The Stove Industry Association (SIA) has welcomed an update after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was found to have made an error when it rapped the association for false advertising.
The SIA was reported to the ASA last year amid a complaint that its promotional material around the emissions benefits of modern stoves was misleading.
The crux of the complaint was the SIA’s claim that a ‘modern stove’ was a ‘very low emission way to heat the main living space in your home’.
The advert also stated that a ‘modern stove and dry wood fuel can significantly lower emissions and improve efficiency compared to an open fire or older stove’.
It is not known who made the complaint.
In its ruling to ban the advert, the ASA made some damaging statements that the SIA objected to.
The ASA erroneously stated that there was no evidence to support the claim that Ecodesign stoves were less harmful than older ones in terms of PM2.5 and smoke.
More than six months on, and the ASA has now changed its ruling following an independent review of the decision, which had been requested by the SIA.
An update published on July 8 reveals that the independent reviewer agreed with the SIA that the previous ruling assessment contained a substantial flaw.
The ASA has now accepted that its original interpretation of the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) dataset was incorrect in that it treated the data as “per appliance” rather than aggregate.
This led to the decision makers believing modern Ecodesign stoves were responsible for more pollution per appliance than old ones.
That statement has now been removed from the ASA website.
There is no change to the original decision that the advertising claims made by the SIA, comparing different emissions such as cooking and candles with modern stoves, required greater clarification. That part of the ASA ruling remains upheld. The SIA said it had always accepted this.
Erica Malkin, Executive Director of the SIA, said: “We are very pleased that the Independent Reviewer has agreed with us that the NAEI data, that had been reviewed by the ASA as part of its investigation, had not been correctly interpreted.”
In explaining her conclusion that there was a substantial flaw in the original Ruling, the Independent Reviewer noted: “During the preparation of the case for this review, the ASA has accepted that its original interpretation of the dataset is incorrect in that it treated the data as “per appliance” rather than aggregate. Having reviewed the dataset myself, I agree with the outcome of that review and consider that this amounts to a substantial flaw in the Ruling.”
In addition to concluding that the original Ruling contained a substantial flaw, the Independent Reviewer noted that the November 2025 Ruling “…could mislead the average consumer.” and therefore, recommended that the case be reopened and reconsidered by the ASA Council.
The revised Ruling relates to two historical advertising claims that previously appeared on the SIA website.
While the ASA’s decision that the claims required greater qualification remains unchanged, the Independent Review has resulted in a revised assessment of technical evidence relating to emissions and clarification of the limitations of the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) when comparing the performance of individual appliance types.
Following publication of the original Ruling in November 2025, the SIA requested an Independent Review. The Association accepted the ASA’s conclusion that greater qualification of the advertising claims were required. However, it was concerned that elements of the published reasoning extended beyond advertising copy into incorrect technical interpretation of emissions evidence.
The revised Ruling explains that the NAEI data represents aggregate national emissions by source category and fuel type and does not provide direct per-appliance comparisons between modern stoves, older stoves and open fires. It also provides a revised assessment of the additional technical evidence submitted during the investigation.
Erica Malkin added: “The SIA has always supported clear, accurate and evidence-based communication with consumers. Throughout this process we accepted that the wording of the original advertising claims could have been clearer and, following the original Ruling, we removed the claims from our website and reviewed our communications. Our concern related not to the ASA’s role in regulating advertising, but to aspects of the published reasoning that interpreted complex technical evidence in a way that we believed could create an inaccurate understanding of the comparative performance of modern stove technology.
“The Independent Review process exists precisely to address situations where there are concerns about the reasoning underpinning a published ruling. We are therefore pleased that the process has resulted in a revised assessment which accurately reflects the evidence that was considered. Accurate interpretation of technical evidence is important for everyone — consumers making informed choices, policymakers developing future policy, and organisations such as ours that are committed to promoting best practice and continual improvement across the sector.”
Andy Hill, Chair of the SIA added: “Independent review is an important part of good regulation. We welcome the fact that the process has worked as intended and we remain committed to supporting clear advertising standards and accurate interpretation of technical evidence.”
The SIA remains committed to working constructively with government, regulators, industry partners and environmental stakeholders to improve air quality through evidence-based policy, consumer education and the continued development and adoption of modern stove technology.