Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO 14020 series

  • THE FUTURE OF ECOLABELS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

ISO 14020 series of standards provide guidance for establishing ecolabels and a classification based on three label types, I, II, and III. They also determine the consideration of product’s life cycle and application of the life cycle assessment (LCA) in ecolabeling. Still, the large number and variety of existing ecolabels has led to consumer confusion in the recent years. The objective of this paper is to propose a characterization scheme for ecolabels and to provide recommendations for the enhancement of existing ecolabel classification, questioning the current sufficiency of ISO.

Methods

To reach the objective, we first create a sample of ecolabels covering forest and paper products as an example, to narrow down the enormous number of existing ecolabels (over 460 as of August 2018). Second, we analyze their content, purpose, and awarding criteria through a desk research. In parallel, scientific publication, reports, and standards are also analyzed. Third, based on the obtained information, we define a list of ecolabel characterization attributes and their options and observe tendencies in ecolabel development. Ultimately, based on the outcomes of the proposed characterization scheme, we give recommendations for enhancement.

Results and discussion

Ultimately, we compare a sample of 45 ecolabels against 18 attributes of the proposed characterization scheme, including, among others, their ISO typology, life cycle perspective, awarding format, covered environmental aspects, and scope. Regarding type I or type III label, ISO seems to be explicit and their requirements are well respected, including how LCA is to be applied. However, approximately 60% of the explored ecolabels in our sample did not declare any ISO typology, whereas none assigned a type II classification. These “undefined” ecolabels, as we call them, apply different awarding formats and criteria in combination and hybrid forms that are not recognized and described by ISO or any other observed classification approach. Misuse of the term “LCA” is also perceived in such “undefined” initiatives.

Conclusions

We conclude that the current ISO standards on ecolabels belittle the consequences that the increased number of undefined ecolabels brings. We provide a list of recommendations for the enhancement of the current ISO classification in seven topics, namely, awarding format, aspects diversity, operation scope, verification, reconsideration of the usability of ISO 14021, new ISO classification, and transparency. Limitations of the study and outlook conclude the work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Bach et al. (2018), the PEF initiative is currently in transition phase until 2021 and it is not yet decided what the outcome would be used for, e.g., an ecolabel or something else. However, it aims at the development of a harmonized environmental footprint methodology, including the communication of environmental performance based on relevant criteria (EC 2013; Lehmann et al. 2016)

  2. https://webofknowledge.com/

  3. In contrast to this adapted definition, ISO 17000 determines a second-party as an activity that is performed by a body that has a user interest in the object (e.g., purchasers or users of an ecolabel), which cannot be the case in ecolabelling.

  4. According to de Boer (2003), ideals-centric labels are seriously criticized because they do not provide methodology to clearly distinguish individual products across an entire product category.

  5. “Comparability” shall not be confused with “comparative assertion” which is explicitly forbidden by ISO 14025.

References

  • Allison C, Carter A (2000) Study on different types of Environmental Labelling (ISO Type II and III Labels), Oxford, UK

  • Arvizu-Piña VA, Cuchí Burgos A (2017) Promoting sustainability in Mexico’s building sector via environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1744–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach V, Lehmann A, Görmer M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Product environmental footprint (PEF) pilot phase—comparability over flexibility? Sustainability 10(8):2898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee A, Solomon BD (2003) Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs. Energ Policy 31(2):109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Big Room Inc. (2018) Ecolabel index—the largest global directory of ecolabels. http://www.ecolabelindex.com/. Accessed August 2018

  • Bougherara D, Grolleau G, Thiébaut L (2005) Can labelling policies do more harm than good? An analysis applied to environmental labelling schemes. Eur J Law Econ 19(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-5273-6

  • Bratt C, Hallstedt S, Robèrt KH, Broman G, Oldmark J (2011) Assessment of eco-labelling criteria development from a strategic sustainability perspective. J Clean Prod 19(14):1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.012

  • Brécard D (2014) Consumer confusion over the profusion of eco-labels: lessons from a double differentiation model. Resour Energy Econ 37:64–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobut A, Beauregard R, Blanchet P (2012) Using life cycle thinking to analyze environmental labeling: the case of appearance wood products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):722–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. J Law Econ 16(1):67–88. https://doi.org/10.1086/466756

  • de Boer J (2003) Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions for stakeholders. Bus Strateg Environ 12(4):254–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dendler L (2014) Sustainability meta labelling: an effective measure to facilitate more sustainable consumption and production? J Clean Prod 63:74–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC. Official Journal of the European Union

  • EC (2013) ANNEX II. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) guide to commission recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations

  • Emberger-Klein A, Menrad K (2018) The effect of information provision on supermarket consumers' use of and preferences for carbon labels in Germany. J Clean Prod 172:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels SV, Hansmann R, Scholz RW (2010) Toward a sustainability label for food products: An analysis of Experts’ and Consumers’ acceptance. Ecol Food Nutr 49(1):30–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670240903433154

  • EPA (1998) Environmental labeling issues, policies, and practices worldwide, Washington, DC

  • Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang Y-J, Grinberg M, Lehmann A, Martínez-Blanco J, Minkov N, Neugebauer S, Scheumann R, Schneider L, Wolf K (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 207–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • FSC (2016) Product sustainability assessment. FSC calls for addressing the limitations of life cycle assessment with certification—position paper, Oaxaca, Mexico

  • Galarraga Gallastegui I (2002) The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature. Eur Environ 12(6):316–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goossens Y, Berrens P, Charleer L, Coremans P, Houbrechts M, Vervaet C, Tavernier J de, Geeraerd A (2017) Qualitative assessment of eco-labels on fresh produce in Flanders (Belgium) highlights a potential intention–performance gap for the supply chain. J Clean Prod 140:986–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.063

  • Gruère G (2013) A characterisation of environmental labelling and information schemes. OECD Environ Work Pap 62:1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne RE (2009) Limits to labels. The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int J Cosum Stud 33(2):175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISEAL (2015) Challenge the label. https://community.isealalliance.org/challenge. Accessed July 2016

  • ISO (2000) Environmental labels and declarations—general principles (ISO 14020:2000)

  • ISO (2004) Conformity assessment—vocabulary and general principles (ISO 17000:2004). https://www.iso.org/standard/29316.html. Accessed January 2019

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures (ISO 14025:2006)

  • ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006)

  • ISO (2015) Environmental management systems—requirements with guidance for use (ISO 14001:2015)

  • ISO (2016) Environmental labels and declarations—self-declared environmental claims (type II environmental labelling) (ISO 14021:2016)

  • ISO (2018) Environmental labels and declarations—type I environmental labelling—principles and procedures (ISO 14024:2018)

  • Janßen D, Langen N (2017) The bunch of sustainability labels – Do consumers differentiate? J Clean Prod 143:1233–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.171

  • Lehmann A, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2016) EU product environmental footprint—mid-term review of the pilot phase. Sustainability 8(1):92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leire C, Thidell Å (2005) Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases – a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers. J Clean Prod 13(10–11):1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.004

  • Li Y, van’t Veld K (2015) Green, greener, greenest: eco-label gradation and competition. J Environ Econ Manag 72:164–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin AW, Tobler M (2003) The purpose of LCA in environmental labels and concepts of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(2):115–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Quiros A, Valdivia S, Milà-i-Canals L, Finkbeiner M (2015) Organizational LCA: the new member of the LCA family-introducing the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative guidance document. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1045–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkov N, Schneider L, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Type III environmental declaration programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. J Clean Prod 94:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkov N, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2018) Characterization of the cradle to cradle certified™ products program in the context of eco-labels and environmental declarations. Sustainability 10(3):738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaou IE, Kazantzidis L (2016) A sustainable consumption index/label to reduce information asymmetry among consumers and producers. Sustain Prod Consump 6:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1997) Eco-labelling: Actual effects of selected programmes, OCDE/GD(97)105. OECD, Paris

  • Oxford Dictionaries (2018) https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/. Accessed August 2018

  • Panainte M, Inglezakis V, Caraman I, Nicolescu MC, Mosnegutu E, Nedeff F (2014) The evolution of ecolabeled products in Romania. Environ Eng Manag J 13(7):1665–1671

  • Roe BE, Teisl MF, Deans CR (2014) The economics of voluntary versus mandatory labels. Annu Rev Resour Econ 6(1):407–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubik F, Frankl P (eds) (2005) The future of eco-labelling. Making environmental product information systems effective. Greenleaf Publ, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubik F (2015) Life cycle management: labelling, declarations and certifications at the product level – different approaches. In: Sonnemann G, Margni M (eds) Life cycle management. Springer Open, Dordrecht, pp 65–77

  • Shao J, Taisch M, Mier MO (2017) Influencing factors to facilitate sustainable consumption from the experts’ viewpoints. J Clean Prod 142:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J, Nielsen KS (2016) A better carbon footprint label. J Clean Prod 125:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truffer B, Markard J, Wüstenhagen R (2001) Eco-labeling of electricity—strategies and tradeoffs in the definition of environmental standards. Energ Policy 29(11):885–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2005) The trade and environmental effects of ecolabels: assessment and response

  • van Amstel M, Driessen P, Glasbergen P (2008) Eco-labeling and information asymmetry: a comparison of five eco-labels in the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 16(3):263–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich R, Spiller A (2016) Developing food labelling strategies: multi-level labelling. J Clean Prod 137:1138–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu P, Xia B, Pienaar J, Zhao X (2014) The past, present and future of carbon labelling for construction materials—a review. Build Environ 77:160–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yenipazarli A (2015) The economics of eco-labeling: standards, costs and prices. Int J Prod Econ 170:275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the ecolabel programs that cooperated during the research and extend thanks to Martin Pingel (TU Berlin) and Rosalie Valeska Arendt (TU Berlin) for their help in collecting and processing the obtained information. Appreciation is also expressed to the anonymous reviewers for their profound and dedicated comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Office Z1, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Nikolay Minkov, Annekatrin Lehmann, Lisa Winter & Matthias Finkbeiner

Authors
  1. Nikolay Minkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annekatrin Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Finkbeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolay Minkov.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Fabio Iraldo

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 46 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minkov, N., Lehmann, A., Winter, L. et al. Characterization of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO 14020 series. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 840–855 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01596-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01596-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation