An excerpt from our December 2009 mailing:
(to join our contact list and receive our mailings - usually every 6-8 weeks - send an email to contact@carbonostics.com)
Guideline: PAS2050
Published by/date: BSI, DEFRA & Carbon Trust, Oct 2008
Industry recognition: UK, Europe. The only completed PCF standard. Considered in the UK and Europe to be the starting point for the international debate. Expected to publish an update aligned with GHG and ISO in 2010/11.
Scope: Product-level
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Guideline: GHG Protocol
Published by/date: World Resources Insititue & World Business Council for Sustainable Development, draft Sep 2009, final end 2010
Industry recognition: International. Provides an international business perspective. Used PAS2050 as a guide, although re-examining areas for wider stakeholder input. Expected to be aligned with PAS2050 and ISO when final version published in 2010.
Scope: Corporate, Scope 1/2/3, product-level
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Guideline: ISO
Published by/date: International Organization for Standardization (NGO comprising 162 countries), ISO14067 expected in 2012
Industry recognition: Globally recognized industry standards. international. Expected to be the future certification standard for PCF, ecolabeling and LCA.
Scope: PCF = ISO14060 - 14069 LCA= ISO14040 - 14049 Ecolabels = ISO14020-14025
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Carbonostics delivers initial life-cycle screening for the food industry consistent with these global standards. www.carbonostics.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Ecolabeling Revisited
I was recently at a conference in London where many consumer businesses were represented and were bemoaning the fact that there is a distinct possibility that they will be soon required to post ecolabels on their products. And while even the term "ecolabel" is contraversial, there is a common belief among these businesses that consumers don't want any more labeling.
As an early-adopter consumer of most eco-friendly products and a participant in this debate, this argument rings rather hollow to me. While it's true that many products have many different kinds of labels, as far as I'm concerned it's all good information. And I'm quite skeptical that businesses who resist legislation to force them to measure and publish their environmental footprint are doing it out of a concern for the poor confused consumer.
The three major arguments against consumer ecolabeling are:
(1) measurements are unreliable and standards are not yet in place
(2) consumers are already confused by conflicting labels
(3) there are too many labels and they are hard to read and understand
It's definately true that today - the 7th of December 2009 - defining the "measurement and publishing" of an environmental label is still up for debate. Should the ecolabel be just a carbon footprint, GHG + water, what about toxicity, biodiversity, and nitrogen? There are many options still open and many decisions to be made, but the ultimate goal of providing a consumer with information to help them make a purchasing decision should be pursued. Measurement standards are coming and I'd estimate that by the end of 2010, most of these questions will be answered and consensus will have been reached.
The argument that uses consumer confusion as a basis for opposing labels is, I think, a very weak one, and getting weaker all the time. Consider thirty years ago - can you remember any nutritional labels on any of the products at your family's breakfast table? Today, it's unlikely you'll find many boxes of cereal without full nutritional disclosure. Nutritional information is required, often contradictory, and only a portion of consumers even bother to read it. But, it lifts the veil of the unknown and empowers the consumer to make their buying decisions based on this information - if they want to.
The same goes for environmental labeling. It's quite likely, even probable, that many consumers will ignore the information. But, it levels the playing field and gives those consumer who want, the option to influence their buying decisions.
Consider this - a woman buying breakfast cereal for her family might examine the fat and salt content of the major brand cereals to help make her buying decision. She might choose the cereal with a slightly higher fat content than the lowest option because that particular brand has a high fiber content. If the environmental information was also listed on the box, she might completely ignore it, or consider the carbon footprint of the cereal in her decision and choose a brand with a lower environmental footprint but with a slightly lower fiber content. The point is, that the information will be available and she will use all of it (even perhaps the cute cartoon character on the box and the free gift inside the box) to make her final buying decision.
Lastly, the argument that by adding an environmental label on top of what's already there and at the same time make smaller and smaller packages with less and less packaging material is just too hard...is a little hard to swallow. With today's technological resources it's rather beyond the realm of credibility to think that some creative designer couldn't come up with a palatable, sexy, and informative way to display the relevant information. (I can personally recommend Edward Tufte's books on the graphical display of statistical information to any skeptics).
The French debate on what the ecolabel for January 2011 will include and will look like rages on. I personally hope that the definition of "ecolabel" that they end up with is one that empowers the consumer, even if a little bit of creative design and education is called for at the same time. And companies that embrace, even participate in experimenting with different measurement trials, design options, and consumer research, will come out ahead when the legislation is enacted and enforced.
As an early-adopter consumer of most eco-friendly products and a participant in this debate, this argument rings rather hollow to me. While it's true that many products have many different kinds of labels, as far as I'm concerned it's all good information. And I'm quite skeptical that businesses who resist legislation to force them to measure and publish their environmental footprint are doing it out of a concern for the poor confused consumer.
The three major arguments against consumer ecolabeling are:
(1) measurements are unreliable and standards are not yet in place
(2) consumers are already confused by conflicting labels
(3) there are too many labels and they are hard to read and understand
It's definately true that today - the 7th of December 2009 - defining the "measurement and publishing" of an environmental label is still up for debate. Should the ecolabel be just a carbon footprint, GHG + water, what about toxicity, biodiversity, and nitrogen? There are many options still open and many decisions to be made, but the ultimate goal of providing a consumer with information to help them make a purchasing decision should be pursued. Measurement standards are coming and I'd estimate that by the end of 2010, most of these questions will be answered and consensus will have been reached.
The argument that uses consumer confusion as a basis for opposing labels is, I think, a very weak one, and getting weaker all the time. Consider thirty years ago - can you remember any nutritional labels on any of the products at your family's breakfast table? Today, it's unlikely you'll find many boxes of cereal without full nutritional disclosure. Nutritional information is required, often contradictory, and only a portion of consumers even bother to read it. But, it lifts the veil of the unknown and empowers the consumer to make their buying decisions based on this information - if they want to.
The same goes for environmental labeling. It's quite likely, even probable, that many consumers will ignore the information. But, it levels the playing field and gives those consumer who want, the option to influence their buying decisions.
Consider this - a woman buying breakfast cereal for her family might examine the fat and salt content of the major brand cereals to help make her buying decision. She might choose the cereal with a slightly higher fat content than the lowest option because that particular brand has a high fiber content. If the environmental information was also listed on the box, she might completely ignore it, or consider the carbon footprint of the cereal in her decision and choose a brand with a lower environmental footprint but with a slightly lower fiber content. The point is, that the information will be available and she will use all of it (even perhaps the cute cartoon character on the box and the free gift inside the box) to make her final buying decision.
Lastly, the argument that by adding an environmental label on top of what's already there and at the same time make smaller and smaller packages with less and less packaging material is just too hard...is a little hard to swallow. With today's technological resources it's rather beyond the realm of credibility to think that some creative designer couldn't come up with a palatable, sexy, and informative way to display the relevant information. (I can personally recommend Edward Tufte's books on the graphical display of statistical information to any skeptics).
The French debate on what the ecolabel for January 2011 will include and will look like rages on. I personally hope that the definition of "ecolabel" that they end up with is one that empowers the consumer, even if a little bit of creative design and education is called for at the same time. And companies that embrace, even participate in experimenting with different measurement trials, design options, and consumer research, will come out ahead when the legislation is enacted and enforced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
