral.ie”. They considered that the advertisement claims were specifically in relation to the Premium Fuel.

The Council noted the prominence of the website address name “maxolcarbonneutral.ie” within the context of the advertisement and considered its inclusion as absolute in nature in relation to the Premium Fuel. .

The Council noted the complaint that it was only small scale tree planting and community projects that provided substantiation for the ‘carbon neutral’ claim. However, they also noted that these initiatives were in addition to the carbon offsetting projects that the advertisers were involved with.

The Council further noted the complaint that the carbon neutral claim was solely in relation to emissions once the product was in use rather than the lifecycle of the product.

In the circumstances, the Council considered that the advertisement was likely to mislead by exaggeration, omission and ambiguity. And in breach of Code Section 4.1.

Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.