Hubbry Logo
EcolabelEcolabelMain
Open search
Ecolabel
Community hub
Ecolabel
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ecolabel
Ecolabel
Ecolabel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Classification of eco-labels

Ecolabels (also "eco-Labels") and Green Stickers are labeling systems for food and consumer products. The use of ecolabels is voluntary, whereas green stickers are mandated by law; for example, in North America major appliances and automobiles use Energy Star. There are currently 456 eco-labels in 199 countries, across 25 industry sectors according Ecolabel Index, the largest global directory of eco-labels. They are a form of sustainability measurement directed at consumers, intended to make it easy to take environmental concerns into account when shopping. Some labels quantify pollution or energy consumption by way of index scores or units of measurement, while others assert compliance with a set of practices or minimum requirements for sustainability or reduction of harm to the environment. Many ecolabels are focused on minimising the negative ecological impacts of primary production or resource extraction in a given sector or commodity through a set of good practices that are captured in a sustainability standard. Through a verification process, usually referred to as "certification", a farm, forest, fishery, or mine can show that it complies with a standard and earn the right to sell its products as certified through the supply chain, often resulting in a consumer-facing ecolabel.

The last few years[when?] have seen two key trends in the ecolabels space. There is an explosion in the numbers of different ecolabelling programs across the world and across business sectors and secondly the proliferation of umbrella labeling programs. Currently, there are around 264 active sustainability standards (according to ITC Standards Map) in 194 countries and 15 sectors,[1] and about 457 ecolabels (according to Ecolabel Index) in 199 countries, and 25 industry sectors.[2] Within the standard profile, ITC provide the typology which explains if it is an international standard or a private standard e.g. the entity in charge is a private association or company.

Ecolabelling systems exist for both food and consumer products. Both systems were started by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Since then the European Union has developed legislation for conduct of ecolabelling and also have created their own ecolabels, one for food and one for consumer products. At least for food, the ecolabel is nearly identical with the common NGO definition of the rules for ecolabelling. Label trust is an issue for consumers because some manufacturers and manufacturing associations have set up "rubber stamp" labels to greenwash their products with fake ecolabels. High trust levels can be created when ecolabels apply for governmental recognition as formal Certification Marks (recognized by logos or names with 'CTM', CM or 'CertTM'). Typically this means schemes approved as a Certification Mark have had the government department responsible declare that the scheme has a standard and certifies that they are 'Competent to Certify'. The highest trust levels would be a government recognized certification mark that was also compliant with key ISO standards, especially ISO 14024- Type I Ecolabels that undertake ISO 14040 compliant life cycle analysis as part of their assessment. Type I ecolabels are voluntary labels that signify overall environmental preference of a product or services based on life-cycle considerations that address multiple environmental criteria, which are based on transparent standards for environmental preferability, verified by a qualified organization.

ISO participation

[edit]

Recent years have seen two key trends with ecolabels. There is an explosion in the number of different ecolabelling programs across the world and across business sectors and secondly a proliferation of umbrella labeling programs. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has created standards for labeling practices within the ISO 14000 schema. ISO 14020 to 14025 series deals with environmental labels and declarations. ISO proposed three categories of environmental labels according to the aspects covered and the rigor required to award the seal: type I in ISO 14024; type II in ISO 14021; and type III in ISO 14025.

Type I (ISO 14024) is a voluntary multi-criteria ecolabel program assessed by an independent third party who considers the life cycle impacts of a product. Awarded certification authorizes the use of environmental labels on products and indicates overall environmental preferability of a product within a product category. The awarding body may be either a governmental organization or a private non-commercial entity. (e.g. EU Ecolabel, Nordic swan and German Blue Angel)

Type II (ISO 14021) is a self-declared claim made by manufacturers or retailers without third-party auditing. Developed internally by companies claims can take the form of a declaration, a logo, or a commercial.

Type III (ISO/TR 14025) an environmental product declaration consisting of quantified product information on the life cycle impacts. Instead of assessing or weighting the environmental performance of a product this type of label only shows the objective data, facilitating product comparison among buyers.[3][4]

Additionally, "Type I-like" environmental labels focus on just one environmental or social aspect; these labels have been launched by independent organizations.[5] Type I-like or single issue labels can be based on a pass/fail criterion, for example setting a maximum level of energy consumption for electric appliances (like the Energy Star label) or guaranteeing responsible management of the world forests: the Forest Stewardship Council refers to its label as "type I-like".[6] Other single issue labels assess the performance of the product over a range, for example water efficiency.[citation needed]

Ecolabeling innovation cycle

[edit]

There is a close relationship between the ecolabeling process and the eco-innovation because it promotes the emergence of new green products and it improves the organizations environmental management strategy. Moreover, ecolabeling process is a "cyclical eco-innovation process in which consumers, firms, governments and institutions interact. Its final purpose is to contribute to the development of sustainable and ecological ways of production and consumption. In this process, consumers' environmental expectations are met; firms increase their created and captured value and enhance their sustainability, and governments and institutions foster cleaner production and consumption. Finally, this process is tangible in the products through the awarding of ecolabels, which are visibly displayed on goods and services".[7]

Environmental governance

[edit]

Consumer desires for sustainable consumption is driving the global marketplace with desire to regulate product production. The globalization of economies is shifting control of sustainability away from traditional command and control measures imposed by governments towards market governance which is a self-regulatory new environmental policy instrument, ecolabelling.[8][9]

Eco-labeling standardization is a new form of regulation which is voluntary in nature but impose upon large companies market forces in order to harmonize production of goods and services with stronger ecological practices. Recently, it has turned into a new form of non-state authority at both national and international levels. This idea of entrepreneurial democracy[10] based on the success and adoption of international standards, this includes the ISO 14000 standards on the management of environmental quality and the ISO 9000 standards on quality production control. Once an industry sector decides to get this certification, it has to provide evidence of documented proof of compliance required. In terms of ISO 14042 standard, it is obligatorily for all applicants to respect environmental legislation and related legislation; breaching of any laws may result in licensing suspension.

International Trade

[edit]

The increasing use of ecolabels by governments, industry and non-governmental organizations has led to international trade issues over ecolabels acting as non-tariff trade barriers. In particular developed countries and industries have expressed concern regarding the variety of diverse national or regional labelling requirements. In order to qualify for an ecolabel exporters have to adjust to the production standards of different markets abroad which may entail significant cost, information and technical expertise. Labelling programs also tend to be based on domestic environmental priorities and technologies of the importing country, often lacking relevance in regard to the exporting country's environment and local conditions.[11]

In 1995, after the introduction of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the possible impacts of voluntary product standards and labelling schemes were covered in the WTO Agreements. Several of the WTO Agreements contain rules applicable to eco-labels, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade1994 (GATT 1994 or GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).

Sustainable initiatives

[edit]

During the UN Earth Summit[12] Conference in 1992, an international consensus was generated to integrate environmental issues into manufacturing procedures. The idea was to manipulate consumption patterns in order to achieve sustainable development. The result of this is as follows.

  • developed world: Eco-labels and green stickers have evolved to play a vital role. They provide a verifiable link between products and informed consumer wishes. This approach applies market pressure on industries to minimize their environmental impact; this is evidenced by the growth in the population of informed consumers. Marketing strategists are responding with Green Certifications and its abuse, greenwashing.
  • developing world: First consumers became concerned about the quality, safety and environmental sustainability of food and supported demand for green foods, then focused on the environmental effects of agriculture and globalization of food production, which led to the exposure of globally controlled food regimes. Consumer advocate groups responded with a call for [Alternative Food Networks].[13] This gives a new dimension to consumer demands and corporate competitiveness. Australian Consumer Association CHOICE[14] confronted corporate interests with their concerns about growing interests in green consumption, food production, use of pesticides, organic production, and genetic modification.

History

[edit]

Green Stickers on consumer goods have been evolving since the late 1970s, when the German Blue Angel (Der Blaue Engel) certification became the first ecolabel worldwide in 1978.[15] The main drivers have been energy and fuel consumption. These stickers first started appearing on major appliances after government agencies in the United States and Canada legislated their requirement. Manufacturers are also required to meet minimum standards of energy use. The automobile industry in North America is required to meet a minimum emissions standard. This led to fuel efficiency labels being placed on new automobiles sold. The major appliance manufacturers were required to use standard testing practices and place clear labels on products. The International Organization for Standardization has developed international standards for addressing environmental labelling with the ISO 14000 family which grew out of ISO's commitment to support the objective of sustainable development discussed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992.[16]

Green Labelling worldwide is moving beyond traditional country borders.[17] Most of these initiatives are voluntary eco-labels, however, there is an initiative underway in North America to broaden the scope of Green Stickers to include other consumer goods. Although consumers tend to prefer ecolabeled products, recent research show that consumers do not fully understand ecolabels and do not fully trust ecolabels, especially when learning negative environmental consequences of production.[18]

International networks

[edit]

Global Ecolabelling Network

[edit]

Based on a networking concept drawn up in 1994,[19] the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) is an international non-profit network of third party type I ecolabelling organizations focused on encouraging and promoting type I ecolabelling development worldwide. GEN has members representing more than 50 territories and countries, with a particular focus in Europe, Asia and the Americas.[20] GEN's mission is to educate and encourage government, industry, and consumers to recognize the unique and important value of Type I ecolabelling. More specifically, GEN functions to foster cooperation and information exchange across members and ecolabelling programs, facilities access to information on ecolabelling standards, engages with international organizations to promote ecolabelling, and encourages demand for ecolabelling products through the promotion of sustainable public procurement. GEN supports its members in developing environmental leadership standards and criteria.

International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance

[edit]

Created in 2002, the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) is a private organization harmonizing a body of sustainability standards setting organizations (SSOs), set up to advance and develop sustainability standards for products across the globe. Its membership is open to all multistakeholder sustainability standards and accreditation bodies that demonstrate their ability to meet the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice and accompanying requirements. Its members are primarily single attribute focused ecolabelling organizations and include the Forest Stewardship Alliance, the Marine Stewardship Council, Fair Trade International, the Rainforest Alliance, and the Alliance for Water Stewardship, among many others.

The goals of the ISEAL Alliance are to improve the impacts of private standards, define credibility for sustainability standards, increase the uptake of credible sustainability standards, and improve the effectiveness of private standards, including driving innovations in standards. ISEAL received criticism from Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity, with a conclusion that private sector Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) adopt weak or narrow standards that better serve corporate interests than rights holder interests.[21]

Programs by region

[edit]

Governments of many countries have environmental protection agencies. These agencies are mandated watchdogs of industry and regulate releasing chemical pollution into the environment. Some of them administer labelling standards; other set minimum requirements for manufacturers.

Canada

[edit]

Ecolabels specific to Canada include Canada Organic, the SeaChoice ecolabel (awarded by Sustainable Seafood Canada), and the British Columbia Certified Organic label.[22]

The Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) run by the Department of Natural Resources Canada regulates both the automobile and appliance manufacturers. The EnerGuide label for vehicles is found on all new passenger cars, light-duty vans, pickup trucks and special purpose vehicles not exceeding a gross vehicle weight of 3855 kg (8500 lb). The label shows the city and highway fuel consumption ratings and an estimated annual fuel cost for that particular vehicle.[23] Federal law in Canada, under Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations, requires that the EnerGuide label is placed on all new electrical appliances manufactured in or imported into Canada and that the label indicates the amount of electricity used by that appliance. This information is determined by standardized test procedures. A third-party agency verifies that an appliance meets Canada's minimum energy performance levels.[24]

United States

[edit]
The Energy Star service mark is placed on energy-efficient products.

All major home appliances must meet the Appliance Standards Program set by the US Department of Energy (DOE) on cooperation with the US Federal Trade Commission.[25] Manufacturers must use standard test procedures developed by DOE to prove the energy use and efficiency of their products. Test results are printed on yellow EnergyGuide label, which manufacturers are required to display on many appliances. This label estimates how much energy the appliance uses, compares the energy use of similar products, and lists approximate annual operating costs. Appliances that meet strict energy efficiency criteria set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are eligible for the blue Energy Star label. The Energy Star label is also available on energy-efficient televisions, computers, audio visual equipment and electronics, office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, and many more products. Energy Star is also available on energy efficient homes and buildings in the United States. American automobile manufacturers are required to use certified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy test results and cannot use any other fuel mileage results to advertise vehicle fuel efficiency. The state of California has green sticker license plates issued to OHVs is introducing green stickers[26] for all new automobiles in 2009.

European Union

[edit]

The EU Ecolabel was established in 1992 by the European Commission. It helps to identify products and services that have a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle. Recognized throughout Europe, it is a voluntary label promoting environmental excellence which can be trusted. It is the only pan-European Type I official ecolabel. The EU Ecolabel is awarded according to ecological criteria agreed on by experts, industry, consumer organizations and NGOs and verified by independent third parties. The implementation of the EU Ecolabel is set through the Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The European Commission published its proposal in March 2023 for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). This proposed Directive requires mandatory accreditation of verifiers.[27]

Northern Europe

[edit]

The Nordic swan is the official ecolabel in Nordic countries. It uses a system of standards, applications for licenses, and independent verification. In the Netherlands, the private label EKO is granted to products with at least 95% organic agricultural content.[28]

ASEAN

[edit]

In Asia, ASEAN is moving towards adopting the ISO's TC 207 environmental management system.[29] Anyone can contribute verifiable sources substantiating its adoption and implementation by member countries as this information is not easily accessible.

Seafood

[edit]

There are a plethora of sustainable seafood ecolabels. Many conservationists feel that the increasing number of labels is further confusing consumers in regard to what seafood is sustainable. As of 2010, ecolabels that can be found on seafood include Marine Stewardship Council, Friend of the Sea, KRAV (Sweden), Naturland (Germany), Thai Quality Shrimp, Global Aquaculture Alliance's Best Aquaculture Practices standard, Label Rouge (France), and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is in development. Seafood is also labeled "organic", but USDA standards for organic seafood are still in development.

There are a variety of dolphin safe labels, asserting that tuna is caught in a manner that does not harm dolphins. In May 2019 consumers brought class-action lawsuits against Bumble Bee Foods, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist for falsely labeling their tuna cans as "dolphin-safe.”[30] The suit claimed that the companies were violating the 1990 Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act by marketing their fishing practices as “dolphin-safe,” even though they use drift nets or purse seine nets which are known to harm and kill dolphins and other marine life. The suit also argued that these companies did not adequately separate between tuna that was dolphin-safe and tuna that was not.

Further information: Sustainable seafood advisory lists and certification

Energy

[edit]
EKOenergy ecolabel for energy
Main article: Energy input labeling

Many consumer appliances have labels indicating whether or not they are energy efficient compared to similar products. Common labels include yellow EnergyGuide tags found in North America as part of the Energy Star program, European Union energy labels, and the Energy Saving Trust Recommended logo[31] administrated by the Energy Saving Trust in the United Kingdom. These labels document how much energy an appliance consumes while being used; energy input labeling documents how much energy was used to manufacture the product, an additional consideration in the full life cycle energy use of product.

Carbon emission labels are an alternative methodology for certification, examining impact on greenhouse gas emissions rather than direct energy use.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ecolabel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An ecolabel is a voluntary environmental label or declaration affixed to products or services to signify verified or claimed reduced environmental impacts relative to comparable alternatives, typically evaluated across life-cycle stages from extraction to disposal. These labels emerged in the late amid growing public concern over and , with Germany's Angel becoming the first national scheme in 1978 to certify products meeting predefined ecological criteria. The codified principles in its ISO 14020 series, distinguishing three types: Type I ecolabels, which rely on independent third-party assessment against comprehensive, multi-attribute standards to award a seal of environmental excellence; Type II, involving manufacturer self-declarations of specific attributes without external verification; and Type III, providing standardized quantitative data on environmental impacts for comparative analysis. While Type I labels like the EU Ecolabel and have driven measurable reductions in energy use and emissions for certified goods, empirical research reveals inconsistent consumer response and limited overall environmental gains, often due to low awareness, proliferation of weakly enforced schemes enabling greenwashing, and insufficient causal links between labeling and systemic sustainability improvements.

Definition and Core Concepts

Fundamental Principles

Ecolabels function as voluntary certifications that indicate a product or service meets predefined environmental criteria, aiming to guide consumer choices toward lower-impact options without regulatory mandates. The core principles, as outlined in ISO 14020:2000, require environmental labels and declarations to be accurate, verifiable, relevant, and non-misleading, ensuring claims reflect substantive evidence rather than promotional exaggeration. These standards emphasize transparency in methodology, prohibiting unsubstantiated assertions that could distort market signals on environmental performance. A life-cycle perspective underpins effective ecolabeling, evaluating impacts across extraction, production, use, and disposal phases to capture holistic effects rather than isolated attributes. Criteria must address multiple environmental aspects—such as , emissions, and —prioritizing those with significant influence, while excluding trivial ones to maintain focus and credibility. Verification processes demand independent third-party auditing for Type I labels, fostering trust through objective assessment, though self-declared Type II claims rely on internal substantiation subject to the same non-deceptive rules. Principles also mandate clarity and accessibility, with labels conveying specific, comprehensible to enable informed decisions without overwhelming users. Programs must periodically and update criteria based on evolving scientific , ensuring ongoing amid technological and environmental changes. This framework counters greenwashing by prioritizing empirical validation over anecdotal or biased self-reporting, though enforcement varies by program, highlighting the need for rigorous oversight to align labels with actual causal reductions in harm.

Distinctions from Other Environmental Claims

Ecolabels, particularly those classified as Type I under the ISO 14020 series standards, are distinguished by their reliance on independent third-party certification programs that assess products against comprehensive, multi-criteria environmental standards. These standards evaluate impacts across the , including use, emissions, and , to identify options with overall lower environmental harm compared to alternatives. In contrast, other environmental claims, such as self-declared assertions like "recyclable" or "low energy," lack this external verification and often pertain to isolated attributes without holistic assessment. Type II environmental declarations, governed by ISO 14021, represent self-declared claims where manufacturers provide their own environmental assertions, typically without mandatory third-party oversight, increasing vulnerability to inaccuracies or exaggeration. These differ from ecolabels by not requiring comparative benchmarking or multi-attribute evaluation, which can lead to consumer confusion as claims may appear credible without substantiation. For instance, a product might claim "biodegradable" based on internal testing that does not align with standardized conditions, whereas Type I ecolabels mandate rigorous, transparent criteria developed through stakeholder consensus. Furthermore, generic advertising claims unmoored from any labeling standard—such as vague terms like "eco-friendly" or "green"—frequently constitute greenwashing, where unsubstantiated marketing misleads consumers about environmental benefits. Ecolabels mitigate this through enforced auditing and public disclosure of methodologies, fostering trust via accountability mechanisms absent in unverified promotions. Type III declarations, while also third-party verified under ISO 14025, focus on quantitative life-cycle assessments for comparative data rather than pass/fail , setting them apart from the affirmative endorsement typical of ecolabels. This structured differentiation, as outlined in ISO frameworks, underscores ecolabels' role in enabling informed consumer choices over promotional rhetoric.

Historical Evolution

Origins in the Late 20th Century

The emergence of ecolabels in the late 20th century coincided with heightened global environmental consciousness following events such as the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in , which underscored the need for mechanisms to guide consumer choices toward lower-impact products. Prior to formal labeling schemes, voluntary environmental claims by manufacturers proliferated in the 1970s, but these often lacked verification, prompting governments to develop standardized systems to ensure credibility and comparability. The pioneering ecolabel was Germany's Blue Angel (Der Blaue Engel), launched on June 1, 1978, under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of the Interior and endorsed by the Conference of Environmental Ministers. Initiated to address pollution concerns like and noise, it initially certified products across six categories, including CFC-free sprays, low-emission heating systems, and quiet mowers, with criteria emphasizing lifecycle environmental performance over mere end-of-pipe compliance. Administered by an independent jury comprising environmental experts, industry representatives, and consumer advocates, the program awarded its label to approximately 5,400 products by the mid-1980s, demonstrating early adoption driven by regulatory incentives rather than market mandates. This third-party verification model distinguished Blue Angel from self-declared claims, establishing a causal link between certified attributes and measurable reductions in resource use and emissions, as evidenced by subsequent audits showing lower pollutant outputs in labeled goods. Throughout the 1980s, analogous programs proliferated in and , reflecting a causal response to transboundary like and highlighted in reports such as the 1987 Brundtland Commission's . Canada's Environmental Choice Program debuted in 1988, focusing on energy-efficient appliances and recycled-content paper, while the introduced the label in 1989 for household and office products meeting stringent criteria on chemical use and biodegradability. In the United States, nonprofit initiatives like Green Seal (founded 1989) emerged amid distrust of industry self-regulation post-Exxon Valdez spill, certifying items such as low-VOC paints with empirical thresholds for toxicity reduction. These early schemes collectively certified fewer than 10,000 products by 1990, prioritizing voluntary participation and government-backed rigor to foster market signals for sustainable production without imposing trade barriers.

Global Proliferation Post-1990s

The adoption of ecolabels accelerated globally following the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, which emphasized voluntary environmental labeling in to influence consumption patterns. The an Union's Ecolabel scheme, launched the same year as the "Flower" logo, served as a catalyst, prompting rapid emulation across and beyond, with at least 10 member states developing comparable national programs shortly thereafter. In the United States, the program, initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992, expanded to certify energy-efficient electronics and appliances, marking a key North American contribution to this trend. This proliferation was formalized through international collaboration, exemplified by the establishment of the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) in 1994, uniting Type I ecolabel organizations from countries including the , , , , , and to promote harmonization and best practices. By 2010, the number of ecolabel programs had grown to over 340 across 42 countries, reflecting a sixfold increase in environmental labeling schemes between 1990 and 2010. National initiatives emerged in diverse regions, such as New Zealand's Environmental Choice in 1990, China's Green Product Certification in 1993, and Croatia's "Environmentally Friendly" label in 1993, extending the model to both developed and emerging economies. Post-2000 expansion included programs influenced by regional implementations, with countries like and adopting schemes aligned with ISO 14024 standards for third-party verified labels. In and other developing regions, uptake lagged due to resource constraints, though isolated programs appeared, often facing challenges in and . By , global ecolabels numbered 463 across 199 countries and 25 industry sectors, driven by rising consumer demand for verifiable sustainability claims. Continued growth persisted into the , with the EU Ecolabel certifying nearly 100,000 products and services by October 2024, demonstrating sustained institutional commitment amid expanding product categories like textiles and services. This era's proliferation, while enhancing environmental signaling, also introduced complexities in consumer recognition and cross-border equivalence, as programs varied in stringency and scope.

Key Milestones to 2025

ecolabel was launched in in 1978 as the world's first government-backed certification for products with reduced environmental impact, initially covering categories like CFC-free aerosols and low-noise lawnmowers. In 1989, the nonprofit Green Seal program debuted in the United States to independently verify the of consumer products, marking the entry of third-party certification models in . The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency introduced the label in 1992, targeting energy-efficient electronics such as computers and monitors to reduce electricity consumption. That same year, the established its voluntary EU Ecolabel scheme through Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, enabling cross-border certification for goods meeting harmonized ecological criteria. The Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) was founded in 1994 to facilitate international collaboration among ecolabel operators, standardizing practices and sharing best methodologies across nearly 60 countries by the 2020s. The released ISO 14020 in 2000, establishing general principles for environmental labels and declarations, which influenced subsequent Type I, II, and III classifications under the ISO 14020-14025 series. From the 2000s onward, ecolabels expanded into sectors like textiles, fisheries (e.g., in 1997, though predating), and services, with global programs exceeding 400 by 2020 amid rising consumer demand for verifiable claims. In 2025, the Ecolabel reached record highs with over 6,700 additional certified products since March, driven by small and medium enterprises and expanded criteria for items like and apparel. The adopted a new Ecolabel work plan for 2025-2029, prioritizing innovation in criteria and digital product passports. Concurrently, updates like My Green Lab's ACT Ecolabel 2.0 emphasized science-based verification for laboratory supplies, reflecting sector-specific adaptations.

Standards and Certification Mechanisms

ISO Frameworks and Type Classifications

The ISO 14020 series, developed by the , provides international standards for environmental labels and declarations, aiming to promote consistent, credible, and comparable environmental claims. ISO 14020 specifically outlines general principles such as relevance, completeness, accuracy, and clarity, applicable across all types of labels to prevent misleading information and support informed decision-making. These principles require claims to be based on verifiable data and life-cycle considerations where appropriate, fostering transparency in environmental communication. The series classifies ecolabels into three distinct types based on methodology, verification, and scope, as defined in ISO 14024, ISO 14021, and ISO 14025. Type I labels, governed by ISO 14024:2018, are voluntary, multi-criteria third-party programs that identify products with reduced environmental impacts across their life cycle compared to alternatives. These programs establish product-specific criteria through life-cycle assessments, ensuring overall environmental preferability, and involve independent auditing to award a for use of the . Type II declarations, per ISO 14021:2016, consist of self-declared environmental claims made by manufacturers or suppliers regarding specific product attributes, such as recyclability or energy efficiency, without mandatory third-party verification. The standard specifies terms and evaluation methods to standardize claims like "recycled content" or "compostable," requiring substantiation through internal data but allowing flexibility in application, which can lead to varying credibility depending on adherence. Type III environmental declarations, outlined in ISO 14025:2006, provide quantified life-cycle environmental data for products using predefined parameters from life-cycle assessments, primarily for comparisons. These require third-party verification of the underlying data and follow product category rules (PCRs) to ensure comparability, presenting impacts in categories like without implying overall superiority.
TypeStandardKey CharacteristicsVerification
IISO 14024:2018Multi-criteria, life-cycle based, awards for preferable productsThird-party, independent
IIISO 14021:2016Self-declared specific claims (e.g., "ozone-friendly")Self-substantiated, no mandatory external
IIIISO 14025:2006Quantified LCA for impacts, PCR-basedThird-party verification of

Criteria Development and Cycles

The development of ecolabel criteria for Type I programs, as outlined in ISO 14024:2018, requires a consensus-based process involving multiple stakeholders, including industry representatives, environmental experts, government bodies, and consumer groups, to ensure criteria address significant life-cycle environmental impacts while remaining verifiable and beyond minimum legal requirements. This standard mandates that criteria selection prioritize product categories with high environmental relevance, using life-cycle assessments to identify key impact phases such as raw material extraction, , use, and disposal. Criteria formulation typically begins with preliminary studies to evaluate existing data on environmental burdens, followed by drafting proposals that incorporate scientific evidence and expert consultations to set performance thresholds. Public consultations and stakeholder reviews refine these drafts, ensuring transparency and feasibility, as seen in the Nordic Swan Ecolabel process where criteria must exceed regulatory baselines. For instance, the EU Ecolabel criteria development integrates input from scientists, non-governmental organizations, and member state representatives, focusing on multi-criteria assessments of the product's full life cycle. The German Blauer Engel ecolabel's DE-UZ 78 criteria for notebooks exemplify such product-specific requirements, emphasizing high energy efficiency and durability features like extended battery life and replaceable batteries, bans on harmful substances such as certain flame retardants, recyclable design with repairability and upgradability, low emissions, and social standards in the supply chain. Innovation cycles in ecolabel criteria involve periodic revisions to incorporate advancements in scientific understanding, technology, and environmental priorities, often triggered by evaluations every three years post-adoption to assess tightening needs. Revisions aim to drive by updating thresholds for emerging impacts, such as principles or digital traceability, while maintaining third-party verifiability. Examples include the EU Ecolabel's 2024 revision for cleaning products, which enhanced criteria for detergents based on updated life-cycle data, and the 2023 criteria for absorbent hygiene products emphasizing reduced material use and recyclability. The EU's 2025-2029 work plan further commits to timely expansions and revisions, evaluating portfolio gaps to align with evolving metrics. These cycles prevent but can face challenges in balancing stringency with market adoption, as overly frequent updates may increase costs without proportional environmental gains.

Verification and Auditing Processes

Verification processes for ecolabels, especially Type I labels governed by ISO 14024, require independent third-party certification bodies to assess product compliance with predefined environmental criteria through systematic evidence evaluation. These bodies, often accredited under standards like ISO 14020 series, conduct desk reviews of documentation, laboratory testing for substance content, and on-site audits to verify claims such as sustainable sourcing and reduced emissions across the . For instance, the EU Ecolabel mandates independent experts to confirm the absence of hazardous substances and adherence to sustainability thresholds before awarding certification. Auditing mechanisms emphasize objectivity and transparency, incorporating unannounced inspections and annual to ensure ongoing , with non-compliance leading to label revocation. In practice, audits may span 2-6 months for programs like the ACT Ecolabel, involving remote collaboration followed by validation of data against a scoring system. Lifecycle assessments form a core component, where auditors evaluate extraction, impacts, and end-of-life disposal using quantifiable metrics like energy use and waste generation. Type II and Type III labels rely less stringently on self-declaration or verified declarations, but credible schemes still incorporate third-party oversight to mitigate unsubstantiated claims, as outlined in ISO 14021 and ISO 14025. ensures auditors maintain , free from financial ties to applicants, thereby enhancing label reliability over self-assessed alternatives. Multi-stakeholder committees, including environmental NGOs and industry representatives, periodically review criteria to align with evolving scientific data, with audit results publicly documented for accountability.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Impacts on Consumer Choice and Willingness to Pay

Empirical meta-analyses of experiments indicate that environmental sustainability labels, or ecolabels, elevate consumers' stated for labeled foods, with an average premium of 3.79 dollars per (PPP/kg;95/kg; 95% CI: 2.7–4.89).[](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8398923/) This effect exhibits high heterogeneity (I² = 100%), primarily in magnitude rather than direction, and is moderated by product category, with premiums reaching 9.24 PPP/kg for and but only 0.72 PPP$/kg for fruits, , and nuts. Organic labels tend to elicit higher premiums than broader labels, while demographic factors such as and lower levels amplify the response. In sector-specific applications, ecolabels demonstrably boost premiums of 16–24% for certified products, as evidenced by surveys of Italian consumers in hypermarkets evaluating labels for low-impact habitats and sustainable grounds. Cross-cultural studies further link eco-label awareness and environmental concerns to increased premiums, particularly for eco-labeled foods in markets like , where carbon label recognition enhances perceived value and more for quality-attributed products. Ecolabels also influence by directing selections toward environmentally preferable options. Experimental evidence shows that binary eco-labels prompt a 10% increase in choices of compared to unlabeled controls, though graded labels like eco-scores may yield comparable or slightly lesser shifts depending on presentation. Reviews of effects confirm that such labels enhance for sustainable foods in controlled settings, with persuasion varying by cultural context and label familiarity. These impacts, however, often derive from stated preference methods prone to hypothetical bias, potentially overstating real-world adoption; field studies reveal more modest behavioral shifts amid competing cues like price. Consumer skepticism toward label credibility, influenced by proliferation and perceived greenwashing risks, can further attenuate effects, underscoring the need for robust verification to sustain trust and choice influence.

Quantifiable Environmental Outcomes

The ENERGY STAR program, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1992, has achieved verifiable reductions in energy consumption and associated emissions through certified products and buildings. Cumulative savings equate to preventing 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the annual output of over 800 million vehicles. These efforts have also averted more than $500 billion in energy expenditures for consumers and businesses. Annually, the program delivers $39 billion in avoided energy costs while curbing emissions equivalent to removing millions of cars from roads. Other ecolabels demonstrate sector-specific environmental gains. The has facilitated a yearly reduction of 6.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, primarily in manufacturing sectors like . Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification correlates with enhanced , as certified forests in store more carbon than those under conventional management, based on comparative assessments of and soil data. For fisheries, Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)-certified stocks exhibit higher abundance relative to sustainability benchmarks, with empirical analyses indicating improved performance in levels and reduced risks compared to non-certified fisheries. Direct causal attribution remains challenging due to confounding factors like technological advancements and regulatory overlaps, yet program evaluations using life-cycle assessments and baseline comparisons substantiate these outcomes. Peer-reviewed studies affirm that rigorous, third-party verified labels like drive measurable shifts in resource use, though aggregate global impacts require further longitudinal data across diverse ecolabel types.

Economic and Behavioral Studies

Economic analyses of ecolabels reveal mixed market impacts, with certified products frequently commanding price premiums that reflect perceived value but also impose certification costs on producers. A 2023 World Bank study across diverse product categories estimated an average 10% price premium for ecolabeled goods, though this varied by label type and market segment, suggesting benefits for firms able to absorb compliance expenses. However, these premiums are offset by verification and auditing costs, which can disproportionately burden smaller enterprises and lead to favoring larger producers with in compliance. During economic recessions, such as the , demand for ecolabeled products declined sharply due to their higher prices relative to conventional alternatives, reducing market shares for organic and fair-trade items by up to 20% in affected sectors. Behavioral economics research demonstrates that ecolabels influence consumer decision-making primarily through signaling mechanisms, though effects are moderated by factors like label familiarity and . Meta-analyses of willingness-to-pay (WTP) experiments indicate consumers report premiums of 10-30% for ecolabeled foods and beverages, with stronger effects for type I multi-criteria labels like organic certifications compared to self-declared claims. For instance, a 2021 meta-analysis of coffee ecolabelling found an average WTP premium of $1.36 per pound, driven by preferences for attributes in high-income markets, but with heterogeneity across countries due to cultural and economic variances. Field studies further show that ecolabels can nudge pro-environmental choices in controlled settings, such as increasing selection of certified cleaning products by 15-25% when labels are prominent, yet real-world translation is limited by cognitive biases like status quo preference and toward proliferating labels. Empirical critiques highlight inefficiencies, where behavioral responses overestimate long-term adoption due to hypothetical in surveys versus actual purchases. A 2020 review of eco-label economic impacts concluded that while labels generate short-term premiums, systemic costs—including administrative burdens and uneven enforcement—often exceed verifiable environmental returns, questioning their net efficiency in competitive markets. Cross-cultural meta-analyses confirm persuasion effects but note from label saturation, as consumers exhibit fatigue and reduced trust when facing multiple competing schemes, potentially leading to decision paralysis rather than sustained behavioral shifts. Overall, these studies underscore that ecolabel efficacy hinges on credible standards and minimal , with premiums persisting mainly among environmentally conscious demographics but failing to broadly alter market equilibria without complementary policies.

Criticisms and Limitations

Greenwashing and Label Proliferation

Greenwashing in the context of ecolabels involves companies making unsubstantiated or exaggerated environmental claims through labeling schemes, often exploiting consumer demand for to mislead about actual impacts. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, updated in 2012, provide principles to prevent such deception by requiring substantiation for claims like recyclability or biodegradability, emphasizing that unqualified environmental assertions must be proven broadly truthful. In the , a 2020 survey found 53% of environmental product claims to be vague, misleading, or unfounded, prompting directives to ban unsubstantiated assertions and limit self-declared labels prone to abuse. Self-declared ecolabels, lacking third-party verification, heighten greenwashing risks, as seen in certifications where firms tout vague without rigorous auditing, eroding trust. Studies indicate perceived greenwashing correlates with increased toward eco-labels, with Croatian consumers showing heightened doubt due to deceptive practices, potentially reducing label effectiveness in guiding purchases. Experimental research on purchasing managers reveals susceptibility to fabricated claims, underscoring how weak oversight allows proliferation of misleading Type II labels under ISO 14021 standards. The proliferation of ecolabels exacerbates these issues, with over 450 schemes tracked globally across 25 sectors as of recent directories, complicating consumer differentiation between credible certifications and marketing ploys. This abundance fosters confusion, as modeled in economic analyses where multiple labels dilute perceived quality differences, leading to suboptimal consumer choices and welfare losses. links label overload to negative word-of-mouth and reduced trust, with consumers overwhelmed by inconsistent criteria across Type I, II, and III schemes. In response, the proposed restrictions in 2023 to curb new schemes entering markets, aiming to preserve label integrity amid growing numbers. Consumer studies confirm that excessive labels heighten confusion proneness, particularly when claims overlap without , diminishing premiums for verified . While some challenges assumptions of uniform dissatisfaction, finding potential for firm-level labels to clarify amid proliferation, overall evidence points to eroded efficacy without . This dynamic risks broader market distortions, as unverified labels undermine genuine efforts, perpetuating in an environment where high-severity greenwashing cases rose 30% despite fewer overall incidents.

Economic Costs and Market Distortions

Ecolabels impose direct financial burdens on producers through processes, including application fees, third-party audits, and ongoing surveillance requirements. For instance, the EU Ecolabel typically charges between €2,500 and €7,000 annually per product category, encompassing initial assessments and maintenance. These fees are often scaled by program but can escalate with complexity, as seen in schemes like Green Seal or , where manufacturers face combined application, auditing, and recertification expenses that deter participation without guaranteed market premiums. Beyond fees, compliance costs arise from altering production processes to meet environmental criteria, such as investing in new materials, technologies, or audits, which raise operational expenses without necessarily yielding proportional environmental gains. Economic analyses indicate these costs vary by label stringency but frequently result in higher product prices, potentially reducing overall market if consumer does not offset them. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are disproportionately affected, as high upfront and verification costs—often exceeding thousands of euros—create , favoring larger firms with resources to absorb them and potentially consolidating . Ecolabels can distort markets by acting as non-tariff barriers, particularly in , where stringent criteria disadvantage exporters from developing countries unable to meet standards based on local conditions or technologies. Studies highlight how such labels restrict for non-compliant goods, impeding low-value exports from poorer nations while benefiting high-value ones from compliant regions, thus skewing global resource allocation away from comparative advantages. This selective compliance fosters behaviors among certifiers and incumbents, who may lobby for standards that raise rivals' costs, leading to reduced competition and welfare losses akin to . Empirical reviews of ecolabel equilibria suggest these distortions arise from asymmetric and signaling failures, where labels signal imperfectly, prompting inefficient choices or overinvestment in certified attributes at the expense of unlabelled alternatives that may be comparably effective. In differentiated markets, ecolabeling under varying structures can elevate prices and firm profits but often at the of surplus and deadweight losses from foregone trades, especially when labels proliferate without harmonized verification. Proponents of emission taxes over labels argue the latter encourage strategic avoidance rather than genuine , amplifying distortions in sectors like fisheries or where certification diverts resources from scalable controls.

Empirical Shortcomings and Overstated Benefits

Empirical studies on ecolabels frequently reveal limited or inconsistent evidence of substantial environmental improvements, with many schemes failing to demonstrate causal reductions in resource use or emissions at scale. For instance, an analysis of the (FSC) certification in found no statistically significant decrease in rates attributable to the label, despite its widespread adoption in timber markets. Similarly, meta-analyses of sustainability labeling indicate that real-world shifts in consumer choices toward lower-impact products are smaller than suggested by or hypothetical scenarios, often due to methodological biases in earlier research that overstated persuasive effects. Consumer response to ecolabels is often undermined by low visibility, comprehension barriers, and competing purchase drivers, leading to negligible behavioral changes in practice. Surveys report that up to 75% of consumers in overlooked front-of-pack eco-labels during shopping, while in , 26% failed to register label content even when present. Systematic reviews confirm that factors like price, taste, and nutritional attributes consistently dominate cues in choices, with eco-labels exerting minimal influence on actual purchases outside controlled experiments. Proliferation of over 460 ecolabels globally exacerbates , with 89% of shoppers reporting bewilderment from carbon-related variants alone, diluting any potential signal value. Market penetration remains low, typically under 5% for certified products, constraining aggregate environmental gains. Behavioral rebound effects further erode net benefits, as eco-label acquisition can enable moral licensing and patterns that increase overall resource footprints. In EU-27 countries, ecolabel prevalence correlates positively with GDP and higher individual carbon, water, and material use, with purchase likelihood reaching 66% in high-consumption nations like versus 4% in lower ones. data similarly link premiums for eco-friendly goods to elevated personal emissions, suggesting labels serve as low-effort signals that offset rather than reinforce deeper efforts. These dynamics imply that touted efficiency gains from labeled products may be partially or fully counteracted by elsewhere, a pattern underexplored in promotional claims by label issuers.

International and Governance Aspects

Global Networks and Alliances

The Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN), founded in 1994 as a non-profit association, unites third-party environmental certification and labeling organizations worldwide, emphasizing Type I ecolabels that comply with the ISO 14024 standard for multi-criteria, life-cycle-based assessments verified by independent bodies. With 36 members representing nearly 60 countries and territories as of recent counts, GEN promotes the development, harmonization, and global adoption of rigorous ecolabelling schemes to address environmental impacts on products and services, including criteria for resource use, emissions, and toxicity. Member programs, such as the EU Ecolabel and Japan's Eco Mark, undergo verification through GEN's International Environmental Certification System (GENICES) to ensure adherence to principles of transparency, comparability, and scientific substantiation. GEN coordinates international efforts by facilitating knowledge exchange, joint research, and standard-setting workshops among members, aiming to reduce duplication and enhance credibility amid proliferating labels. It collaborates with the (UNEP) through the One Planet network's Working Group on Ecolabeling, which supports cross-border alignment of Type I schemes to influence and trade policies. This partnership has contributed to initiatives like global criteria development for sectors such as textiles and , though empirical evaluations of these alliances' impact on actual environmental outcomes remain limited by data availability. The ISO 14024 standard, last revised in March 2018, underpins these networks by establishing core principles for voluntary Type I programs, including stakeholder involvement and avoidance of , thereby providing a baseline for alliances like GEN to build mutual recognition protocols. Despite such frameworks, full global harmonization faces barriers from divergent national regulations and economic interests, with GEN focusing on voluntary compliance rather than enforceable mandates. No overarching supranational body enforces ecolabel coordination, leaving alliances reliant on cooperative mechanisms that prioritize self-reported adherence over uniform auditing.

Integration with Trade and Policy

Ecolabels intersect with policy primarily through the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), established in 1994, which governs voluntary labeling schemes to ensure they do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. Under TBT Article 2, ecolabels qualify as technical regulations or standards if they impose conformity assessment procedures, requiring members to base criteria on objective, verifiable environmental impacts and avoid discrimination against imports. WTO members have affirmed that such labels generally restrict trade less than mandatory measures while informing consumers, though the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) continues to scrutinize their potential to disguise . In policy frameworks, governments integrate ecolabels into public and regulatory incentives to align market signals with environmental goals, often leveraging them as tools for without direct trade mandates. For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated its Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing in September 2024, endorsing labels like for procurement decisions covering billions in annual spending, thereby influencing domestic supply chains while adhering to WTO non-discrimination principles. Similarly, the European Union's Ecolabel Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 promotes voluntary certification across member states, with criteria harmonized to facilitate intra-EU trade and extend to imports via mutual recognition efforts, though evaluations confirm its consistency with TBT by minimizing trade distortions. Trade implications include risks of ecolabels functioning as non-tariff barriers, particularly for developing economies where compliance costs—such as third-party verification—can disadvantage exporters lacking infrastructure, potentially reducing by 10-20% in sectors like fisheries or textiles according to empirical analyses. To mitigate this, policy responses emphasize international harmonization; initiatives like the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN), founded in 1994, foster mutual recognition among schemes such as Germany's Blue Angel and Japan's Eco Mark, reducing duplication and supporting WTO calls for equivalence in standards. However, proliferation persists, with over 400 schemes worldwide as of 2020, prompting calls for WTO oversight to enforce transparency in life-cycle assessments and prevent unsubstantiated claims that could erode trust and amplify trade frictions.

Harmonization Challenges

Harmonization of ecolabels across borders faces significant obstacles due to divergent national priorities and methodologies in assessing environmental impacts, leading to inconsistent criteria that complicate and consumer trust. For instance, while the ISO 14024 standard outlines principles for Type I ecolabels, emphasizing (LCA) and multi-criteria evaluation, implementation varies widely as countries adapt criteria to local ecosystems, such as prioritizing in arid regions over energy efficiency elsewhere. This results in non-equivalent labels, where a product certified under one scheme, like the EU Ecolabel, may not qualify under another's, such as Japan's Eco Mark, due to differing thresholds for the same pollutants. Methodological disparities exacerbate these issues, particularly in LCA applications, where challenges include identifying comparable environmental variables and standardizing data sources across schemes. A review of 10 major ecolabel programs revealed a lack of uniform techniques, with variations in models causing "perspective disparity" that undermines a shared goal. Economic inequalities further hinder convergence, as developing nations often lack resources for rigorous verification, leading to less stringent labels that wealthier countries view skeptically, thus creating trade barriers under WTO rules on technical barriers to . Cultural and regulatory differences compound the problem, with some programs incorporating social or criteria absent in others, reflecting varied interpretations of "environmental" responsibility. Efforts by the Global Ecolabelling Network to promote ISO 14024 compliance have achieved partial alignment among members, but sovereignty concerns and industry lobbying preserve national variations, resulting in over 400 ecolabels worldwide that form a fragmented landscape. Without fuller , these challenges perpetuate consumer confusion and limit the labels' potential to drive global environmental improvements, as evidenced by stalled mutual recognition agreements in sectors like textiles and .

Regional Implementations

Europe

The EU Ecolabel, launched in 1992 under Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 and governed since 2010 by Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, functions as a voluntary, EU-wide for products and services demonstrating reduced environmental impacts across their full life cycles. Criteria are established through scientific assessments by the in collaboration with member states, industry, and stakeholders, emphasizing lifecycle analysis, , and pollutant minimization while adhering to ISO 14024 Type I standards for third-party verification. The scheme spans more than 20 product groups, such as cleaning agents, textiles, lubricants, , and tourist accommodations, targeting impacts like energy use, emissions, and waste generation. As of September 2025, it has issued 3,384 licenses covering 109,096 products and services across the , reflecting gradual growth amid efforts to expand into emerging categories via the 2025-2029 work plan. Parallel to the EU Ecolabel, longstanding national schemes persist, including Germany's Blue Angel (established 1978), which certifies environmentally superior products via government-backed juries, and the (launched 1989 across ), focusing on lifecycle criteria for regional markets. These pre-EU initiatives operate independently, contributing to label diversity but complicating harmonization efforts, as EU regulations permit their continuation while prioritizing the unified Flower logo for cross-border recognition. Empirical analyses indicate the EU Ecolabel achieves environmental excellence for certified items but faces barriers to broader impact, including low consumer recognition—often below 20% in surveys—and competition from national labels, which may fragment market signals and limit behavioral shifts toward sustainable purchases. Studies attribute modest adoption to verification costs for firms and insufficient differentiation in retail settings, though licensed products typically exhibit 10-30% lower impacts in key metrics like and emissions compared to non-labeled peers.

North America

In the United States, ecolabels are primarily voluntary and lack a single national multi-attribute program, with government efforts focusing on sector-specific certifications to promote energy efficiency and resource conservation. The program, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1992 in collaboration with the Department of Energy, certifies products such as appliances, lighting, and buildings that exceed federal efficiency standards, aiming to reduce and . By 2023, the program had enabled savings of over 5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity, avoided more than $500 billion in energy costs for consumers and businesses, and prevented 4 billion metric tons of . Independent certifications like Green Seal, founded in 1989 as a non-profit, provide Type I ecolabels assessing products across life-cycle environmental impacts, including cleaners, paints, and paper, with standards recommended by the EPA for federal procurement to ensure health and sustainability criteria are met. In , the ECOLOGO program, originally launched as Environmental Choice by Environment Canada in , operates as a multi-attribute ecolabel verifying products and services against life-cycle-based standards for reduced environmental impact, covering categories from cleaning products to forestry practices. Administered by UL Solutions since its acquisition, ECOLOGO certification requires third-party verification of criteria such as energy use, toxicity, and recyclability, distinguishing it as one of North America's most established voluntary labels with over 300 product categories certified historically. Cross-border programs like Green-e extend certifications to both U.S. and Canadian markets, assuring reduced environmental impact from choices through verified renewable sources. Regional coordination occurs through bodies like the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), which documents over 250 ecolabels across in consumer guides, highlighting voluntary adoption without mandatory harmonization, though federal recommendations guide institutional purchasing toward verified standards. These programs emphasize empirical performance metrics over self-declared claims, with and ECOLOGO relying on testable benchmarks to substantiate environmental benefits.

Asia-Pacific and Other Regions

In the Asia-Pacific region, national ecolabel programs have proliferated since the 1990s, often aligned with ISO 14024 Type I standards for third-party verified environmental claims. 's Eco Mark program, established in 1989 by the Japan Environment Association, certifies products across categories like paper and based on lifecycle assessments, aiming to encourage consumer-driven environmental improvements; by 2023, it had certified over 5,000 products. 's China Environmental Label, initiated in 1993 by the State Environmental Protection Administration, represents the country's first national voluntary certification scheme, covering sectors such as textiles, materials, and vehicles with criteria emphasizing and pollution reduction; it has issued over 100,000 certificates to date, though enforcement varies due to decentralized implementation. South Korea's Korea Environmental Product Label (KEPL), launched in 1992, similarly focuses on and impacts, with strong adoption in manufacturing. Australia's Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA), a Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) member since , applies multi-criteria assessments to building products and cleaning agents, prioritizing verifiable reductions in emissions and waste; it claims to influence in public sectors but faces criticism for limited market penetration outside urban areas. In , the scheme, introduced by the in 1991, targets household goods with criteria for biodegradability and low toxicity, though uptake remains low due to insufficient consumer awareness and competing informal certifications; feasibility studies for appliances like air conditioners highlight potential energy savings but underscore verification challenges in supply chains. Southeast Asian initiatives include Thailand's Green Label (since 1994), the ' Green Choice (ISO 14024-compliant), and emerging schemes in for construction materials, supported by UNEP for harmonization in building sectors. Regional efforts, such as proposals for unified standards, seek to reduce trade barriers but encounter hurdles from varying national priorities and weak enforcement, as evidenced by pilot projects in textiles yielding inconsistent environmental outcomes. In other regions, ecolabel adoption lags behind and , with programs often donor-funded and focused on export-oriented sectors. Africa's Eco-Choice, launched in 2001 across countries like and , certifies consumer goods under Type I principles, emphasizing toxics reduction and resource conservation; it has certified fisheries like South African hake but struggles with scalability amid limited domestic demand. Africa, under development, aims for continent-wide thresholds tailored to local ecosystems, though early pilots reveal gaps in monitoring capabilities. In , the Environmental of the Americas introduced a regional Type I program in July 2024, targeting in public tenders; it builds on national efforts like Brazil's PROCEL for energy efficiency but faces skepticism over verification rigor, with cement ecolabels from firms like claiming low-carbon footprints yet reliant on self-reported data. Middle Eastern implementations remain sparse, with initiatives like Saudi Arabia's environmental labeling for construction materials tied to Vision 2030 goals, but empirical data on impact is scarce, often limited to compliance with international standards without robust lifecycle validation. Overall, these programs demonstrate potential for market signals in developing contexts but frequently underperform due to weak institutional oversight and prevalence of greenwashing, as regional GEN collaborations highlight discrepancies in criteria stringency.

Sector-Specific Applications

Seafood and Fisheries

Ecolabels in the and fisheries sector primarily aim to certify practices that maintain fish stock health, minimize ecosystem damage, and ensure effective governance, thereby incentivizing sustainable harvesting through consumer premiums and preferences. The Stewardship (MSC), established in 1997 through a partnership between the World Wildlife Fund and , dominates wild-capture certification with principles focused on sustainable fish populations, low environmental impact from fishing operations, and robust management systems. As of 2023, MSC-certified fisheries represent approximately 12-15% of global wild catch, with over 500 fisheries certified or in assessment. Similarly, the Aquaculture Stewardship (ASC), launched in 2010, applies comparable standards to farmed , certifying operations that reduce disease risks, effluent pollution, and feed sourcing impacts. Certification processes involve third-party audits against predefined criteria, often leading to required improvements such as reduction or enhancements; MSC reports indicate that 96% of certified fisheries demonstrate progress in at least one principle post-certification. Proponents argue these labels drive market differentiation, with certified products commanding 10-20% price premiums in retail settings, potentially funding better monitoring in data-poor fisheries. However, empirical assessments reveal limited causal evidence that certifications broadly halt trends. A 2020 systematic review found insufficient high-quality studies demonstrating MSC's direct impact on stock recovery or reduction, noting that many certified fisheries were already relatively well-managed prior to entry. Independent analyses, including formal objections to MSC decisions, highlight lenient thresholds allowing certification of fisheries with declining stocks or unresolved issues, such as the South African fishery certified despite ongoing concerns. Critics contend that ecolabels risk greenwashing by endorsing industrial-scale operations while marginalizing small-scale artisanal fishers, who often lack resources for audits costing tens of thousands of dollars annually. Studies show certified supply chains can still involve illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing or labor abuses, as evidenced by 2024 investigations linking MSC-labeled to forced labor in Southeast Asian fleets. Moreover, proliferation of weaker, self-declared labels—over 27 schemes globally—dilutes credibility, with some failing to enforce verifiable metrics. While ecolabels correlate with governance improvements in some cases, such as reduced in certified tuna fisheries, broader persists in many certified stocks, underscoring that market incentives alone inadequately address root causes like excess capacity and weak national enforcement.

Energy Products

Ecolabels for energy products certify devices such as appliances, lighting fixtures, electronics, and HVAC systems that demonstrate superior energy efficiency through rigorous, performance-based testing, thereby minimizing operational energy demands and during use. These voluntary Type I labels, developed by independent bodies or government agencies, set thresholds typically 10-50% above regulatory minima, verified via standardized protocols to ensure and comparability across manufacturers. Unlike mandatory efficiency ratings, ecolabels signal premium environmental performance, influencing consumer choices and procurement policies toward lower lifecycle energy impacts. The program, launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 as a voluntary partnership with manufacturers, represents a benchmark for such certifications, covering over 75 product categories including computers, refrigerators, and windows. Eligibility requires products to meet or exceed specific energy consumption metrics relative to function—e.g., televisions must achieve below 0.5 watts—followed by third-party certification and ongoing compliance audits. By 2023, adoption has yielded cumulative U.S. savings of 5 trillion kilowatt-hours of , $500 billion in avoided energy costs, and prevention of 4 billion metric tons of equivalent to annual output from 800 million vehicles. Internationally, the EPEAT ecolabel, administered by the Global Electronics Council since 2005, extends energy efficiency criteria—often aligning with thresholds—to broader aspects for IT equipment like servers and displays, including design for recyclability and hazardous substance restrictions. In , the Blue Angel label, established in 1978, certifies energy products such as heat pumps and data centers for exceeding efficiency standards, with criteria emphasizing low power draw, refrigerant safety, and noise reduction; for instance, certified printing systems limit energy use to under 1 kWh per 1,000 pages. These programs collectively accelerate technology adoption, as evidenced by analyses showing appliance standards and labels averted 12% of global electricity demand growth between 1990 and 2019 through induced efficiency gains. Empirical studies confirm labels' causal role in behavioral shifts, with randomized trials demonstrating 10-20% higher selection of efficient models when prominent labeling is present, though effectiveness diminishes without complementary policies like rebates. Verification rigor varies, with government-backed schemes like exhibiting higher credibility due to mandatory testing, contrasting potential self-declaration risks in less regulated labels. Ongoing challenges include adapting criteria to rapid innovations in and renewables-integrated devices, ensuring global harmonization to prevent trade barriers.

Other Industries

In the textiles sector, ecolabels certify products based on criteria spanning fiber sourcing, manufacturing processes, and chemical usage to minimize environmental harm. The EU Ecolabel, for instance, requires sustainable fiber production, reduced pollution in dyeing and finishing, and limits on hazardous substances like azo dyes, with over 200 textile products certified as of 2023. Globally, more than 100 ecolabels operate in this industry, including lifecycle-based schemes that assess impacts from raw material extraction to disposal, though proliferation can complicate consumer verification of claims. Tourism ecolabels focus on accommodations and services, promoting reduced resource use and protection. The EU Ecolabel for tourist facilities mandates energy-efficient lighting, water-saving fixtures, and waste segregation, with certified sites demonstrating at least 30% lower consumption in key areas compared to industry averages. Schemes like Green Key extend to hotels worldwide, verifying compliance through audits that cover local sourcing and emissions reduction, aiding operators in over 80 countries as of 2022. Construction and building materials employ ecolabels evaluating material durability, recyclability, and emissions throughout the . Programs such as Cradle to Cradle certify items like paints and flooring based on material safety, renewability, and closed-loop , with Bronze to Platinum tiers reflecting progressive environmental performance. In , beyond energy metrics, the EPEAT label assesses for longevity, hazardous substance avoidance, and responsible end-of-life , covering over 60 criteria for devices like computers and displays. These labels encourage transparency but face challenges from varying stringency across schemes.

References

  1. https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100323.pdf
  2. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ecolabel.pdf
  3. https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/blue-angel/our-label-environment/ecolabel-history
  4. https://ecosystemsunited.com/the-different-types-of-ecolabels/
  5. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/about-eu-ecolabel_en
  6. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02628579v1/document
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800921002317
  8. https://globalecolabelling.net/about/what-is-ecolabelling/
  9. https://www.iso.org/standard/34425.html
  10. https://product.sustainability-directory.com/area/iso-14020-principles/
  11. https://www.gdrc.org/sustbiz/green/gen-infopaper.pdf
  12. https://neaspec.org/sites/default/files/Day2-Eco-label%2520Standard.pdf
  13. https://www.nordic-swan-ecolabel.org/nordic-ecolabelling/criteria-development/type-1-ecolabel-iso-14024/
  14. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/knowledge-centre/resources/iso-14020-environmental-labels-and-declarations-general-principle
  15. https://blog.ansi.org/ansi/iso-14024-2018-type-i-environmental-labeling/
  16. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/wwlabel3.pdf
  17. https://www.decerna.co.uk/knowledge-base/life-cycle-assessment/iso-standards/iso-14020/
  18. https://www.eandox.com/resources/standards-for-environmental-declarations
  19. https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/lexicon/navigating-eco-labels-what-do-they-really-mean/
  20. https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/introduction-ecolabels-and-standards-greener-products
  21. https://blogs.cisco.com/our-corporate-purpose/sustainability-101-what-are-ecolabels
  22. https://www.hhc.earth/knowledge-base/articles/what-are-the-differences-between-types-environmental-declarations
  23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-020-01741-9
  24. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/40th-anniversary-of-the-blue-angel
  25. https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/press/detail/blue-angel-open-day-federal-ministry-environment
  26. https://aiimpacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Eco-labels-case-study.pdf
  27. https://funds-europe.com/regulation-a-brief-history-of-ecolabels/
  28. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/report_on_key_opportunities_for_pilot_products_with_policies_and_challenges.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nternational-Spread-of-Eco-labels_fig1_5015014
  30. https://globalecolabelling.net/about/
  31. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/downloads/Global_Ecolabel_Monitor2010.pdf
  32. http://cercenvis.nic.in/PDF/certification.pdf
  33. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/11524/ssoar-2001-kern_et_al-policy_convergence_and_policy_diffusion.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2001-kern_et_al-policy_convergence_and_policy_diffusion.pdf
  34. https://www.thecommonwealth-ilibrary.org/index.php/comsec/catalog/download/565/565/4315?inline=1
  35. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-ecolabel-grows-nearly-100000-products-certified-2024-10-10_en
  36. https://greenseal.org/30-years-of-green-seal/
  37. https://www.energystar.gov/about/impacts
  38. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/faq_en
  39. https://circularregions.org/initiatives/the-global-ecolabelling-network-gen/
  40. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/
  41. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-ecolabel-hits-record-numbers-green-opportunities-grow-2025-10-09_en
  42. https://www.beuc.eu/sites/default/files/publications/BEUC-X-2024-078_EU_Ecolabel_work_plan_2025-2029.pdf
  43. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-lab-launches-act-ecolabel-153000129.html
  44. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14020:en
  45. https://www.iso.org/standard/72458.html
  46. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14024:en
  47. https://www.iso.org/standard/66652.html
  48. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14021:en
  49. https://www.iso.org/standard/38131.html
  50. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14025:en
  51. https://tcocertified.com/iso-14024/
  52. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/product-groups-and-criteria_en
  53. https://www.nordic-swan-ecolabel.org/nordic-ecolabelling/criteria-development/
  54. https://www.edc.ca/en/blog/what-is-ecolabel.html
  55. https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/download/blauer-engel/umweltzeichen/78
  56. https://globalelectronicscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GEC_CriteriaDevelopmentProcess-Effective_2021.June_.17_P74_Iss1Rev2.pdf
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652611001740
  58. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/revision-eu-ecolabel-criteria-cleaning-products-2024-03-04_en
  59. https://www.3eco.com/article/eu-issues-new-revised-ecolabel-criteria-for-absorbent-hygiene-products/
  60. https://anab.ansi.org/accreditation/eco-labelling/
  61. https://standardsmap.org/en/factsheet/294/how-to-comply
  62. https://mygreenlab.org/programs/act-ecolabel/act-manufacturers/
  63. https://www.ecocertify.org/eco-label/auditing-and-assessment-procedures/
  64. https://anab.ansi.org/standard/iso-14024/
  65. https://www.theauditoronline.com/ecolabelling-standard-iso-14024-revision-complete/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8398923/
  67. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1434
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-86202-9
  69. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12900
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652625019250
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8384304/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095965262203284X
  73. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1381135/pdf
  74. https://environmentamerica.org/center/articles/what-is-energy-star-and-why-does-it-matter/
  75. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/g-s1-64905/energy-star-program-cuts
  76. https://www.ase.org/category/appropriations/energy-star-facts
  77. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/GP%2520Measuring%2520ecolabels_ENG.pdf
  78. https://ca.fsc.org/ca-en/newsfeed/research-shows-fsc-forests-store-more-carbon-while-providing-sustainable-forest-products
  79. https://www.msc.org/media-centre/news-opinion/news/2022/09/01/fish-stocks-more-abundant-when-targeted-by-fisheries-certified-as-sustainable
  80. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.818772/full
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07257-8
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527315003709
  83. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294167
  84. https://sca.coffee/sca-news/25/issue-16/quantifying-the-intangible-how-much-are-consumers-willing-to-pay-for-ecolabeled-coffee
  85. https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Practicum_2015-16_Green_Seal_Final_Report.pdf
  86. https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=marketing_fac
  87. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides
  88. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-green-guides/greenguides.pdf
  89. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/eu-to-crack-down-on-greenwashing-with-proportionate-penalties
  90. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1985&context=lawfaculty
  91. https://www.emerald.com/bfj/article/doi/10.1108/BFJ-02-2025-0122/1268025/Greenwashing-and-consumer-skepticism-toward-eco
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94482-4
  93. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928765513000596
  95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02650487.2016.1158223
  96. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2023/03/23/Commission-moves-to-block-proliferation-of-ecolabels-from-entering-market/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309351975_The_Impact_of_Eco-Labels_on_Consumers_Less_Information_More_Confusion
  98. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/csr.3051
  99. https://oceanblueproject.org/greenwashing-statistics-and-eco-labelling-examples/
  100. https://green-partner.net/uncategorized/what-is-the-total-cost-of-maintaining-multiple-green-certifications/
  101. https://globalecolabelling.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Barrier-Analysis-report_single-page.pdf
  102. https://hal.science/hal-01072408v1/document
  103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228709824_Market_Access_Rivalry_and_Eco-Labeling_Standards_Are_Eco-Labels_Non-Tariff_Barriers_in_Disguise
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257569789_The_Economics_of_Eco-Labeling_Theory_and_Empirical_Implications
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305048325000015
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228822337_On_the_Economics_of_Eco-labeling
  107. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391479099_A_meta-analysis_of_the_real-world_impact_of_sustainability_labeling_on_consumer_choices
  108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.005
  109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130904
  110. http://www.ecolabelindex.com/
  111. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eurobarometers_en.htm
  112. https://globalecolabelling.net/about-us/
  113. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisations/
  114. https://globalecolabelling.net/iso14024-standard/
  115. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/programmes/consumer-information-scp/ecolabels
  116. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/GP%2520Ecolabels%2520and%2520certifications%2520strategies%2520ENG_V3.pdf
  117. https://www.iso.org/news/ref2273.html
  118. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/labelling_e.htm
  119. https://www.fao.org/4/y2789e/y2789e09.htm
  120. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/13/2024-20820/update-to-epas-recommendations-of-specifications-standards-and-ecolabels-for-federal-purchasing
  121. https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/33/1/167/5921711
  122. https://www.cuts-citee.org/pdf/Discussion_Papers-Eco-labels.pdf
  123. https://www.thecommonwealth-ilibrary.org/index.php/comsec/catalog/download/743/743/5662?inline=1
  124. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/kim.pdf
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286893414_Eco-labels_and_International_TradeProblems_and_Solutions
  126. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/04/02/eco-labels-five-challenges/
  127. https://product.sustainability-directory.com/question/why-is-international-ecolabel-harmonization-difficult/
  128. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/11-0b6402b3bd99adc9ce72b934511c5d27_2020-07-06_texte_131-2020_methodological_challenges_for_ecolabels.pdf
  129. https://product.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-challenges-in-harmonizing-international-eco-labels/
  130. https://product.sustainability-directory.com/question/why-is-international-ecolabel-harmonization-needed/
  131. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/businesses/ecolabel-facts-and-figures_en
  132. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisation/nordic-swan-ecolabel/
  133. https://www.carsten-orwat.de/downloads/paper99el.pdf
  134. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/751
  135. https://journals.prz.edu.pl/mmr/article/view/859
  136. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7214
  137. https://www.energystar.gov/about/how-energy-star-works/history
  138. https://www.energystar.gov/about
  139. https://greenseal.org/
  140. https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/recommendations-specifications-standards-and-ecolabels-federal-purchasing
  141. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/office-consumer-affairs/en/be-green-consumer/environmental-labels-and-claims
  142. https://www.ul.com/services/ecologo-certification
  143. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=country%2Cca
  144. https://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/4352-environmental-labels-in-north-america-guide-consumers-en.pdf
  145. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=region%2Casia
  146. https://globalecolabelling.net/
  147. https://sustainability.chemlinked.com/news/a-collection-of-well-recognized-green-certifications-worldwide
  148. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisation/china-environmental-labelling/
  149. https://www.clasp.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Ecolabel-final-report.pdf
  150. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/news-and-events/news/sustainability-building-and-construction-sector-asia-promoting-harmonization-0
  151. https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/01/25/unifying-green-standards-through-asean-ecolabelling/
  152. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/news-and-events/news/transforming-chinas-textile-value-chain-new-ecolabel-standard-sets-sustainable
  153. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisation/eco-choice/
  154. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=region=africa
  155. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/latin-america-and-caribbean-launch-first-regional-eco-labeling
  156. https://www.holcim.com/acceleration-green-building-solutions-latin-america-ecopact-ecolabel
  157. https://tcocertified.com/news/ecolabels-promote-smart-procurement-in-asia-pacific/
  158. https://www.msc.org/what-we-are-doing/science-and-research/what-drives-fishery-improvements
  159. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-024-01018-0
  160. https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-020-0188-9
  161. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256669200_A_Review_of_Formal_Objections_to_Marine_Stewardship_Council_Fisheries_Certifications
  162. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/blue-fish-blues-why-supermarkets-cannot-utilize-seafood-eco-labeling-as-cover-against-slavery-at-sea/
  163. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00019
  164. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/76/4/794/5288560
  165. https://www.energystar.gov/products/how-product-earns-energy-star-label
  166. https://epeat.net/
  167. https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/productworld/software
  168. https://www.iea.org/reports/achievements-of-energy-efficiency-appliance-and-equipment-standards-and-labelling-programmes
  169. https://www.resources.org/archives/can-product-labels-nudge-energy-efficient-behavior/
  170. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=category%2Cenergy
  171. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/product-groups-and-criteria/clothing-and-textiles_en
  172. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14170
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916121000244
  174. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel/product-groups-and-criteria/tourist-accommodation_en
  175. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=category%2Ctourism
  176. https://www.ecocenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/updated_Factsheet%2520Third-Party%2520Certifications%2520and%2520Eco-Labels.pdf
  177. https://globalelectronicscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GEC_Chemicals.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.