Global Compact International Yearbook Ausgabe 2011

Agenda
Standards and Labels
Improving performance. WWF’s 2010 review of multistakeholder
initiatives concluded that “MSIs can have positive economic,
environmental and social impacts.” The US Environmental
Protection Agency stated in their annual report that the Energy
Star label contributed to saving the equivalent of 31 million
vehicles’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions and $17 billion
in utility bills in 2009.
…and Challenges
Alongside these successes, challenges exist, and questions are
being asked:
What impact are eco-labels really having? Many eco-labels have
found it challenging to demonstrate positive impact. Indeed,
the 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor found that only one-third
of the eco-labels that responded to their survey regularly
monitor their impacts. In addition, improvements may be
concentrated among reasonably strong performers, and it is
difficult to ensure rewards are equitably distributed across
the value chain.
Are the standards behind labels the right ones? Setting standards
for sustainability will never be straightforward. Too often the
most important drivers of performance are set aside for indicators
that are easier to measure or appeal to a broader group
of stakeholders. While justified, it limits ultimate progress.
Are eco-labels using the right amounts and kinds of data? The information
needed to drive, verify, or communicate performance
can be very different. For example, the data that a designer
needs to design a lower-impact shoe differs from what the
consumer uses to make a purchasing decision.
Can “branding sustainability” lead to undesirable consequences
for marketers? Many independent eco-labels are powerful
brands in their own right, competing with each other but
also with the host brand. In a fiercely competitive market,
some businesses are finding it difficult to invest in marketing
eco-labels that are used by competitors, or that distract
from the brand story.
Can “branding sustainability” lead to undesirable consequences for
sustainability? By calling out a specific product as “sustainable,”
labels might distract consumers from a more sustainable but
uncertified choice – for example, if shoppers chose Froot Loops
cereal over oatmeal because of the presence of the “Smart
Choices” label, this may result in potentially less desirable
individual choices and lead consumers to think about single
issues rather than the system.
Alternatives: What’s next?
In supplementation or replacement of the “traditional” ecolabel,
businesses have been making use of alternative ways
of improving performance, creating trust, and influencing
demand for more sustainable products. A few include:
In-house standards – such as Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices or HP
Eco Highlights.
Industry standards – such as the UL Environment manufacturing
standards or the Sustainability Consortium’s various
working groups.
New sourcing models, partnerships with NGOs, and in-house expertise
– for example, Walmart is increasing purchases from small
farmers, while Unilever has a team of in-house agronomists.
Linking sustainability performance to place of origin instead of a label
– for example, some Alaskan fisheries have considered forgoing
Maine Stewardship Council certification, in part under the
assumption that buyers already know that fish sourced from
Alaska is sustainable.
Mobile technologies that connect the dots across the value chain – Good-
Guide puts sustainability data in consumer’s hands at the point
of purchase via mobile devices, while social networking tools
such as Twitter and Yelp! play a role in facilitating word-of-mouth.
Tastemakers, celebrities, and the media – Vogue caused sales of
Timberland’s Earthkeeper boots for women to spike, while
British celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall did the
same for non-endangered fish in UK supermarkets the week
after his new sustainable fishing program aired.
Other marketing tactics – from green claims, to branded product
lines such as Nike Considered or Philips Green; to choice-editing,
such as Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s phase-out of incandescent
bulbs – ahead of legislation requiring them to do so – in
the United Kingdom.
The power of trusted global brands – Think Marks & Spencer or
Patagonia, whose corporate brands and bold sustainability
commitments serve as “guarantees” of good sustainability
performance for many stakeholders.
a poor spur for individual behavior change. Businesses must
make, and already are making, use of other tools.
As seven billion of us – and counting – bump up against
the limits of the planet’s natural resources and we seek to accelerate
more sustainable modes of production and consumption,
we need to step back and consider what eco-labels were
designed to achieve in the first place, consider objectively the
limitations of the eco-label as a tool, and ask how it can be
complemented by other ways of creating trust and influencing
behavior change across global supply chains.
Neither consumers nor producers can be expected to “do the
right thing” unless they know what that is, and eco-labels are
to be commended for focusing on this need – as are the global
companies that are pushing to make effective use of them.
Patrin Watanatada and Mark Lee both work for SustainAbility.
Mark is Executive Director, Patrin is exploring eco-labels and
emerging alternatives over the course of 2011 in a research
project, Signed, Sealed…Delivered? The authors would like to
thank the following for input as this article was drafted: Oliver
Adria, Mohammed Al-Shawaf, Coleman Bigelow, Jennifer
Biringer, Stephanie Daniels, Jim Goddard, Chuck Goncalves,
Beth Jensen, Emma Keller, Geoff Kendall, Karin Kreider, Thomas
Lingard, Heather Mak, Michelle Morton, Ian Olson, Ben
Packard, Michael Sadowski, Don Seville, Burçu Tunce.
Eco-labels – Where next?
While fully recognizing that eco-labels from Energy Star to
Fairtrade have done a great deal in raising awareness, changing
what we expect of certain product categories, and creating a
common language and framework around sustainability –
and are perceived as more credible than claims made directly
by business – the eco-label model has inherent limitations.
The past decade or two has demonstrated that auditing against
a standard is not as effective as we need it to be in improving
on-the-ground conditions, while on-pack labels are too often
Patrin Watanatada
Mark Lee
36 Global Compact International Yearbook 2011 Global Compact International Yearbook 2011
37