Holding the Market Accountable

VLS was established to protect consumers, Pesch said, and he believes it has already accomplished that in some instances. A cornerstone of its mission statement, he said, is to bring transparency to the U.K. lubricants market and to educate its end users.

A typical case starts with a plaintiff raising concerns over a particular product or group of products having incompatible performance claims, troubling low-temperature viscosities or probable use of poor-quality, reclaimed base stocks or inadequate additives. The VLS secretariat maintains anonymity of the case before passing it along to a technical review board that independently tests the product at least twice during the process and assesses the results.

Anonymity is an essential part of the process to ensure there are no biases or grudges, Pesch said, noting that the process eliminates any vindictive or systematic vilification of one company by another. Its designed to ensure unbiased, independent review. By the time it gets to them in the process, [members of] the supervisory board could actually be commenting on their own products without knowing it.

Already, VLS has uncovered several patterns. The majority of issues are related to low-temperature viscosity, Pesch noted. Another troubling and common occurrence is oil that makes mutually exclusive specification claims. For example, an oil might be advertised as having a certain level of SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorus and sulfur) and claim it meets ACEA A3 or B4 specs, while also claiming ACEA C1 standards. This would mean that it met the lowest SAPS limits and would be unsuitable for use in some engines.

Claims such as fit for purpose or suitable for all modern cars also raise eyebrows. Pesch said any oil with such a claim is automatically scrutinized. There is no one oil that can satisfy the requirements of all modern cars.

If a product is found to be noncompliant with established standards, such as those of ACEA (the European Automobile Manufacturers Association), VLS establishes dialogue with the party, then names the party under review and lists the products issues on its website. Some current case listings include Carlube, Granville, Syngear and Technolube branded-products.

Education is Key

VLS doesnt just point fingers. Pesch adamantly noted that not all misrepresentation is intentional. Theres a genuine lack of understanding of the complexity and technology related to lubricant standards, and in many cases, education is proving to be required.

Director General David Wright, who took over Peschs role as director general in January, told LubesnGreases that challenges in the process can be attributed to quite technical nuances within the various tests it conducts. For example, he said, a formulation may pass Brookfield and NOACK Volatility tests, but fail cold-crank tests by a marginal value. Retests have proven to be crucial, he added.

VLS conducts a follow-up six months after initial contact with the party responsible for a noncompliant product. Of named parties, he said, We are not here to rewrite their specifications and to police their blending and quality processes. In this role, we provide them a clear understanding of where we believe the problems lie, and we work with them to take remedial action.

Whos to Blame for Noncompliance?

UKLA is still fine-tuning some aspects of the process, such as where to direct blame in some cases. Some parties are purely marketers, and in that case, we have to ask, how much due diligence can you do? But at the end of the day, the responsibility ends with the marketer, Pesch continued. All players should perform due diligence on the products and technology they purchase.

There are also cases where the fault lies with toll blenders or manufacturers. We see cases in which [blenders] are not following additive vendor blending recommendations with regard to correct base oils and correct percentages.

VLS has heard blenders make statements such as, well, obviously, the additive companies are over-specifying the amount of additive to be used, so we always cut it by 10 percent. They couldnt be further from the truth, Pesch said, noting that blenders not following suppliers recommendations usually bear the blame if a product is noncompliant.

Another problem, which has cropped up in a few cases, is a responsible party attempting to filibuster the process. [The named parties] first reaction is always surprise. Some want to perform their own tests or consult their technology provider if they are a blender (or their toll blender if they are not). Or they claim its not their fault since they are just a marketer. But dialogue with other associated parties should not delay the process, Pesch said. We provide clear direction on the issue, and after a certain point, weve got to move on.

One VLS case so far has resulted in the suspension of one of its members. VLS upheld a complaint against Scottish blender Ferguson & Menzies Opus-branded Synopus Nova Ultra 5W-30 motor oil, finding that it had mutually exclusive claims of meeting ACEA engine oil standards. VLS also tested a sample of the Synopus oil and found its sulfated ash content was higher than allowed by the specifications listed on the oils label.

The association looked for additive companies offering formulations that could have met the Opus product claims and considered the possibility that Ferguson & Menzies may have used a custom formula. But for several more weeks, VLS said, the lubricant company failed to provide written verification of product performance from a technology partner.

Consequently, VLS revoked Ferguson & Menzies membership on December 23 and alerted the public in January. Its next step is to report the case to the U.K.s Trading Standards Institute.

VLS Logo: A Badge of Honor

Naming guilty parties is a must, Pesch said. But identifying every party for which a claim has been filed was a subject of early debate for VLS. UKLA consulted legal counsel to ask whether it should name all parties, as one way to show that it has no biases, Pesch said, or only list parties with noncompliant products.

The association found that some members believed their name might be damaged even if they were found to be compliant. So for now, only noncompliant products will be identified to the public, unless a cleared party would like to be named, which is sometimes the case. Were finding that a lot of member companies are using the VLS logo as a badge of honor, he said.

Wright noted that anecdotal evidence shows that since VLS started handling cases, blenders in the U.K. are slowly changing their behavior, and that overall compliance is pretty sweeping. Currently, VLS is comprised of only British companies, but is open to the possibility of expanding and representing more countries throughout Europe in the future.