“Responsible” needs an explanation

The inflation of the expression "responsible" has to be prevented, according to the Advertising Code Commission (Reclame Code Commissie, “ACC”). It's a broad, catch-all term. In today's society, consumers are consistently opting for a responsible product, to do their bit. The mere reference in an advert to a quality mark for animal welfare, the environment, health or safety is no justification, according to the ACC. If someone wants to call a product "responsible", the advert itself must make it clear (i) what aspect it deals with (e.g. the Dutch ‘Better Life’ health mark for animal welfare) and (ii) the extent to which the advertiser claims it is responsible on this aspect. After all, consumers have to be readily able to check these things. Aldi had run a poster campaign with the slogan "Responsible and inexpensive" to offer fresh sausages, with a small image showing the ‘Better Life’ mark and 1 star (no image of the poster is available). This was not enough. Aldi ought to have made it specifically clear in the poster text that "responsible" only related to animal welfare and not other aspects, and that (only) 1 star was involved. The ACC considered that a poster text had plenty of space for this clarification. Quite strict then.

My motto: claims like "responsible" or "sustainable" for an entire range or an entire business are risky. Make it specific and thus transparent: what for and to what extent.

Ebba Hoogenraad