Eco-labels can save lives

Our carbon footprint is far too high, and this does not only damage the environment, but also harms our health and even causes human death. Especially children, who are still very vulnerable, are hit by the climate change and it isn’t exceptional for children in poor countries to die as a result of global warming. In developing countries, malnutrition and malaria are the most common causes of death. And as flooding and drought, both a consequence of the effect of climate change, destroy food crops, malnutrition will occur even more often if we don’t reduce our carbon footprint. The number of people with malaria is also increasing, because mosquitoes now can survive in countries which were too cold before the climate changed.

The fact that people can actually die from pollution, highlight the need for a drastic change in as well production methods as costumer’s behaviour. Maybe eco-labels could help us realise this change by showing the ecological impact of every product.

(source)

Famke De Ro

Decoding Ecolabels

Because there are so many ecolabels it's really difficult to know what every ecolabel stands for. Basically there are 3 types of ecolabels.

Type 1: This is a label which is awarded by a third party who checks your product on multiple criteria.

Type 2: This label is self-awarded, and is often just a lie, as we have discussed in previous posts.

Type 3: This label is awarded by a qualified third party based on life cycle assessments, wich is also verified by another qualified third party.

Its easy to see that Type 3 labels are the most trustworthy because the product is checked by an independent third party and is later double checked by another third party.

For example: FSC is a type 3 label who sets standards for wood and timber products, it only recognizes sustainable and well managed forestry products.

http://www.justmeans.com/Decoding-ecolabels/37220.html

Bert De Rycke

Environmentally friendly Hotels

Sustainability and green labels are mainstream with business and consumers involved. However, their incentives are quite different. While people purchase eco-friendly stuff in order to save the environment, the world's businesses attach the green label because it promotes their sales. As a matter of fact, the lodging industry doesn't meet both incentives. Which makes the ecolabels program a tricky business.

Big resorts in the middle of a very vulnerable nowhere, swimming pools, wine and dine, Spa & Casino … the hotel industry is a major polluter. People don't realize the negative impact of tourism. Or better: they don't care. Tourists prefer luxury before eco-awareness. They simply do what they are told to: "Relax because you are on holiday".

Therefore, the greater part of hotels participating a green label program, ironically don't advertise their green actions. And even when they do, it doesn't match reality. There are "green hotels" promoting reuse programs, ignoring the guests request not to change their towels and sheets. Other hotels are Green Seal certified using the Styrofoam anyway.

source

Julie Demasure

The Global Ecolabel Monitor tackles greenwash

Green is the new black, which explains the increasing supply of ecolabeled products. But the eco-communication gets corrupted by lies and misunderstanding which causes a perfect Babel of tongues. One needs to develop a sound framework in order to assess the products eco-quality. As I mentioned before a categorization of the ecolabels based on their ecological effect is one way to deal with the problem. The Global Ecolabel Monitor offers another way.  

Trevor Bowden is an authority in eco-labeling. An enhancement of the transpiration and accountability of ecolabels is the target he fights for. He claims the local criteria differ too much from each other. Only one global set of standardized criteria makes the ecolabels comparable all over the world. The World Resources Institute (WRI) and Big Room Inc. released the 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor, a searchable online database helping you to explore the real meaning of an ecolabel.

In my opnion, by using the site 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor, customers will be able to discover the meaning of ecolabels. Because of this, they will be able to select the sustainable products.

Julie Demasure

source

Greenwashing in commercials

During the discussion about eco-labels, the term ‘greenwashing’ appeared time and time again. This is also the case in commercials. An increasingly widespread phenomenon is that more and more companies want to demonstrate clearly that they are concerned about the environment. And how better to show this than by spreading it through the use of commercials?

In this video, Kermit the frog sings that being green is difficult. Then he discovers the New Ford Escape Hybrid and all of a sudden it seems very easy to be green. This shows that Ford is trying to reflect their image of having an outstanding economic, environmental and social performance. But apparently none of that is true. According to some statistics the car they are advertising gets 31 miles per gallon on the highway and 36 mpg in the city. Compared to other cars on the market of hybrid automobiles, Ford does not even belong to the better category. According to some analysts, this is a desperate attempt to try and keep up with the more efficient cars created by other brands.

This greenwashing method, which was applied by Ford, makes customers believe that they operate environmentally friendly. In my opinion this is a big risk for their credibility. Considering the irrefutable data about the different hybrid cars, everyone can conclude that Ford’s cars are not green at all. So Ford is obviously trying to mislead their customers and that won’t be appreciated by everyone.
We can conclude that greenwashing can build or break your image.

Source 1 , Source 2

Ellen De Medts

Eco-Labels are often just lies

Like we’ve said before in other posts we must be very critical and careful when dealing with ecolabels. According to this article most labels have huge loopholes, for example, when tuna is ‘Dolphin safe’, it might be caught with bait mad of sea turtles or other endangered species. When chickens are the label ‘Free range’ it only means they had 'access' to the outdoors most of their lives, not that it really was outdoors most of their lives. It's clear that some standards of ecolabels are weak and easy adept for your own benefits. Another famous example is of course the practices of carbon offsets, where companies with a lot of greenhouse gas emissions pay to others to take over some of their not used emission rights. They buy “fresh air”. This doesn’t leads to a reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions. But companies can claim they make ‘cabonfree’ products.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028706_eco_products_marketing_fraud.html

Bert De Rycke

The Sumatran rainforest victim of labeling system

In previous blogs it is obviously clear that a lot of products acquired an ecolabel, even though when they do not satisfy the conditions. But how was it possible that these products obtained an ecolabel?

I found an example of two famous brands of copying paper, Lucky Boss and Golden Plus that are labeled with the eco-flower even though their paper is made out of timber obtained from one of the largest but fastest disappearing tropical rainforests on the Indonesian Island of Sumatra.
Because of the destruction of the Sumatran rainforest, tigers, elephants and even the tribe called Orang Rimba lost their residence.

How was it possible that these brands acquired an ecolabel?

European laws allow national governments to institute authorities to award the eco-label. The EU defends their authorities by announcing that only the most environmentally friendly products are permitted to carry the EU Ecolabel. They also declare that choosing eco-labeled paper stands for paper coming from recycled fibers or sustainably managed forests. This statement is misleading though. According to the law only 10% of the fibers used for producing paper has to come from forests that are certified with ‘a sustainable forest management’, which means that 90% does not meet such criteria.

The EU has to admit that there is a problem with its labeling system. (The Guardian)

Ellen De Medts

 

Increasing distrust in eco-labels

A recent study by TerraChoice revealed that 98 percent of products with an eco-label are not as green as their manufacturers claim. The researchers first drew up seven different sins of greenwashing, and tested whether the products were guilty to one of these sins or not. Apparently, only a disappointing 2 percent passed the test successfully and are therefore not misleading consumers. Kids toys, baby products, cosmetics and cleaning products proved to be the most deceptive categories of products.

This result is not as surprising as it looks: as more than 85 % of consumers consider the health and environmental impact of products when shopping, it is rational for companies to jump on the green bandwagon in order to increase sales. Furthermore, the results of the study should be relativized because the criterions used by TerraChoice were so severe that even well-intentioned companies failed.

This study shows that –as already mentioned in previous blogs- customers have to be really careful when purchasing products with a green label and also need to inform themselves before buying an ecological product.

(source 1, source 2)

Famke De Ro

Lower Prices For Ecolabel Wines

Wines, costing $25 of more, with an ecolabel are on average 7% cheaper, then before they had an ecolabel. Cheaper wines don’t have an impact from ecolabels. Wines made from organic grown grapes, who don't have an ecolabel are 13% more expensive then similar wines who aren’t made from organic grown grapes. But only a third of the vintners advertise their organically grown grapes, because for some reason costumers don’t like wines with organically grown grapes. However this hasn’t stopped wine grape growers from using sustainable agricultural methods.

I think it's a strange thing, because you would expect that prices go up if they had an ecolabel, because of the extra efforts the producers did in the production process. That this is just the case with the high class wines is also strange, apparently rich people really want wines treated the old fashion way, even if it's no good for the environment.

Bert De Rycke

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/11/retail-ring-lower-for-eco-labelled-wines/

A new eco-labeling strategy

 

Although the current eco-labeling system is already achieving  positive environmental effects, a new study showed that a basic change in the system could make it even more efficient. So far, eco-labels have always been expressed in a positive way: they emphasize that marketed products are better than other similar products with regard to environmental impact. Since this method of labeling only convinces individuals who already had a strong interest in ecological issues to buy eco-labeled alternatives, it might be a good idea to introduce a labeling system containing also neutral or negative labels. Products with a negative label would indicate negative environmental outcomes and would –contrary to the positive labeling strategy- be able to persuade both people who feel  a strong commitment towards the environment and people with only an intermediate interest  in environmental issues. But because eco-labeling implies an extra cost for the producers, and no producer would voluntarily pay for their products to be negatively labeled, a regulation that requires a label for every single product should be established.

(source)

Famke De Ro

The little green lies

Green certifications, also known as eco-labels, control if a product meets specific standards concerning the environment. Each green certification has its own criteria, therefore it is very difficult for customers to know exactly what the trademark and symbols stand for. Another stumbling block is that a green certification does not provide any information about a product’s sustainability or quality. It is advisable to look beyond those certifications when evaluating the environmental impact of a product.

Nowadays manufacturers often use green certifications because they understand that green is the new gold and therefore they put the emphasis on the greenness of their product, which causes us to question whether environmental claims are actually true. This phenomenon is called ‘greenwashing’.  Customers have to watch out for the ‘little green lies’, like the phrase “environmentally friendly”.

Some specifications
There are three different types of certifications. The first one is ‘single-attribute certification’ and it has only one criterion: emissions or energy consumption. The second is ‘multiple-attribute certification’. Those products have several characteristics. The last type of certification is the ‘life cycle-based certification’.

There are three norms which every standard must meet. The standard should be open and transparent so purchasers know what the specific criteria stand for. It should also be objective and should have a strong foundation of environmental science. The standard should be stringent enough so that only the best products can acquire the certification.   (Source)

Ellen De Medts

Categorization of ecolabels

By using wildlife friendly ecolabels, manufacturers claim their products to be beneficial for the environment. Researchers develop some tools in order to obtain a clear view and a sound judgment into ecolabels. Their framework distinguishes three categories based on their ecological effect. The supportive category only mentions the revenue percentage the company donates to the environmental protection associations. In fact these labels don't tell anything about the ecological impact of the commodity itself. The persuasive ecolabel requires production methods limiting the damage to fauna and flora. Of course, this commitment has more effect on the environment's protection than the first one. Researchers still stress that the latter category doesn't assess anything about the wildlife conservation. The protective ecolabels are doing better. They verify whether their measures enhance the wildlife population growth and the coexistence between mankind and its nature.
This classification clarifies the meaning and the ecological impact of ecolabels. By using this categorization people will be able to select products that contribute to the conservation of wildlife.

source

Julie Demasure

The Ecolabel exaggerated

The European Ecolabel stems from the idea of encouraging businesses to launch products and services that are less harmful to the environment. Those products and services are mostly very expensive  and are often bought by people who want to clear their conscience.

Which?, a product-testing non-profit organization, composed a panel of experts who have tested those products that may exaggerate their claims of being ‘ecological’.

This panel found no convincing evidence to show that products of the Belgian Ecover, the Green Force, Tesco, etc. are ‘greener’ (read: ‘cleaner’) than products of other market leaders. Therefore Which? questioned the "greenness" of several products.

Ecolabels protested the findings of the survey.  (The Independent)

Ellen De Medts

Eco-Labels: Do They Really Matter

Today you'll find a wide variety of labels on almost every product. But it does seem to persuade customers to buy the product instead of a more cheaper one. There is often a great difference between the standards used by the different labels, every product can obtain a label even with the weakest environmental efforts. The vast variety of labels is confusing the consumer because they don't know what every label stands for. That confusion is a threat to all labels, it's possible that the consumer will forget about the labels and go for the cheapest product.

They have a point here I think, there are way to much labels, it's really confusing. for example, on the picture you have 7 different logo's, I’ve already met label 1,2 and 7. But I only know the meaning of label 1.
I also agree with the article about the responsibility labels have to the consumers. We trust that they are put on the right products for the right reasons. If that's not the case and some labels don't represent any form of effort for the environment, we might as well go for the cheaper products, because we don't know who's fooling us en who isn't.


http://www.fastcompany.com/article/eco-labels-do-they-really-matter

Bert De Rycke

Ecolabels and what they (don't) mean

source

Consumers often search for the most environmentally friendly products, concerned as they are with ecological problems. Ecolabels allow all purchasers to identify them at a glance. But do people really know what all these pictograms refer to? Researchers claim that consumers often interpret labels the wrong way. Even the most common ones. Purchasers think that products covered by a recycle sign are recyclable, which of course is not always the case. It sometimes just means that commodity is manufactured of recycled material. As a result, researchers want to discourage the use of new ecolabels. They claim that the introduction of innovating pictograms such as the carbon footprint will cause confusion when it comes to stress the products' sustainability. I agree with this point of view. The fair-trade products giving the emerging markets the chance to get a fair price, nevertheless will get the big carbon footprint's stigma due to its heavily-polluting air transport. Selecting green products is not always the most sustainable option.

Julie Demasure

Should the number of eco-labels be limited?

Nowadays, entering a shop, we are not only overwhelmed by the large variety of products but also by the increased amount of different eco-labels and green ratings. This diversity does not make it any easier for us: as a consumer, we are obliged to make hundreds of decisions every day. Although this complex decision making may cause stress, anxiety and self-doubt, the elimination of all eco-labels is not supported by experts. They emphasize  that every market needs competition to keep raising the bar, and so the market of eco-labels does. They strive for an oligopoly with some good, credible labels in order to reduce consumer confusion while attempting to buy sustainable products. But isn’t this the situation created over the last years? Even though new eco-certifications are added every year, both separation of labels into categories and consolidation allows customers to choose among a smaller class of sustainability labels.

(Source)

Famke De Ro