Advertisement

Challenges for ecolabeling growth: lessons from the EU Ecolabel in Spain

  • Vanessa Prieto-Sandoval
  • Andrés Mejía-VillaEmail author
  • Marta Ormazabal
  • Carmen Jaca
THE FUTURE OF ECOLABELS

Abstract

Purpose

The European Ecolabel (EU Flower) has the mission to encourage cleaner production and influence consumers to promote Europe’s transition to a circular economy. Nonetheless, little is known about EU Ecolabel evolution; it is not clear what the drivers that encourage its implementation are. Thus, this study aims to assess the growing acceptance of the EU Ecolabel in the European Union, and Spain more specifically, by examining product and service categories and geographical regions.

Methods

The methodological approach taken in this study is a mixed methodology based on the triangulation method by consulting the EU Ecolabel scheme database, EU Ecolabel delegates from some autonomous regions, and the academic literature. Also, a geographic analysis was run in the ArcGIS Software with data about the accumulation of licenses assigned in 2016.

Results and discussion

The analysis shows that most products in Spain that have been awarded the EU Ecolabel belong to the following categories: Do-It-Yourself Products (paint and varnish), Paper Products, Cleaning Up Products, and Electronic Equipment. At the same time, the study showed that this ecolabel faces significant obstacles in its diffusion, such as the competition with environmental labels launched previously in Europe and other regional labels.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate the existence of five drivers that may encourage the implementation of EU Flower in a region: (1) public management, (2) communication strategy, (3) sustainable public procurement criteria, (4) local income per capita, and (5) international trade incentives.

Finally, this study provides essential recommendations for policymakers to trigger ecolabeling practices such as the need to improve the understanding of the EU ecolabel impact in different levels of activity, which means countries, regions, industrial clusters, firms, and consumers. Also, this investigation identifies areas for further research, and it expresses the need to develop business case studies about ecolabeling with the objective to visualize this phenomenon as an eco-innovation process.

Keywords

Circular economy tool Eco-innovation Ecolabeling Environmental certificates EU Flower Spain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the EcoPyme project, which has been sponsored by the Spanish National Program for Fostering Excellence in Scientific and Technical Research and The European Regional Development Fund: DPI2015-70832-R (MINECO/FEDER). Likewise, this investigation is part of the project “Implementation of the circular economy in the industrial sector located in the province of Sabana Centro and its surroundings” (EICEA 117 2018) which is funded by University of La Sabana, Colombia. Moreover, the authors would like to thank the EU Ecolabel Help Desk, the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition, and the regional EU Ecolabel offices for their help with data collection.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1611_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Aguilar FX, Cai Z (2010) Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK. Ecol Econ 70:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armah PW (2002) Setting eco-label standards in the fresh organic vegetable market of Northeast Arkansas. J Food Distrib Res 33:1–11Google Scholar
  3. Bleda M, Valente M (2009) Graded eco-labels: a demand-oriented approach to reduce pollution. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76:512–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonsi R, Hammett L, Smith B (2008) Eco-labels and international trade: problems and solutions. J World Trade 42:407–432Google Scholar
  5. Brécard D, Hlaimi B, Lucas S, Perraudeau Y, Salladarré F (2009) Determinants of demand for green products: an application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecol Econ 69:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamorro A, Bañegil TM (2006) Green marketing philosophy: a study of Spanish firms with ecolabels. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daddi T, Iraldo F, Testa F (2015) Environmental certification for organisations and products: management approaches and operational tools. Routlegde Research in Sustainability and BusinessGoogle Scholar
  8. Dangelico RM, Pujari D (2010) Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J Bus Ethics 95:471–486Google Scholar
  9. Dekhili S, Achabou MA (2015) The influence of the country-of-origin ecological image on ecolabelled product evaluation: an experimental approach to the case of the European ecolabel. J Bus Ethics 131:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delmas MA, Grant LE (2014) Eco-Labeling Strategies and Price-Premium. In: Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: the wine industry puzzleCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denzin NK (1989) The research act - a theoretical introduction to sociological methods, 3rd Editio edn. Amer Sociological Assoc, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz T, Stern PC, National RC (2002) New tools for environmental protection : education, information, and voluntary measures. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Dziuba R (2016) Sustainable development of tourism - EU ecolabel standards illustrated using the example of Poland. Comp Econ Res 19:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) Programmes. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/programmes. Accessed 9 Jun 2018
  16. EU Ecolabel Helpdesk Team (2017) EU Ecolabel by Country and Product GroupGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2015a) Closing the loop: an ambitious EU circular economy packageGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2015b) Closing the loop—an EU action plan for the circular economy. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (2015c) Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. Brussels, 2.12.2015 COM(2015) 614 final. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614. Accessed 30 July 2017
  20. European Commission (2016a) Circular economy: commission expands Ecolabel criteria to computers, furniture and footwear. Press ReleaseGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission (2016b) Ecolabel—facts and figures. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/facts-and-figures.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2017
  22. European Commission (2018) Product groups and criteria—Ecolabel. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/products-groups-and-criteria.html. Accessed 14 Jun 2018
  23. Evans L, Nuttall C, Gandy S et al (2015) Project to support the evaluation of the implementation of the EU Ecolabel regulation. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer C, Lyon TP (2013) A theory of multi-tier ecolabels. Ann Arbor 1001:48109Google Scholar
  25. Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) (2018) The results of the Blue Flag International Jury 2018. http://www.blueflag.global/beaches2
  26. Fraguell RM, Martí C, Pintó J, Coenders G (2016) After over 25 years of accrediting beaches, has Blue Flag contributed to sustainable management? J Sustain Tour 24:882–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francis P (2015) Laudato si: on care for our common home. VaticanGoogle Scholar
  28. Global Ecolabelling Network (2004) Introduction to ecolabelling. Glob Ecolabelling Netw Inf PapGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordy L (2002) Differential importance of ecolabel criteria to consumers. In: Ecolabels and the Greening of the Food Market. Conference Proceedings, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  30. Greaker M (2006) Eco-labels, trade and protectionism. Environ Resour Econ 33:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hemmelskamp J, Brockmann KL (1997) Environmental labels—the German ‘Blue Angel. Futures 29:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horne RE (2009) Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int J Consum Stud 33:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. i Canals LM, Domènèch X, Rieradevall J et al (2002) Use of life cycle assessment in the procedure for the establishment of environmental criteria in the Catalan eco-label of leather. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IEFE Bocconi, Iraldo F, Kahlenborn W, et al (2005) EVER: evaluation of EMAS and eco-label for their revision. Report 2. MilanGoogle Scholar
  35. Iraldo F, Barberio M (2017) Drivers, barriers and benefits of the EU ecolabel in European companies’ perception. Sustain 9:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ISO, ICONTEC (2002) 14020: 2002. Etiquet. ecológicas y Declar. Ambient. GenGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaca C, Prieto-Sandoval V, Psomas E, Ormazabal M (2018) What should consumer organizations do to drive environmental sustainability? J Clean Prod 181:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson D, Turner C (2006) European business. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Kimchi J, Polivka B, Stevenson JS (1991) Triangulation: operational definitions. Nurs Res 40:364–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Konishi Y (2011) Efficiency properties of binary ecolabeling. Resour Energy Econ 33:798–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 13:1061–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewandowski M (2016) Designing the business models for circular economy—towards the conceptual framework. Sustain 8:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Linder M, Williander M (2017) Circular business model innovation: inherent uncertainties. Bus Strateg Environ 26:182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loureiro ML, Lotade J (2005) Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecol Econ 53:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC (2001) Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J Agric Resour Econ 26:404–416Google Scholar
  46. Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? J Consum Aff 36:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Melser D, Robertson PE (2005) Eco-labelling and the trade-environment debate, pp 49–63Google Scholar
  48. Meredith J (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods. Int J Oper Prod Manag 13:3–11Google Scholar
  49. Ministerio de la Presidencia (2008) ORDEN PRE/116/2008, de 21 de enero, por la que se publica el Acuerdo de Consejo de Ministros por el que se aprueva el Plan de Contratación Pública Verde de la Administración General del Estado y sus Organismos de la Seguridad Social. SpainGoogle Scholar
  50. Ministry of Economy Industry and Competitiveness (2015) Datacomex, foreign trade statisticsGoogle Scholar
  51. Monteiro J (2010) Eco-label adoption in an interdependent world. IRENE Inst Econ Res Work Pap SerGoogle Scholar
  52. Myers MD, Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Inf Organ 17:2–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oakdene Hollins (2011) EU Ecolabel for food and feed products—feasibility studyGoogle Scholar
  54. Panainte M, Inglezakis V, Caraman I, Nicolescu MC, Mosnegu.u E, Nedeff F (2014) The evolution of eco-labeled products in Romania. Environ Eng Manag J 13:1665–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parikka-Alhola K (2008) Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green public procurement. Ecol Econ 68:472–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prag A, Lyon T, Russillo A (2016) Multiplication of environmental labelling and information schemes (ELIS): implications for environment and trade. OECD Environ Work Pap 106.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm0p33z27wf-enOECD
  57. Preston F (2012) A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. Energy Environ Resour Gov 2:1–20Google Scholar
  58. Prieto-Sandoval V, Alfaro JA, Mejía-Villa A, Ormazabal M (2016) ECO-labels as a multidimensional research topic: trends and opportunities. J Clean Prod 135:806–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prieto-Sandoval V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 179:605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rametsteiner E (1999) The attitude of European consumers towards forests and forestry. UNASYLVA-FAO- 42–47Google Scholar
  61. Reisch LA (2001) Eco-labeling and sustainable consumption in Europe: lessons to be learned from the introduction of a national label for organic food. ConsInterAnn 47:1–6Google Scholar
  62. Rubik F, Scheer D, Iraldo F (2008) Eco-labelling and product development: Potentials and experiences. Int J Prod Dev 6:393–419.:  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2008.020401
  63. Salzhauer AL (1991) Obstacles and opportunities for a consumer ecolabel. Environment 33:10–37Google Scholar
  64. Salzman J (1991) Environmental labelling in OECD countries. OECDGoogle Scholar
  65. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2009) Research methods for business students, fifth edit. Pearson Education Limited, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  66. Statistics National Institute of Spain (2015) Contabilidad Regional de España (Base 2010). PIB Per CápitaGoogle Scholar
  67. Testa F, Iraldo F, Vaccari A, Ferrari E (2015) Why eco-labels can be effective marketing tools: evidence from a study on Italian consumers. Bus Strateg Environ 24:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (1999) Changes in household detergents: a statistical comparison between 1988 and 1996Google Scholar
  69. Thøgersen J, Haugaard P, Olesen A (2010) Consumer responses to ecolabels. Eur J Mark 44:1787–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thøgersen J, Jørgensen A, Sandager S (2012) Consumer decision making regarding a “green” everyday product. Psychol Mark 29:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tukker A (2015) Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy—a review. J Clean Prod 97:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. United Nations (1993) Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,3–14 June 1992. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. United Nations (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development. JohanesburgGoogle Scholar
  74. UNWTO (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights 2016. MadridGoogle Scholar
  75. UNWTO (2017) Tourism highlights, 2017th edn. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  76. Villot XL, González CL, Rodríguez MXV (2007) Economía ambiental. Prentice Hall, MadridGoogle Scholar
  77. WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future acronyms and note on terminology chairman’s foreword. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1987, BrundtlandGoogle Scholar
  78. Witjes S, Lozano R (2016) Towards a more circular economy: proposing a framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business models. Resour Conserv Recycl 112:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yong R (2007) The circular economy in China. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 9:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zanoli R, Naspetti S (2002) Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. Br Food J 104:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TECNUN, School of EngineeringUniversity of NavarraSan SebastiánSpain
  2. 2.EICEAUniversidad de La SabanaChíaColombia

Personalised recommendations