Greening our lifestyle and activities can be a daunting enterprise, especially when we start with a strong will to go green, little time and a vague idea about what is the problem, what’s causing it and how to fix it. So the idea of providing consumers and businesses some indicators in the form of third-party ratings, labels and certifications about one product and/or organization environmental performance seemed at first a good one. That was until the stakes became to high.

Joshua Saunders from Underwriters Laboratories Environment in an article titled rightly “The War Over Eco-Labels” tells us “the value of the label itself is in the eye of the beholder, or end-user.” Well, that is precisely the problem. According to EcoLabelling.org, there are over 300 eco-labels in the market, and unless you use help or spend days sorting out which one fits your values or objectives best, there is a good chance the one that did the best marketing job will win your dollars. Let’s be honest: there is so much money to be made out of a stamp, and the certification process, and being eco-certified (vs. not being) that the number of labels have outgrown our ability to compare their standards and assess their benefits.

Even the useful and respected ones can be misleading to the neophyte: take energy star, a label that promotes energy efficient products from electronics to building materials. When you purchase a set of PVC (vinyl) window frames displaying the energy star logo, you might not realize you are acquiring a product that has a negative impact on the environment and human health. And then there are the ineffective labels – which can be found across all industries – that tell you not even half of what you need to know to make a conscious purchase.

On June 19, 2009 the American National Standards Institute led a workshop on “Toward Product Standards for Sustainability” which gathered some 350 participants. What came out is worse reprinting in its entirety:

“ANSI president and CEO S. Joe Bhatia summarized the Workshop discussions as follows:

•            First: there is no “one-size-fits-all approach” to standard-setting and conformity assessment in this complex area of sustainability. We need to consider various viable options.

•            There is no one organization working to develop standards for product sustainability, there are many: standards developing organizations (SDOs), government programs, buyer specifications, and so on.

•            There is no “private-sector-only” or “public-sector-only” solution . . . more likely we need to rely upon a public-private partnership.

•            There is no one-word answer to whether a product is environmentally preferable, green, or not . . . more likely we will find shades of green.

•            Another theme we heard repeatedly is that we need to keep in mind the economic viability of possible solutions while seeking social benefits.

•            Lastly, it seems obvious that we need to focus on collaborating across industry sectors. That is how we will begin to tackle some of the issues that we identified together over the course of this workshop.”

If the participants are serious about their intent, then we should see in the next few years the development and implementation of a framework aimed at establishing a common language and comparable standards.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS