United States Office of Prevention, Pesticides EPA 742-R-98-009

Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances December 1998

Agency (7409)

Environmental Labeling 

Issues, Policies, and 

Practices Worldwide

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
Environmental Labeling 

Issues, Policies, and Practices Worldwide

December 1998

prepared for:

Pollution Prevention Division

Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(7409)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-4000

EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0021

Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

Environmental Labeling: Scope of this Report ............................... xii

1. Introduction ............................................................ 1

2. Environmental Labeling: The US Perspective .................................. 5

2.1. Background ...................................................... 5

2.2. Environmental Labeling in the US ..................................... 6

3. Definition of Environmental Labeling ........................................ 9

3.1. Positive Labeling Programs ......................................... 11

Seal-of-Approval ................................................. 11

Single-attribute Certification Programs ................................ 11

3.2. Negative Labeling Programs ........................................ 12

Hazard/Warning Labels ............................................ 12

3.3. Neutral Labeling Programs ......................................... 13

Information Disclosure Programs .................................... 13

Report Cards .................................................... 13

4. Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide .................................. 15

4.1. Introduction ..................................................... 15

4.2. Fundamental Information ........................................... 15

Program Type .................................................... 16

Participation .................................................... 18

Label Type ...................................................... 19

Administration ................................................... 21

Financing ....................................................... 22

Year Founded .................................................... 22

 Product Categories ............................................... 24

Number of Awards ................................................ 25

4.3. Geographic Representation ......................................... 26

4.4. Program Methodology ............................................. 35

Program Goals ................................................... 35

Program Methodologies ............................................ 36

Stakeholder Involvement ........................................... 38

4.5. Program Breadth ................................................. 39

Use of Non-Environmental Attributes ................................. 39

Use in Procurement ............................................... 40

Use Beyond Retail ................................................ 42

Other Programs/Activities .......................................... 44

4.6. Changes to Environmental Labeling Programs .......................... 45
ii Table of Contents

4.7. Coordination Efforts Among Programs ................................ 46

4.8. Trade Issues ..................................................... 48

5. Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs ............................ 51

5.1. Public/Societal Interests ............................................ 52

5.2. Consumer Interest ................................................ 54

5.3. Retailer’s Interests ................................................ 55

5.4. Producer’s Interests ............................................... 55

5.5. Operating Costs and Profit .......................................... 56

5.6. Standardization of Environmental Labeling Programs .................... 57

5.7. Procurement Programs ............................................. 57

6. Recent Trends and Future Outlook ......................................... 59

6.1. The Proliferation and Globalization of Environmental Labeling Programs .... 60

6.2. Standardization .................................................. 62

6.3. Wedge Issues .................................................... 64

Program Goals ................................................... 64

Limitations to Standardization ....................................... 65

6.4. Future Outlook ................................................... 66

Appendix A: Overview Table of Environmental Labeling Programs 

Covered in This Report ................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs 

Covered in This Report

List of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report .................... B-i 

Austrian Eco-label ........................................................... B-1

Introduction .......................................................... B-1

Recent Developments .................................................. B-1

Program Summary ..................................................... B-1

Program Methodology .................................................. B-2

Other Information ..................................................... B-3

References ........................................................... B-3

Product Categories ..................................................... B-3
Table of Contents iii

Canada's Environmental Choicem Program: the Ecologom ........................... B-5

Introduction .......................................................... B-5

Recent Developments .................................................. B-5

Program Summary ..................................................... B-5

Program Methodology .................................................. B-6

Other Information ..................................................... B-7

References ........................................................... B-8

Product Categories ..................................................... B-9

China's Ecolabeling Program .................................................. B-13

Introduction ......................................................... B-13

Program Summary .................................................... B-13

Program Methodology ................................................. B-14

References .......................................................... B-15

Product Categories .................................................... B-15

Croatia’s Environmental Label ................................................ B-17

Introduction ......................................................... B-17

Program Summary ................................................... B-17

References .......................................................... B-18

Product Categories .................................................... B-18

The Czech Ecolabel ......................................................... B-21

Introduction ......................................................... B-21

Program Summary .................................................... B-21

Program Methodology ................................................. B-21

Other Information .................................................... B-22

References .......................................................... B-22

Product Categories .................................................... B-22

The Nordic Council’s Nordic Swan Label ........................................ B-23

Introduction ......................................................... B-23

Recent Developments ................................................. B-23

Program Summary .................................................... B-24

Program Methodology ................................................. B-26

Other Information .................................................... B-27

References .......................................................... B-27

Product Categories .................................................... B-28
iv Table of Contents

European Union Eco-label Programme .......................................... B-31

Introduction ......................................................... B-31

Recent Developments ................................................. B-31

Program Summary .................................................... B-33

Program Methodology ................................................. B-34

Other Information .................................................... B-37

References .......................................................... B-38

Product Categories .................................................... B-39

France’s NF-environnement Mark .............................................. B-41

Introduction ......................................................... B-41

Recent Developments ................................................. B-41

Program Summary .................................................... B-42

Program Methodology ................................................. B-43

Other information ..................................................... B-44

References .......................................................... B-44

Product Categories .................................................... B-45

Germany's Blue Angel ....................................................... B-47

Introduction ......................................................... B-47

Recent Developments ................................................. B-47

Program Summary .................................................... B-48

Program Methodology ................................................. B-49

Other Information .................................................... B-50

References .......................................................... B-50

Product Categories .................................................... B-51

Germany’s Green Dot Program ................................................ B-55

Introduction ......................................................... B-55

Recent Developments ................................................. B-55

Program Summary .................................................... B-55

Program Methodology ................................................. B-56

Other Information .................................................... B-57

References .......................................................... B-57

India’s Ecomark ............................................................ B-59

Introduction ......................................................... B-59

Recent Developments ................................................. B-59

Program Summary .................................................... B-60

Program Methodology ................................................. B-60

Other Information .................................................... B-61

References .......................................................... B-63

Product Categories .................................................... B-64
Table of Contents v

Japan's Ecomark ............................................................ B-65

Introduction ......................................................... B-65

Recent Developments ................................................. B-65

Program Summary .................................................... B-66

Program Methodology ................................................. B-66

Other Information .................................................... B-67

References .......................................................... B-67

Product Categories .................................................... B-68

South Korea’s Eco-mark ..................................................... B-71

Introduction ......................................................... B-71

Recent Developments ................................................. B-71

Program Summary .................................................... B-71

Program Methodology ................................................. B-72

References .......................................................... B-72

Product Categories .................................................... B-72

Malaysia’s Product Certification Program ........................................ B-75

Introduction ......................................................... B-75

Program Summary .................................................... B-75

Program Methodology ................................................. B-76

Other Information ................................................. B-76

References .......................................................... B-77

Product Categories .................................................... B-77

Netherland’s Stichting Milieukeur .............................................. B-79

Introduction ......................................................... B-79

Recent Developments ................................................. B-79

Program Summary .................................................... B-79

Program Methodology ................................................. B-80

Other Information .................................................... B-81

References .......................................................... B-81

Product Categories .................................................... B-81

New Zealand’s Environmental Choice .......................................... B-85

Introduction ......................................................... B-85

Recent Changes ...................................................... B-85

Program Summary .................................................... B-85

Program Methodology ................................................. B-86

Other Information .................................................... B-87

References .......................................................... B-87

Product Categories .................................................... B-87
vi Table of Contents

Singapore’s GreenLabel ...................................................... B-89

Introduction ......................................................... B-89

Recent Developments ................................................. B-89

Program Summary .................................................... B-89

Program Methodology ................................................. B-91

Other Information .................................................... B-91

References .......................................................... B-92

Product Categories .................................................... B-92

Spain’s AENOR - Medio Ambiente ............................................ B-95

Introduction ......................................................... B-95

Recent Developments ................................................. B-95

Program Summary .................................................... B-95

Program Methodology ................................................. B-96

Other Information .................................................... B-96

References .......................................................... B-96

Product Categories .................................................... B-96

Sweden’s Good Environmental Choice .......................................... B-99

Introduction ......................................................... B-99

Program Summary .................................................... B-99

Program Methodology ................................................ B-100

Other Information ................................................... B-100

References ......................................................... B-100

Taiwan’s Green Mark Program ............................................... B-101

Introduction ........................................................ B-101

Recent Developments ................................................ B-101

Program Summary .................................................. B-102

Program Methodology ................................................ B-104

Other Information ................................................... B-104

References ......................................................... B-105

Product Categories ................................................... B-105

Thailand’s Green Label Scheme .............................................. B-107

Introduction ........................................................ B-107

Recent Developments ................................................ B-107

Program Summary ................................................... B-107

Program Methodology ................................................ B-108

Other Information ................................................... B-108

References ......................................................... B-108

Product Categories ................................................... B-109
Table of Contents vii

US PROGRAMS

Rechargeable Battery Labeling ............................................... B-111

Introduction ........................................................ B-111

Program Summary ................................................... B-111

Program Methodology ................................................ B-112

Other Information ................................................... B-113

References ......................................................... B-113

Product Categories ................................................... B-113

The Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA) ................................. B-115

Introduction ........................................................ B-115

Program Summary ................................................... B-115

Program Methodology ................................................ B-116

Other Information ................................................... B-116

References ......................................................... B-116

Product Categories ................................................... B-116

US Environmental Protection Agency’s Consumer Labeling Initiative ................ B-119

The Rainforest Alliance - ECO-O.K. Certification Program ......................... B-121

Introduction ........................................................ B-121

Program Summary ................................................... B-121

Program Methodology ................................................ B-121

Other Information ................................................... B-123

References ......................................................... B-123

HVS Eco Services' Ecotel® Certification ........................................ B-125

Introduction ........................................................ B-125

Program Summary ................................................... B-125

Program Methodology ................................................ B-127

References ......................................................... B-127

Product Categories ................................................... B-128

The Energy Guide: Household Appliance Energy Efficiency Labeling ................ B-129

Introduction ........................................................ B-129

Program Summary ................................................... B-129

Program Methodology ................................................ B-131

References ......................................................... B-131

Product Categories ................................................... B-132
viii Table of Contents

US EPA Energy Star Programs ............................................... B-133

Introduction ........................................................ B-133

Recent Developments ................................................ B-133

Program Summaries .................................................. B-133

Program Methodology ................................................ B-137

References ......................................................... B-137

Product Categories ................................................... B-138

Fuel Economy Information Program ........................................... B-139

References ......................................................... B-140

Pesticide Labeling under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ....... B-141

Introduction ........................................................ B-141

Program Summary ................................................... B-141

Enforcement ........................................................ B-150

References ......................................................... B-150

Green Seal ............................................................... B-153

Introduction ........................................................ B-153

Recent Developments ................................................ B-153

Program Summary ................................................... B-153

Program Methodology ............................................... B-154

Other Information ................................................... B-155

References ......................................................... B-156

Product Categories ................................................... B-157

EPA'S Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) Warning Label .......................... B-161

Introduction ........................................................ B-161

Recent Developments ................................................ B-161

Program Summary ................................................... B-161

References ......................................................... B-163

California Proposition 65 .................................................... B-165

Introduction ........................................................ B-165

Recent Developments ................................................ B-165

Program Summary ................................................... B-166

Program Methodology ................................................ B-167

References ......................................................... B-167
Table of Contents ix

Scientific Certification Systems’ Environmental Claims Certification Program ......... B-169

Introduction ........................................................ B-169

Recent Developments ................................................ B-169

Program Summary ................................................... B-169

Program Methodology ................................................ B-170

Other Information ................................................... B-170

References ......................................................... B-170

Product Categories ................................................... B-171

Scientific Certification Systems’ Certified Eco-profile Labeling System ............... B-173

Introduction ........................................................ B-173

Recent Developments ................................................ B-173

Program Summary ................................................... B-174

Program Methodology ................................................ B-175

Other Information ................................................... B-176

References ......................................................... B-177

Product Categories ................................................... B-178

Scientific Certification Systems’ Forest Conservation Program ...................... B-179

Introduction ........................................................ B-179

Recent Developments ................................................ B-179

Program Summary .................................................. B-180

Program Methodology ................................................ B-181

Other Information ................................................... B-182

References ......................................................... B-182

Product Categories ................................................... B-183

Scientific Certification Systems’ Nutriclean Food Safety Management Program ......... B-185

Introduction ........................................................ B-185

Recent Developments ................................................ B-185

Program Summary .................................................. B-186

Program Methodology ................................................ B-187

Other Information ................................................... B-187

References ......................................................... B-187

Product Categories ................................................... B-188

Product Labeling under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ................... B-189

Introduction ........................................................ B-189

Program Summary ................................................... B-189

Examples of TSCA Labels ............................................. B-190

References ......................................................... B-192
x Table of Contents

Vermont Household Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling Program ................... B-193

Introduction ........................................................ B-193

Recent Developments ................................................ B-193

Program Summary .................................................. B-194

Program Methodology ................................................ B-195

References ......................................................... B-195

Product Categories ................................................... B-195

Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE) ............................... B-197

Introduction ........................................................ B-197

Program Summary ................................................... B-197

Program Methodology ................................................ B-199

References ......................................................... B-199

Product Categories ................................................... B-199

Buying Guides ............................................................ B-201

Greening the Government: A Guide to Implementing 

Executive Order 12873 ......................................... B-201

References ......................................................... B-201

The Green Pages .................................................... B-201

References ......................................................... B-202

US EPA National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards 

for Architectural Coatings .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-203

Introduction ........................................................ B-203

Program Summary .................................................. B-203

Program Methodology ................................................ B-205

References ......................................................... B-205

Product Categories ................................................... B-205

Programs Under Development ................................................ B-207

Brazilian Association for Standardization’s “ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental” ..... B-207

Introduction .................................................. B-207

Program Summary ............................................ B-207

Program Methodology .......................................... B-209

Other Information ............................................. B-209

References ................................................... B-209

Product Categories ............................................. B-209

Small Spark-Ignited Engine Environmental Labeling Program ................ B-210

References ................................................... B-210

Electric Utility ...................................................... B-210

References ................................................... B-211
Table of Contents xi

Indonesian Environmental Labeling ..................................... B-211

Introduction .................................................. B-211

References ................................................... B-212

Germany’s Type III Eco-report Card ..................................... B-213

References ................................................... B-213

Hong Kong Ecolabeling Scheme ........................................ B-213

References ................................................... B-214

Select Bibliography on Environmental Labeling ................... Bibliography-1
xii Table of Contents

Table of Figures, Tables, and Charts

Figure 1: Classification of Environmental Labeling ................................. xv

Chart 1-1: Flow of Information from Manufacturers to Consumers ....................... 2

Chart 3-1: Classification of Environmental Labeling ................................. 10

Chart 4-1: Program Type ....................................................... 17

Chart 4-2: Participation in Labeling Programs ...................................... 18

Table 4-1: Participation by Program and Label Type ................................. 20

Chart 4-3: Programs by Label Type ............................................... 20

Chart 4-4: Programs by Organization Type ......................................... 21

Chart 4-5: Programs by Financing Source .......................................... 22

Chart 4-6: Number of Programs Founded by Year (<1997) ............................ 23

Chart 4-7: Product Categories in Seal-of-Approval Programs .......................... 24

Chart 4-8: Number of Awards in Seal-of-Approval Programs .......................... 25

Figure 2: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs Worldwide .............. 27

Figure 3: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in Europe ............... 29

Figure 4: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in Pacific Rim .......... .31

Figure 5: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in 

North and South America ................................................ 33

Table 4-2: Missions/Goals Given for Programs Covered in This Report .................. 36

Chart 4-9: Programs by Methodology ............................................. 37

Chart 4-10: Programs by Stakeholder Involvement ................................... 38

Chart 4-11: Programs that use Non-environmental Attributes .......................... 40

Chart 4-12: Programs used in Procurement ......................................... 42

Chart 4-13: Use on Retail/Non-retail Products ...................................... 43

Chart 4-14: Programs With Other Activities ........................................ 44

Chart 4-15: Programs with Foreign-based Licenses .................................. 46

Chart 4-16: Programs that Indicate Working with Other Countries ...................... 47

Chart 4-17: Programs that Participate in ISO ....................................... 48

Chart 4-18: Programs that Report Trade Conflicts ................................... 50

Table 1: Toxicity Category Definition .......................................... B-144

Table 2: Hazard to Humans and Domestic Animal Precautionary Statements ........... B-146

Table 3: Acute Oral Toxicity Study*........................................... B-146

Table 4: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study ......................................... B-147

Table 5: Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study ....................................... B-147

Table 6: Primary Eye Irritation Study .......................................... B-148

Table 7: Primary Skin Irritation Study .......................................... B-148

Table 8: Dermal Sensitization Study ........................................... B-148

Table 9: Physical or Chemical Hazard Precautionary Statements .................... B-149
1 Verification refers to an evaluation process or determination that products or services meet specified

criteria or claims.

Scope of Report xiii

Environmental Labeling: Scope of this Report

Labeling programs can be classified according to a number of program characteristics, as

illustrated on the following figure (Figure 1). The most important is whether the program relies

on first-party or third-party verification1. The former is performed by marketers on their own

behalf to promote the positive environmental attributes of their products. Programs relying on

first-party verification are not addressed in this report. Third-party verification is carried out by

an independent source that awards labels to products based on certain environmental criteria or

standards. Environmental labeling programs can also be characterized as positive, negative, or

neutral. Positive labeling programs typically certify that labeled products possess one or more

environmentally preferable attributes. Negative labeling warns consumers about the harmful or

hazardous ingredients contained in the labeled products. Neutral labeling programs simply

summarize environmental information about products that can be interpreted by consumers as

part of their purchasing decisions. Third-party environmental labeling programs can be further

classified as either mandatory or voluntary. Mandatory programs include hazard or warning

labels, and information disclosure labels. Voluntary labels are typically positive or neutral, and

are further classified as either report cards, seal-of-approval, or single-attribute certification

programs. 

The US programs covered in this report include mandatory government programs, voluntary sealof-approval programs, single-attribute programs, hazard warning programs, and information

disclosure programs. Due to the scope of this report, not every labeling program that may be in

existence today is covered (e.g., food is not covered), and the report should not be seen as a

comprehensive study of all labeling programs worldwide. The report presents a snapshot of the

major environmental labeling programs in existence during the research phase for which

information was available.

xv

Figure 1: Classification of Environmental Labeling 

Environmental Labeling

First-Party

Environmental Labeling Programs

Third-Party

Environmental Labeling Programs

Product-Related Corporate-Related Mandatory Voluntary

Cause-Related

Marketing

(e.g., “Proceeds

donated to...”)

Claims

(e.g., Recyclable) Promotion of 

Corporate Env. 

Activity or 

Performance

Cause-Related

Marketing

(e.g., Company 

supports WWF)

Hazard or

Warning

(e.g., Pesticides, 

Prop. 65)

Environmental

Certification

Programs

Information 

Disclosure

(e.g., EPA fuel

economy label)

On Products

or Shelf labels

In Ads

Seal of

Approval

Report

Card

Single

Attribute

Certification
2

 This report builds on the Status Report on the Use of Environmental Labels Worldwide (EPA Document

#742-R-9-93-001) by updating findings and documenting changes.

3

 Gaining more prominence in the past few years is the environmental certification of certain service

industries such as hotels. Issues such as water conservation and energy efficiency are among the environmental

attributes most frequently evaluated. For ease of presentation, the term “products” will be used throughout the

Introduction 1

Environmental Labeling Issues, Policies, and Practices Worldwide

1. Introduction

This research is part of the EPA’s overall effort to educate and inform product users about the

environmental attributes and consequences of products they purchase. It documents the state of

environmental labeling worldwide and provides a basis for anticipating trends.2 This report

focuses on environmental labeling efforts aimed specifically at retail consumers; however, many

of the labeling activities and programs covered have non-retail applications. The findings are

expected to educate and inform those who may be directly affected (e.g., environmental policy

makers, product manufacturers, organizations/governments making large purchases of consumer

products) or indirectly affected (e.g., trade officials) by environmental labeling programs on the

operation and development of environmental labeling programs. This report should also advance

the debate about the utility of environmental labeling programs.

The term “environmental labeling” covers a broad range of activities from business-to-business

transfers of product-specific environmental information to environmental labeling in retail

markets. Labels, as well as other labeling program activities, serve a variety of purposes and

target a number of different audiences.

At one end of the spectrum, business-to-business environmental labeling includes activities such

as the provision of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), product stewardship programs, hazard

communication programs, and product manifests. All of these activities are meant either to

provide industrial customers and workers with information on the health, safety, and

environmental effects of the products they purchase or to encourage them to use these products in

ways that minimize their eventual impact on human health and the environment. At the other

end of the spectrum, environmental labeling programs have been established worldwide to help

consumers evaluate the environmental attributes of the products and services they are considering

buying. In this case, the term “consumer” is not limited to private citizens but includes

governments and large institutions seeking to incorporate environmental considerations into their

procurement processes.

One goal of such programs, typically, is to promote environmental improvement by encouraging

consumers to choose products and services considered to be environmentally preferable.3
report to refer to products and services.

2 Introduction

Related information dissemination activities include, but are not limited to, the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI), the Environmentally Preferable

Procurement (EPP) Program and other numerous product labeling programs, the International

Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) efforts to develop standardized environmental labeling

criteria, and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) guidelines for making environmental claims. 

Additionally, there are information disclosure activities among U.S. state programs. For

example, the state of California’s Proposition 65 program mandates that information on a set of

listed toxics be disclosed on product labels. Similarly, Vermont’s Household Hazardous

Products Shelf Labeling Program requires retailers to place a label on store shelves that stock

household products containing hazardous materials. These types of programs do not lead to

product labeling per se, but provide consumers with added information about the products they

purchase.

Information concerning the health and environmental effects of products and product constituents

is currently available through a number of pathways, of which labeling is just one. Much of this

information is already generated by manufacturers and is available at various stages of product

manufacture. For some but not all products, environmental information may be passed on to

retail customers (see Chart 1-1). 

Manufacture 

and Distribution

Point of 

Purchase

Use Disposal

Raw 

Materials

Environmental

Information

Finished 

products

Used 

products

Manufacturers/

retailers

Consumers

Reprocessing

For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires manufacturers to

generate an MSDS that includes a description of the product’s physical and chemical properties,

as well as its health, fire, and explosion hazards. MSDSs must be provided to workers, industrial

customers (e.g.., formulators and distributors) and Local Emergency Planning Committees.
Introduction 3

Warning information is required by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) during

interstate transport of hazardous materials such as explosives, flammables, radioactive materials,

and pathogens. Many of the chemical manufacturing, formulating, and distributing sectors have

adopted the tenets of product stewardship. Companies practicing product stewardship take a

“cradle-to-grave” approach to their products by encouraging the safe use and disposal of their

products after they have been sold to industrial customers. Product stewardship can take the

form of voluntary services offered to customers in the form of brochures, training videos, and site

audits, as well as mandatory requirements that determine whether or not the company will sell or

ship to a specific company. The Chemical Manufacturers Association’s Responsible Care

Program is one example of a product stewardship program. These information dissemination

activities serve different purposes and typically, neither reach the general public, nor are 

organized into a format that would be readily understandable by consumers. With the current

increase in consumer right-to-know initiatives, particularly in the US, and interest in its uses as a

soft policy tool, the demand for environmental labeling has been increasing.

The type of information presented on labels varies widely, depending on issues specific to the

product and whether labeling is mandatory or voluntary. For example, products subject to the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements must carry labels that

list the active ingredients in the product, first aid statements, environmental, physical and

chemical hazards, directions for use, and instructions for storage and disposal. Other products

may carry voluntary labels specific only to environmental attributes such as the percent of postconsumer recycled content of the product or its packaging. Note that these examples all describe

characteristics of the product during use or disposal: some labels may also present information

about the manufacture of the product. For example, categories like resource consumption,

energy use, pollutant releases to the environment, and workplace and ecosystem effects may be

addressed.

Environmental labels provide an opportunity to inform consumers about product characteristics 

that may not be readily apparent. For example, it may be unsuitable to pour unused cleaning

product down the drain, due to the product’s potential aquatic toxicity. Additionally, labels allow

consumers to make comparisons among products. Armed with this information, consumers have

the ability to reduce the environmental impacts of their daily activities by purchasing

environmentally preferable products and minimizing their consequences during use and disposal.

Labels help consumers vote their preferences in the marketplace and therefore potentially shift

the market toward products that minimize environmental impacts. Label information helps

consumers to use safely and properly recycle or dispose of both products and packaging.

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview and analysis of environmental labeling

programs worldwide. Chapter 2 provides an overview of environmental labeling from the

perspective of the United States. The chapter sets out some important background issues,

history, and definitions, all of which are critical to understanding the development of

environmental labeling to date, as well the future outlook for US programs. Chapter 3 describes
4 Introduction

the types of environmental labeling programs, including specific definitions of program types. 

Chapter 4 presents an overview of environmental labeling programs worldwide. Topics covered

include program breadth, methodology, recent changes, and coordination with other programs. 

Summary statistics are also provided. In Chapter 5, the forces affecting environmental labeling

programs, such as public/societal interests, consumer interests, retailer’s interests, producer’s

interests, operating costs/profits, standardization, and procurement programs are discussed. 

Chapter 6 discusses recent program changes and possible future trends. Finally, Appendix A

summarizes the labeling programs covered in this report, and Appendix B provides detailed

program summaries. The findings and summaries contained herein are based on a number of

efforts that provide complementary research, including EPA's direct experience with

environmental labeling and labeling programs, EPA's involvement in related governmental

initiatives, literature reviews and investigations into labeling and program administration, and

EPA's coordination with domestic and international programs.
4

 “G-7" consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, USA, and the UK.

Environmental Labeling: The US Perspective 5

2. Environmental Labeling: The US Perspective

2.1. Background

In all of the seven major industrialized nations (the “G7"), continual efforts have been made to

compile environmental performance information specific to a wide range of products and

services.4 Such information is disseminated to consumers through hundreds of labeling

programs, both governmental and non-governmental. These programs are implemented at

various points throughout the manufacturing process, from raw material extraction to use and

disposal. It is important to note that environmental labeling has practical implications in the

marketplace, where goods and services compete for consumers, as well as public policy

implications for governments, which are typically charged with the protection of environmental

quality -- a “common good” owned collectively by society. Labeling in the US is no longer

separable from labeling activities in foreign countries, such as ecolabeling programs, nor from

international activities, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)14000

standard-setting process. Thus, the scope of this report focuses on US programs, yet includes

active foreign “ecolabeling” programs.

In simple terms, environmental labeling is defined as making relevant environmental information

available to the appropriate consumers. Environmental labeling is the practice of labeling

products based on a wide range of environmental considerations (e.g., hazard warnings, certified

marketing claims, and information disclosure labels). Labeling contributes to the

decision-making process inherent in product selection, purchasing, use and disposal, or

retirement. Yet unlike most regulations that affect the behavior or actions of a limited number of

entities (e.g., facilities or companies), labeling is designed to influence all consumers. In this

context, the definition of “consumers” encompasses all individuals and organizations making

purchase decisions regarding products and services, ranging from procurement officers of

governments and corporations to individual retail consumers. Environmental labeling often also

affects manufacturers and marketers as they design and formulate products that must compete

based on quality, price, availability and, to varying degrees, environmental attributes.

Current initiatives to harmonize programs worldwide and to establish labeling standards

recognize the diversity among the many types of environmental labels and the many programs

now active. Some programs highlight just a single attribute of a product, such as the recycled

fiber content of paper; others examine multiple attributes. Some programs, such as those

developing automobile fuel economy labels, are neutral (i.e., they make no comparisons among

similar products), while other programs attempt to identify environmentally preferable products

for the consumer. Some, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) pesticide

labeling program, establish mandatory requirements (typically issued by the government as part
6 Environmental Labeling: The US Perspective

of statutory requirements), whereas other programs are operated by independent third parties and

are typically voluntary. Another form of labeling includes self-declarations made by

manufacturers. While many programs target the retail consumer, programs such as EPA's

Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP) program target institutional decision-makers, e.g.,

federal procurement officials.

Each of these labeling and program characteristics is closely related to the underlying

methodologies used to evaluate the products' environmental attributes. The most comprehensive

methodologies examine a product's entire life cycle, from material extraction, through

production, to use and disposal. Whereas there is no single established standard, life cycle

approaches are the most commonly used by labeling programs. Life-cycle approaches are usually

adopted due to the difficulty of selecting a small set of attributes to represent what are in fact

complex site-specific environmental consequences. Some programs, however, such as the US

Energy Star program, assess products on a life-cycle approach but look primarily at a single

characteristic of whether products meet energy-efficiency criteria.

Whereas much debate exists surrounding what constitutes an optimal program, and what

information and format are most useful to those making purchase decisions, all such efforts

contribute to the generation and dissemination of environmental information in the marketplace. 

Furthermore, the increased amount of information regarding environmental attributes and

performance affects manufacturers upstream by pressuring them to take environmental attributes

into consideration when designing or manufacturing their products. Overall, the combined effect

is greater availability and use of such information in the US and in other marketplaces throughout

the world.

2.2. Environmental Labeling in the US

Much of the current research on environmental labeling programs focuses on the emerging thirdparty environmental labeling programs. (Third-party labeling programs use an independent

source for their verification process.) Most of these programs are designed to either identify

environmentally superior products or to inventory the products' environmental impact or burden

categories (so that consumers can make such determinations themselves). While such programs

exist in the US and many foreign markets, they do not and cannot represent the full spectrum of

environmental labeling. In the US, such programs are relatively new compared to third-party

environmental labeling programs in other countries, which are typically run by governments. 

Furthermore, there are tremendous differences among the missions of US programs. The

existing US government programs often exist to implement specific requirements of statutes or

regulations. For example, to be effective, hazard/warning labels typically are mandatory, and

usually only governmental authorities have the power to impose such requirements on all

products in the marketplace.
5All of these efforts involve research efforts, some of which resulted in published reports, such as the

Status Report on the Use of Environmental Labels Worldwide, The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in Environmental

Labeling, and Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental Certification and Labeling Program.

Environmental Labeling: The US Perspective 7

From a domestic perspective, environmental labeling in the US encompasses over 20 programs. 

In addition to the governmental warning labeling programs mentioned above, there are also:

< federal government programs dealing with disseminating relative performance

information, such as the Energy Guide;

< governmental and private programs establishing performance or attribute standards and

collecting information for decision-makers, although not necessarily involved in point-ofpurchase labeling;

< private third-party programs, issuing both neutral and positive labels;

< environmental marketing claims made by manufacturers and marketers with guidance

issued by the Federal Trade Commission; and

< federal, state, and local hazard warning programs.

Taken collectively, the labeling activities and coverage (re: product categories) of these programs

play a substantive role in the US marketplace. The fact that US labeling is dispersed among

many different programs requires greater attention to coordination, particularly during bilateral or

multilateral harmonization and negotiations.

Since the creation of the Pesticide Labeling Program in 1947, EPA and its prior organizational

entities have been involved in product evaluation and the administration of an environmental

labeling program. Today, EPA is involved in 13 such programs, ranging from warning labels

under the Toxic Substances and Control Act to the development of standards, used in the

Agency's own Green Buildings and Energy Star programs and life cycle research for selected

products and processes. (A full list of these programs is presented in Chapter 4.) EPA is also

involved in other governmental programs, such as the Energy Guide for appliances, which is

administered jointly with the Department of Energy.5 Finally, EPA has contact in some form

with almost all environmental labeling programs, both foreign and domestic. Such contact

ranges from intermittent briefings and discussions, to exchanges of technical information used in

developing standards to joint participation in International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) activities.

Environmental labeling in the US marketplace is both active and wide-ranging. Consequently,

the model of a single centralized labeling program does not fit the US experience, nor is it

warranted, given the number of longstanding programs in existence and lack of a (federal)

mandate to consolidate such activities. Summary information and the interrelationships among

environmental labeling programs, both US and foreign, are examined in detail in the following

chapters.

6 Verification refers to the process by which an assessment and/or verification determines that products and

services meet specified criteria or claims.

7 Attributes refer to certain unique characteristics of the product.

Definition of Environmental Labeling 9

3. Definition of Environmental Labeling

Labeling programs can be classified according to a number of program characteristics (see Chart

3-1). One of the most important is whether or not the program relies on first-party or third-party

verification.6 The former is performed by marketers on their own behalf to promote the positive

environmental attributes of their products.7 Programs relying on first-party verification are not

addressed in this report. Third-party verification is carried out by an independent source that

awards labels to products based on certain environmental criteria or standards. Environmental

labeling programs can also be characterized as positive, negative, or neutral. Positive labeling

programs typically certify that labeled products possess one or more environmentally preferable

attributes. Negative labeling warns consumers about the harmful or hazardous ingredients

contained in the labeled products. Neutral labeling programs simply summarize environmental

information about products that can be interpreted by consumers as part of their purchasing

decisions. Third-party environmental labeling programs can be further classified as either

mandatory or voluntary. Mandatory programs include hazard or warning labels, and information

disclosure labels. Voluntary labels are typically positive or neutral, and are further classified as

either report cards, seal-of-approval, or single-attribute certification programs. A classification

of each type of positive, negative, and neutral labeling program is presented on the following

page.
10

Chart 3-1: Classification of Environmental Labeling 

Environmental Labeling

First-Party

Environmental Labeling Programs

Third-Party

Environmental Labeling Programs

Product-Related Corporate-Related Mandatory Voluntary

Cause-Related

Marketing

(e.g., “Proceeds

donated to...”)

Claims

(e.g., Recyclable) Promotion of 

Corporate Env. 

Activity or 

Performance

Cause-Related

Marketing

(e.g., Company 

supports WWF)

Hazard or

Warning

(e.g., Pesticides, 

Prop. 65)

Environmental

Certification

Programs

Information 

Disclosure

(e.g., EPA fuel

economy label)

On Products

or Shelf labels

In Ads

Seal of

Approval

Report

Card

Single

Attribute

Certification
Definition of Environmental Labeling 11

3.1. Positive Labeling Programs

Third-party verification programs are typically voluntary in nature and identify positive or

neutral environmental aspects of a product. Labeling programs focusing on the positive

attributes of a product are divided into two types: seal-of-approval (the most common) and

single-attribute certification programs. They are described below.

Seal-of-Approval Programs

Seal-of-approval programs award or license the use of a logo to products that the program judges

to be less environmentally harmful than comparable products, based on a specific set of award

criteria. The operation of each such program differs slightly, but in general they follow a threestep process: product category definition, development of award criteria, and product evaluation. 

First, product categories are chosen. These categories can generally be suggested by either

manufacturers or program officials. Once a product category has been decided upon, criteria are

set for receiving a label within that category.

These criteria are usually based on some form of life-cycle consideration, (not necessarily a full

life-cycle analysis (LCA)). There is usually a public review of program decisions. After criteria

are set, applications are received, candidate products are evaluated, and awards are granted. In

general, criteria are reviewed about every three years, and contracts have to be renewed. The

review process is designed to provide for a continuous tightening of award criteria, such that only

a small percentage of products will qualify for the label, thus providing an incentive for all other

product manufacturers to improve the environmental attributes of their products. It is a complex

task requiring the consideration of many factors, including environmental policy goals, consumer

awareness of environmental issues, trade positioning, effects on imports and exports, and

economic effects on domestic industry. Well-known seal-of-approval programs include

Germany’s Blue Angel, Canada’s Eco-logo, and the US’s Green Seal.

Seal-of-approval programs tend to have similar administrative structures. In a typical program,

the government’s environmental agency is involved to some extent. In some situations a

government agency administers the program; in others they simply provide informal advice or

funding. The bulk of the responsibility rests with a central decision-making board typically

composed of academics and scientists, business and trade representatives, consumer groups,

environmental groups, and government representatives. Technical expertise is provided by the

government, standards-setting organizations, consultants, expert panels, and/or ad hoc task forces

established to work on specific product categories. 

Single-attribute Certification Programs

Single-attribute certification programs certify that claims made for a single-attribute of a product

meet a specified definition. Such programs define specific terms such as “recycled” or

“biodegradable” and accept applications from marketers for verification that their product

attribute meet the program definition. If the programs verify that the product attributes meets

their definitions, the program awards the use of the logo to the marketer. The primary single
12 Definition of Environmental Labeling

certification program in the US is the Scientific Certification System’s (SCS) Single Claim

Attribute Certification. Alternatively, programs can set definitions of claims and manufacturers

must meet these requirements. This is the case with the US Energy Star program, which sets

stringent energy-efficient standards that products must meet before being awarded the “Energy

Star.”

3.2. Negative Labeling Programs

Hazard/Warning Labels

Hazard or warning labels are mandatory labels that appear on certain products containing

potentially harmful or hazardous ingredients. The purpose of such labels is to point out the

negative characteristics of the product clearly and encourage the safe use of potentially hazardous

products. Hazard or warning labels are typically mandatory programs that are initiated by a

third-party (e.g., a government agency), which require that information be disclosed to consumers

for health and safety reasons. Alternatively, manufacturers may voluntarily provide

hazard/warning information on their products for liability purposes.

Well known hazard/warning labels in the US include pesticide labeling under FIFRA, which

provides important warnings and advice for users; the Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarettes;

and the skull and crossbones label on poisons. Warning labels specific to health hazards include

the State of California’s Proposition 65 (see Program Summary Appendix for greater detail),

which requires chemicals known to cause cancer or developmental or reproductive toxicity to be

listed by the governor. Warnings must also be provided by businesses for a number of specific

reasons, which include intentional exposure of individuals to these listed chemicals at significant

levels.

Proponents of such disclosure warning labels claim that manufacturers will remove the offending

chemicals rather than suffer the market setbacks (e.g., adverse publicity and loss of market share)

that a hazard/warning label might cause. They argue that this approach provides a stronger

incentive to reformulate products (to avoid hazardous ingredients) than would a voluntary

environmental certification program. If true, the results/benefits of such an approach would be

more certain to cause marketplace shifts.
Definition of Environmental Labeling 13

3.3. Neutral Labeling Programs

Information Disclosure Programs

Unlike hazard/warning labels, which identify negative attributes, information disclosure

programs are neutral. That is, the label contains summary facts that can then be used by

consumers in making their purchasing decisions. One important requirement of information

disclosure programs is that information needs to be simplified and comparable across products.

Since the facts disclosed are not always positive selling features and may not otherwise be

reported by marketers, information disclosure programs are usually mandatory. Unlike

hazard/warning labels, which usually are mandated for health and safety reasons, information

disclosure labels are developed because the program believes that consumers have the “right to

know” about the product.

Perhaps the best known information disclosure label is the US Food and Drug Administration’s

(FDA) nutrition label. The food label must appear on most processed food sold in the US;

labeling of unprocessed fruits and vegetables is voluntary. Examples of environmental

information disclosure labels include the automobile Fuel Economy Information Program and the

Energy Guide program. The Fuel Economy Information Program is an EPA/Department of

Energy (DOE) initiative; the Energy Guide is an EPA initiative. The automobile Fuel Economy

Information Program requires that a label listing the mileage rating be affixed to all new cars and

trucks sold. Begun as a voluntary program in 1973, it soon became mandatory for auto makers to

report the mileage rating of new vehicles. The Energy Guide program requires that a label

disclosing energy consumption per year or an energy efficiency rating be affixed to certain

household appliances, such as refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, water heaters, clothes

washers, dishwashers, furnaces, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, and heat pumps.

An interesting hybrid of the information disclosure label is the battery labeling program. This 

program, administered by the EPA Office of Solid Waste, requires that a label appear on certain

batteries and rechargeable consumer products, stating the chemical name (nickel-cadmium or

lead) and the phrase "BATTERY MUST BE RECYCLED OR DISPOSED OF PROPERLY." 

While this type of labeling is mandatory and presents neutral information (the chemical name), it

also notifies users/consumers of their legal obligation to dispose of the product properly.

Report Cards

The report card label, one type of information disclosure label, uses a standardized format to

categorize and quantify various impacts/burdens that a product has on the environment. Specific

and consistent information (for example, pounds of air emissions) is presented on the label,

allowing a comparison across categories. By providing the consumer with standardized detailed

information and little interpretation, the report card allows consumers to make judgments based

on their particular environmental concerns.

In the US, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) has prepared an eco-profile that can be applied
14 Definition of Environmental Labeling

to any product category. These eco-profiles are based on a life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is

the first step in the more comprehensive Life Cycle Stressor Effects Assessment (LCSEA). The

SCS eco-profile evaluation is a multi-step process involving the identification and quantification

of inputs and outputs for every stage of a product’s life cycle including raw materials extraction,

material processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. Based on the assessment,

three claims of achievement may be certified:

< certified environmental state-of-the-art,

< certified environmental improvements, and

< certified environmental advantages.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 15

4. Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

4.1. Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of a variety of different types of labeling programs in the US,

and primarily voluntary, seal-of-approval, programs in other countries. The majority of the

overseas programs covered in this report are government- or quasi-government-run programs.

Typically, there is one such national (voluntary) labeling program in each country. In contrast,

the US, lacking such a national labeling program, has a variety of different types of programs in

operation. The US programs covered in this report include mandatory government programs,

voluntary seal-of-approval programs, single-attribute programs, hazard warnings programs, and

information disclosure programs. Charts are provided throughout this chapter to illustrate the

discussion; often, these charts are used to show the difference between the programs in the US

and the rest of the world.

Due to the scope of this report, not every labeling program that may be in existence today is

covered (e.g., food is not covered), and the report should not be seen as a comprehensive study of

all labeling programs worldwide. The report presents a “snapshot” of the major environmental

labeling programs in existence during the research phase and for which information was

available. Unless otherwise noted, the charts in this section include all programs surveyed as

part of this report.

Section 4.2 provides some fundamental information about labeling programs, such as label and

program type, how programs are administered and financed, and changes to programs over the

years. Section 4.3 includes several maps that show the geographic distribution of the labeling

programs covered in this report. Section 4.4 provides an overview of the reasons environmental

labeling programs are initiated, as well as the methodologies used by each program to establish

product categories and award criteria. A discussion of the ways in which environmental labeling

is being used today, either for procurement purposes or in trade, is given in Section 4.5. Section

4.6 provides a brief discussion of the changes that have occurred in labeling programs. Finally,

Section 4.7 describes the efforts countries are making to coordinate their environmental labeling

programs with each other.

4.2. Fundamental Information

This section helps to define the basics of existing environmental labeling programs by

summarizing information and characteristics fundamental to each environmental labeling

program. Characteristics discussed include program and label type, program administration,

financing, and age, as well as number or range of product categories and awards. It should be

noted that certain program characteristics are frequently linked. For example, programs

identifying negative product attributes are, by necessity, mandatory. Furthermore, mandatory 
16 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

programs are typically administered by governments, since environmental regulations may

provide them with the authority to require mandatory labeling. In the case of the State of

California’s Proposition 65, considered to be a hazard warning program, businesses that

knowingly expose individuals to any of a list of chemicals are required to provide a warning of

such exposure. Most seal-of-approval programs, however, are third-party and voluntary. As

their name implies, such programs award labels for (relative) positive environmental attributes.

For a listing of the programs covered in this report, refer to the overview table in Appendix A. 

For detailed summaries of the programs contacted and included in this report, refer to the reports

in Appendix B.

Program Type

The programs reviewed issue one of three kinds of labels: positive, negative, or neutral. Most of

the programs discussed in this report award positive labels indicating to the consumer that the

environmental attributes of the labeled product in some way outperforms the environmental

attributes of other similar products. Certification of the positive environmental attributes of a

product provides manufacturers with an incentive to apply for an environmental label in the

hopes of capturing more market share and improving corporate goodwill.

Negative labels, on the other hand, are typically required by law and are used to present the

hazards associated with use and disposal of the product. For example, Vermont’s Household

Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling Program requires all retailers stocking household products

containing hazardous constituents to identify those products via a shelf label. Given that most

regulations establish guidance only, mandatory labeling programs require a statement of fact, and 

do not necessarily result in a comparable labeling format or information across products. In

addition, differing requirements across jurisdictions for mandates that are not updated to reflect

the current state of the economy can result in clutter on the label and/or higher labeling costs for

marketers.

Neutral labels, such as the US Energy Guide, simply report summary facts about the product and

allow consumers to make their own judgments based on their particular concerns. Such labels

can also provide information for manufacturers and others who may use the information for

internal use (e.g., benchmarking studies). The container’s size, however, may dictate how much

neutral label information can be included.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 17

As shown in the following chart, there is an fairly even split in the number of positive, negative,

and neutral US programs covered in this report. As mentioned above, however, the majority of

other countries’ programs covered in this report are positive programs, reflecting the fact that

most of these are seal-of-approval programs (see Chart 4-1). 

Chart 4-1: Program Type

(based on programs reviewed)

Program

Positive Negative Neutral

US

9

Outside

US

31

US

5

Outside

US

0

US

7

Outside

US

2
18 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Participation

Participation in labeling programs can be either mandatory or voluntary. This report includes

voluntary programs worldwide and mandatory and voluntary programs in the US; due to the

scope of this report, not every existing program was surveyed. Of the programs surveyed, most

are voluntary (this is exclusively so for the programs outside the US). US programs covered in

this report are fairly evenly split between mandatory and voluntary programs (see Chart 4-2).

Chart 4-2: Participation in Labeling Programs

(based on programs reviewed)

Participation

Mandatory Voluntary

US

8

Outside

US

0

US

12

Outside

US

31

With voluntary programs, manufacturers choose to participate in a program and typically submit

an application for a specific product to be labeled. To encourage manufacturers to participate,

emphasis is placed on the positive attributes of a product. Because these programs are propelled

by their market influence, manufacturers apply for a label when it increases their product’s

marketability as well as their competitive edge.

Mandatory programs, on the other hand, can require the identification of negative product

characteristics, and are typically one element of a regulatory approach to consumer and

environmental protection. For example, the US battery labeling requirements mandate that

rechargeable cadmium and/or lead batteries carry labels that inform users of the contents of the

batteries and indicate that batteries must be recycled and/or properly disposed. Whether or not a

program is mandatory or voluntary will influence the extent and type of information about

environmental attributes on labels in the marketplace. Typically, mandatory programs result in

more comprehensive dissemination of information in the marketplace, since all similar products

are required to carry a label.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 19

Label Type

The types of labels awarded by programs fall into the following categories: seal-of-approval,

single-attribute, hazard warning, information disclosure, and report card. Most programs

discussed in this report award “seal-of-approval” labels; they license use of a seal (label) for one

or more superior product characteristics. These programs generally evaluate multiple attributes of

a product and employ some form of life-cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental

impacts of the product. (LCA is a process that encompasses consideration of all aspects of the

manufacture of a product from natural resource extraction to product disposal.)

Some of the programs contacted analyze only a single product attribute and award a label

certifying the environmental preferability of only that attribute. For example, Germany’s Green

Dot program certifies that packaging manufacturers participate in an established source reduction

or recycling program for consumer packaging waste. As mentioned above, hazard warning

programs identify the negative attributes of a product and are generally mandatory. Finally,

information disclosure programs and report cards both present neutral summary information on

an established set of environmental attributes.

The choice of label type by program will have an effect not only on the level of information

consumers receive about environmental attributes, but on the way in which they are likely to

interpret this information. For example, single-attribute labels provide information on only one

environmental attribute. Report card labels provide information on a number of environmental

attributes. While the single-attribute label may suggest to the consumer that the product has an

environmentally preferable attribute, this may not be the attribute that the consumer cares most

about. Alternatively, while the report card label may present information on all the attributes the

consumer cares about, the consumer may not be able to judge the overall environmental

preferability of the product. To better understand the relationships among label type,

participation and program type, Table 4-1 compares the associations among these various

categories.
20 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Table 4-1: Participation by Program and Label Type

Mandatory Voluntary

Positive

N/A Seal-of-approval

Single-attribute

Neutral Information Disclosure Report card

Negative Hazard warning N/A

The majority of programs contacted for this report are seal-of-approval programs. This is

overwhelmingly so for the overseas programs; 30 out of the 33 overseas programs covered in this

report are seal-of-approval programs. Though the majority of US programs included in this

report are also seal-of-approval programs, they exhibit a greater variety of label type. This may

be a reflection of the fact that the US does not have a national third-party labeling program,

whereas seal-of-approval programs are the national program for many of the other countries (see

Chart 4-3).
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 21

1

3

4

1

12

4

16

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Quasi-Govt

Non-Govt Org

Private-For Profit

Private-Nonprofit

Government

Organization

# of Programs in this Report

US Outside US

Chart 4-4: Programs by Organization Type

(based on programs reviewed)

Administration

Programs are sponsored and/or administered by governments, private companies (for profit and

non-profit), non-governmental organizations, or some combination of the above (quasigovernmental). This is true for both US and non-US programs. A program is defined as quasigovernmental if two or more groups are involved in the administration of the program and one is

a governmental entity. Frequently, programs are considered quasi-governmental because they

were started by or are supported by a government, while also relying on a private company to run

their daily activities. Among those included in this report, the US is dominant in programs that

are privately run. Green Seal and SCS are examples of programs run by private companies. The

distribution of programs included in this study by administration type can be found in the chart

below (see Chart 4-4). Programs’ administrative bodies affect the longevity of the program in a

number of ways. The administrative body often provides (or can provide if necessary) the

financial backing and other resources (e.g., office space, supplies) for the program. Thus,

governmental or quasi-governmental-backed programs are expected to survive in the long run

due to the possibility of other formal and informal subsidies. Similarly, non-governmental

organizations (other than private companies), such as a National Standards Institute, may also

have other operations or resources from which the labeling program may draw. Of the programs

contacted for this report, most are run by governments; very few are run by private organizations.
22 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Financing

Many labeling programs are not yet fully self-sufficient, and require additional financing to cover

their operating costs. Programs are financed a number of ways (see Chart 4-5). They can be

financed by the government, by fees collected for their services, by revenue streams from other

operations, by other sources such as payment from private companies and donations from private

and public organizations, or by a combination of any of these. As shown in the figure below,

fees and government funding are the major sources cited by those programs contacted for this

study. Those programs funded solely by fees may have a somewhat higher credibility risk

because of the inherent conflict between independent selection of product categories (and setting

of award criteria) and the need to generate revenue (i.e., have customers for licenses) to cover

both fixed and operating costs. Yet, even those programs that are government subsidized have

stated goals of financial self-sufficiency.

Year Founded

The year the program was founded establishes a timeline of environmental labeling program

formation. Programs that began in the early 1970s and pre-1970 are primarily US programs. 

The exception is Germany’s Blue Angel program, the oldest seal-of-approval program in

existence. The US programs that began in these early years of environmental labeling are the

Energy Guide, the Fuel Economy Information Program, the US EPA Pesticide Program (FIFRA),

which began in 1947, and EPA’s toxic substances control program under the Toxic Substances
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 23

Control Act (TSCA). Most of these are mandatory programs (with the exception of Energy

Guide and Fuel Economy, which are both information disclosure programs), and were initiated

by the US government when it became evident that health and safety information, particularly

about agricultural pesticides, had to be conveyed to consumers. The recent growth in

environmental labeling is illustrated in Chart 4-6, which presents the start-up year of programs

included in this report.
24 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Product Categories

The number of product categories covered helps to identify the size and scope of a program, as

well as the program’s stage of development and how long it has been in existence. The

following chart (see Chart 4-7) indicates the current number of product categories covered by

each program surveyed in this report. Note that this chart includes only seal-of-approval

programs that are already developed; other types of programs tend to only have one or two

product categories and are therefore not as relevant to this breakout. The number of categories

currently ranges from fewer than 10 (10 programs) to more than 50 product categories (3

programs). It should be noted, however, that all programs are continually developing product

categories. As programs are increasingly sharing more information, the rate of product category

definition and criteria development is rising.

The types of products for which criteria are developed also varies. Appendix B contains a

detailed list of product categories for each program summary. The most prevalent categories are

paper products (including towels, toilet paper, office paper), detergents, office equipment, and

dishwashers. (Selection of such categories reflects products for which the environmental impacts

have been studied in detail over time.) It is relatively easy for programs to adopt standards for

these categories, hence their occurrence in almost all environmental labeling programs. Less

typical categories usually reflect the particular needs or conditions of individual markets. For

example, to accommodate one of its largest export products, India’s Ecomark program is

considering the establishment of a category for leather goods. In Japan, standards have been

developed for fusuma and shoji paper made from recycled pulp. In Germany, because of a

sensitivity to noise pollution, standards have been developed for products that generate

comparatively less noise, such as low-noise construction machines, low-noise compost choppers,

and low-noise mopeds.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 25

Number of Awards

The number of awards conferred by a program depends on how many product categories it has

established and how long it has been in existence. For example, long-standing, well-established

programs such as Germany’s Blue Angel have had years to select product categories, develop

criteria, and garner support among manufacturers, government, and consumers. Programs such as

these may have bestowed thousands of awards. Such programs are well known in the

marketplace and thus will have the potential for reaching many consumers. Moreover, these

programs may have gone through several criteria revisions and thus added product categories

over time. A strong market presence may encourage programs to set higher standards, thus

creating incentives among manufacturers to continue to strive for improvement in their products. 

New programs have had little time to establish product categories and criteria or award many

labels. If a program has little visibility, manufacturers may not have an incentive to apply for the

label, thus reducing the number of labels that a program will be able to award. Also, the cost to

apply for the label will likely affect the number of awards bestowed. To encourage more people

to apply for the GreenLabel, the Singapore Ministry of the Environment bears all the costs of the

program, thereby minimizing the manufacturer’s fees. The results have been that manufacturers

have applied for the GreenLabel in relatively large numbers; over 700 products have been

awarded the label. The US SCS program, which has been in existence since 1984, now has over

400 growers who have applied for their products to obtain the SCS Nutriclean label.

The following chart indicates the current number of awards given by the developed seal-ofapproval programs (see Chart 4-8). 
8

 This report does not count the total number of products sold or total number of companies receiving a

license as the number of awards per program.

26 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Differences in the number of labels awarded may also be due to differences in “accounting”

practices. While most programs count a product receiving an award (e.g., Company X’s recycled

paper product) as one award, other programs count an awarded company as one award (e.g., even

though Company X may have an award for two of their products, towels and copier paper, they

are only counted once). Other programs count each awarded product that sits on the shelf as one

award (e.g., each labeled package of recycled paper is counted once).8

4.3. Geographic Representation

The following maps identify information about the major programs in each country. Figure 1

locates each program covered in this report on a world map. Figures 2, 3, and 4 divide the world

into three regions (Europe, Pacific Rim, and North and South America) and provide the country

name, program name, and whether the program is part of the European Union (EU), a G7 nation,

or both.
Figure 2: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs Worldwide

a

a

Covered in this Report

Iceland

Norway

United

Kingdom

Germany

Czech

Republic

Austria

Croatia

Greece

Italy

France

Portugal Spain

Finland

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Denmark

(G7,EU)

(G7,EU)

(G7,EU)

(EU) (EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

(EU)

b

b

Covered in this Report

Figure 3: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in Europe

Country Program

Austria Austrian Ecolabel

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label

Czech Republic Czech Ecolabel

Denmark Nordic Swan

Finland Nordic Swan

France NF-Environment Mark

Germany Blue Angel & Green Dot

Greece EU Ecolabelling Scheme

Iceland Nordic Swan

Italy EU Ecolabelling Scheme

Luxembourg EU Ecolabelling Scheme

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur

Norway Nordic Swan

Portugal EU Ecolabelling Scheme

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente

United Kingdom EU Ecolabelling Scheme

China

India

Japan

South

Korea

Thailand

Indonesia

Malaysia

New

Zealand

Singapore

Taiwan

(G7)

Figure 4: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in the Pacific Rim

Covered in this Report

c

c

Country Program

China Ecolabeling Program

India India's Ecomark

Indonesia In Development

Japan Japan's Ecomark

Malaysia Product Certification Program

New Zealand Environmental Choice

Singapore Green Label

South Korea Korea's Ecomark

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme

t

Canada

United States

Brazil

(G7)

(G7)

Green Star & Energy Star

Products Association, Battery Labeling,

Certification Systems, Chlorine Free

Ecotel, Energy Guide, ECO-O.K., Scientific

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice Program

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality

Country Program

United States

Figure 5: Positive and Neutral Third Party Ecolabeling Programs in North & South America

Covered in this Report

d

d

Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 35

4.4. Program Methodology

This section describes the various reasons for which environmental labeling programs are

initiated, as well as the methodologies used by each program to establish product categories and

develop award criteria. A discussion of stakeholder involvement in this process is also

presented; such involvement is key to the transparency and nondiscrimination called for in draft

ISO standards. Similarities or differences between adopted methodologies will influence the

extent to which programs will be able to standardize or mutually recognize their operations with

those of other programs. The analytical methodologies employed by programs are also closely

linked to programs’ credibility.

Program Goals

All environmental labeling programs aim to improve some aspect of environmental quality in

their respective countries by reducing pollution. Typically, they are formed with the country’s

specific environmental improvement goals and needs in mind. In general, environmental

labeling programs work toward this goal by recognizing manufacturers that produce and market

products that are (relatively) less harmful to the environment and by encouraging consumers to

purchase products labeled as environmentally preferable. If consumers buy environmentally

preferable products due to label information, it’s hoped that market forces will encourage other

producers to change their manufacturing procedures to reduce environmental harm. For

example, Canada’s TerraChoice program seeks to “reduce the stress on the environment by

encouraging the demand for and supply of environmentally responsible products and services.” 

Another common goal expressed by environmental labeling programs is to educate consumers

and increase environmental awareness. It is hoped that through widespread visibility of

environmental labels, consumers will be educated, and information will be disseminated

regarding environmentally preferable products and “green consumerism.” Japan’s Ecomark, for

example, seeks to “disseminate information on the environmental aspects of products and to

encourage consumers to choose environmentally sound products.” Similarly, Singapore’s

GreenLabel specifically seeks to “promote green consumerism and increase environmental

awareness.” The EU program sees its role as an information disseminator, responsible for

formulating a consensus standard across EU markets.

Some programs have focused their environmental improvement or consumer education/

information dissemination goals by addressing specific environmental problems. For example,

the US Energy Star program seeks to reduce air pollution by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. 

Energy Star is pursuing this goal by encouraging the production and use of energy- efficient

products that require less electricity. Many of the mandatory programs have narrower, specific

environmental goals and target specific environmental issues. For example, the US EPA’s

mandatory Ozone Depleting Substances label warns consumers of products manufactured with
36 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

ozone-depleting substances and their harmful effects. Similarly, the State of Vermont’s

Hazardous Household Products Shelf Labeling program seeks to reduce the use of toxic

substances by identifying household products containing one or more of a list of hazardous

chemicals. A missions/goals summary is presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Missions/Goals Given for Programs 

Covered in this Report

Program Characteristic Number of Programs that Report this

Mission/Goal 

Program missions/goals Promote production and use 

of environmentally preferable products - 19

Information dissemination/education - 8

Target specific environmental problems - 12

Note: Numbers of programs reporting these missions/goals are not mutually exclusive.

Program Methodologies

A program’s evaluation method is one of its most important features, because it reflects the

scientific basis, data sources, and judgment on which product categories are chosen and which

label award decisions are made. Most programs rely on some form of life-cycle assessment

(LCA) to choose product categories and develop criteria for awarding labels. Full LCA is very

detailed, evaluating all aspects of the production process including raw material extraction,

manufacture, transportation, use of the product, recycling, and disposal. Because LCA

encompasses the entire production process and beyond, it is often too expensive and timeconsuming to conduct a full, in-depth LCA. Programs will often, therefore, consider only the

stages of LCA that they find most relevant to their needs. France’s NF-Environnement Mark

program utilizes a simplified LCA that identifies the “key stages” in the product’s life cycle --

those stages expected to have the most significant environmental impacts. Product criteria are

based on these key stages. Detailed discussions of program methodologies are included in each 

individual program summary.

One alternative methodology used by a number of programs evaluates a single environmental

attribute (for example, whether or not the product is recyclable), rather than the product’s entire

life cycle. For example, the US Energy Star program evaluates products based on whether they
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 37

meet Energy Star’s energy efficiency standards. This method, however, is not as complete as

LCA. Not only are fewer attributes analyzed, but a product receiving a label for a single attribute

may in fact have an overall negative environmental impact due to its other attributes. The

number of programs by product evaluation methodology (based on their own descriptions) is

shown in Chart 4-9.

Procedurally, any methodology may include independent testing and studies conducted by

programs themselves to determine the environmental impacts of product categories or individual

products. Such efforts lower the cost, reduce the time needed, and increase harmonization

among the analyses of similar products across programs. Many programs report that literature

reviews and studies conducted by other programs, as well as information about specific product

categories contributed by participating manufacturers, are often used in combination with LCA to

establish award criteria. In certain cases, programs may adopt each others’ award criteria, with

modifications. For example, Canada’s Environmental Choice program has exchanged

information with both the Taiwan program and the US Green Seal program and has adopted

product standards from these programs.
38 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder involvement in the environmental labeling process can occur at three stages:

program formation, product category selection, and criteria development. Stakeholders generally

consist of representatives from outside groups, such as domestic and foreign manufacturers,

academia, consumer groups, and environmental groups. The general public may also have the

opportunity to provide input. The extent of stakeholder involvement provides insight into the

level of transparency actually provided by environmental labeling programs. Stakeholder

involvement indicates the degree to which programs might be influenced by particular groups or

balanced by including the needs of all interested parties.

Most programs (in this case third-party programs) allow an open process by which any interested

stakeholders may submit proposals for product categories. Product category selection, however,

is usually made by the programs’ governing bodies, which typically consist of a limited

representation of interested stakeholders (see Chart 4-10). Many programs do solicit stakeholder

involvement during development of product award criteria. In some programs, draft criteria are

published and comments accepted from the public. Very few programs, however, publish

stakeholder comments and program responses for further public review before finalizing award

criteria. The United States’ Green Seal program is an example of a program that does make

stakeholder comments and the program’s responses available to the public, but it does so only as

an accompaniment to its already published final award criteria.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 39

Some programs that claim to have an open stakeholder involvement policy have been accused by

manufacturers of the contrary. For example, some Indian industries have complained that India’s

Ecomark has not done enough to involve them in product criteria development, and feel the

Indian Government has “rushed through” the Ecomark development. Additionally, Indian

exporters feel that many of the product categories chosen for Ecomark do not reflect India’s

major export products, and that Ecomark has adopted the ecolabeling standards of their export

customers’ countries in order to operate in those markets. 

4.5. Program Breadth

Program breadth can be illustrated by the following characteristics: whether product evaluations

include non-environmental as well as environmental attributes, whether the label is used in

procurement programs, whether the label is awarded to pre-retail and/or retail products, and

whether the organizing body engages in other programs or activities. The extent to which

programs are visible in the market will influence the success and growth of programs.

Use of Non-Environmental Attributes

Some programs (see Chart 4-11) incorporate social and other conditions in their product criteria. 

For example, the ECO-O.K. program run by Rainforest Alliance includes criteria for

environmental education programs, improvement of social and work conditions, and compliance

with human rights legislation. India’s Ecomark program also considers non-environmental

attributes when evaluating products. In addition to complying with product-specific criteria,

manufacturers must show that their products are also in compliance with India’s Bureau of Indian

Standards’ product quality standards.
40 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

By including non-environmental attributes in their award criteria, programs broaden the type of

information they provide to consumers, and thus may appeal to a wider range of consumer

concerns. The impact of such a broadened scope can be greatest in developing countries where

worker rights and basic living conditions may be of greater concern. Such programs may be

subject to criticism if the criteria for non-environmental attribute(s) are more qualitative than

quantitative in nature, which is often the case when standardized methodologies have not been

established.

Use in Procurement

Governments and large organizations are increasingly considering environmental attributes of

purchased goods and services. In the case of governments, the purchaser’s mandate or mission

also includes stewardship of environmental quality. Also, incorporating environmental attributes

either benefits the organization directly (e.g., reduced costs over the life of purchased goods) or

indirectly (e.g., corporate goodwill among stockholders or customers). The use of environmental

labels by procurement programs (i.e., larger customers) typically increases the market presence of

the labeled products and enhances the credibility of the labeling program. This has been the case

with the Energy Star-labeled office equipment program. Initially, the US government mandated

that all federal offices stock Energy Star-labeled office equipment, but as the demand for these

products grew it became evident that not only were government agencies buying these products,

but so too were private organizations.
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 41

Where procurement programs use labeling programs in their activities, the relationship may be

formally acknowledged or used informally. In a formal arrangement a program’s label is

specifically mandated or referenced by the procurement program. For example, governments

frequently have mandates to “buy recycled” or to buy green products. An example of a formal

arrangement in the US is Executive Order 12845 - Requiring Agencies to Purchase Energy

Efficient Computer Equipment, established to ensure that “all acquisitions of microcomputers,

including personal computers, monitors, and printers, meet ‘EPA Energy Star’ requirements for

energy efficiency.” Similarly, Taiwan is in the process of establishing a “Government

Procurement Policy” that would require government agencies to buy products labeled with

Taiwan’s Green Mark label. More often, informal relationships are formed.

Large institutions may also include environmentally-labeled products in their goods and services

selection. For example, large companies in the Nordic countries have procurement policies that

require the purchase of products labeled with the Nordic Swan or its equivalent. In addition,

some retailers are actively seeking out environmentally preferable products to offer to their

customers. In some cases, they specifically seek out labeled products. The large US home and

garden equipment retailer, Home Depot, and the United Kingdom’s largest do-it-yourself home

products retailer, B&Q, each consider environmental attributes in their product evaluation and

selection. These stores plan to or do stock environmentally preferable alternatives whenever

possible. Chart 4-12 indicates whether the labels (usually seal-of-approval labels) from the

programs in this report are used in procurement programs, and whether the relationship between

the labeling program and the procurement is a formal or informal one. As seen in the chart, the

majority of the US programs are not used by procurement programs, perhaps because many of

the programs are mandatory government programs and thus establish a regulatory floor for all

products in the US market place.
42 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Use Beyond Retail

Although environmental labels are most typically applied to retail products, they are also used in

non-retail applications. In general, retail products are intended for sale to individual customers

and are distributed through retail outlets located near the consumer. The majority of US

programs use environmental labels on retail products only. Pre-retail transactions involve trade

between, for example, raw material suppliers, product manufacturers, formulators/packagers, and

wholesalers. The two most prevalent uses of environmental labeling for non-retail consumers are

commercial enterprises and procurement programs (of governments and large organizations). All

of the programs surveyed for this report target their label to retail products. A number of

programs, however, also apply their label on pre-retail products (or both retail and non-retail

products). When labels are used on pre-retail products, labeling information may inform and

influence the purchasing decisions of upstream consumers and may affect the visibility of labeled

products in the marketplace. For example, if retailers buy products based on environmental

characteristics, then the presence of environmentally preferable products in the market is

increased. For example, several programs do or will provide guidelines for the sustainable

production of timber (e.g., Malaysia and SCS’ Forest Conservation Program), certifying the

management of particular forest tracts as environmentally sustainable. Once a forest is ecocertified, the timber and the subsequent lumber and wood products can be labeled as being

environmentally preferable, as long as it can be determined that the wood came from the original
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 43

certified forest. This information may affect many purchasing decisions as it is passed from

seller to customer, possibly to the retail level. Chart 4-13 shows the breakdown of whether labels

are being used on retail products, non-retail products or both. 

Chart 4-13: Use on Retail/Non-retail Products

(based on programs reviewed)

Use on Retail Products and/or Non-retail Products

Retail Non-retail

US

19

Outside

US

30

Outside

US

1

US

9

US

9

Outside

US

1

Both
44 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Other Programs/Activities

Other support activities such as public education, and involvement and cooperation with related

programs and activities, can be important in increasing peoples’ awareness of labeling programs. 

Support activities enhance visibility of environmental labeling in the marketplace. For example,

the Vermont Household Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling Program has a consumer education

program aimed at prompting consumers to avoid purchasing hazardous products. The Vermont

Agency for Natural Resources has developed brochures and posters for both consumers and

retailers and has, in the past, launched media and advertising campaigns at recycling depots,

schools, and businesses, to educate people about the program. In addition, programs associated

with or involved in other activities may have a greater financial and resource base on which to

draw. The Scientific Certification System (SCS) provides a variety of other services besides its

Eco-profile label. As part of its NutriClean program, SCS provides importers with testing and

quality management services so that they can apply for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

certification more quickly, as well as similar services for US produce exporters so that they can

comply with regulations in their importing country. Green Seal receives grants for education and

outreach programs as well as independent research, in conjunction with their labeling program. 

Direct and indirect subsidies help strengthen the position (e.g., by defraying costs) of the

environmental labeling program. The tendency for US programs to incorporate other activities

into their labeling programs is much stronger than for non-US based programs (see Chart 4-14).

Chart 4-14: Programs With Other Activities

(based on programs reviewed)

Programs With Other Activities

Yes No

US

11

Outside

US

4

Outside

US

19

US

7

Such activities can also include coordination with labeling programs in other countries. For

example, Canada’s TerraChoice has started a new program called the Environmental Technology

Verification (ETV) Program, which is being coordinated with US governmental agencies. (ETV
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 45

expects to issue “certificates of authenticity” to environmental technologies under the new

program. TerraChoice has thus broadened the scope of its activities, an additional labeling

program, and has increased its interaction with US stakeholders and customers.) Similarly,

Malaysia’s Product Certification Program has developed an Environmental Management System

(EMS) certification program with reciprocal arrangements with foreign certification programs in

countries that trade with Malaysia. Malaysia coordinates with the Japanese Audit and

Certification Organization, and EMS certifies Japanese companies that export to Malaysia. This

program also works with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA); Malaysian companies are

inspected by the Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM) in accordance

with CSA requirements and are granted CSA’s EMS certification. Of course, some

environmental labeling programs are administered by national standards institutes (e.g., France,

Sweden), which have a wide range of activities.

4.6. Changes to Environmental Labeling Programs

As programs develop, some have experienced significant changes while others have remained

virtually the same. An overview of these changes illustrates how programs are responding to

stakeholders and may indicate the future direction of these programs. Slightly less than half (23)

of the programs covered in this report (including seal-of-approval, hazard warnings, information

disclosure, and single-attribute programs) indicate that they have made significant changes to

their programs. Many of these programs have made minor changes, associated with normal

operation, such as increasing (or decreasing) the number of product categories or number of

products reviewed. 

Perhaps the most significant changes occur when a program alters or revises the methodology by

which it chooses product categories and sets award criteria. Some programs, such as France’s

NF-Environnement Mark, have simplified their methodology from a full LCA to a simplified

analysis that concentrates on what the program determines to be the most important stages of a

product’s life-cycle. France made this revision primarily due to cost considerations. A number

of other programs have undergone administrative changes. Both the Canadian TerraChoice

program and Taiwan’s Green Mark program have changed hands from government-funded and

administered programs to programs that are run by independent private companies. This

administrative change suggests that governmental involvement is more beneficial in the early

phases of program development; once a program is established, it may be more efficiently or

effectively run by a private company. Interestingly, in the case of Taiwan, it is hoped that the

shift to an independent company will mean that there will be more flexibility to participate in

international coordination efforts, which the government was not doing.

Other programs, perhaps best exemplified by the European Union’s environmental labeling

program, have made efforts to engage in international standardization and harmonization efforts. 

The EU program has proposed several revisions to incorporate international trade principals in an

effort toward mutual recognition of other environmental labeling programs, both within and 
46 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

beyond EU borders. In this regard, the program has increased compatibility between the EU

label, national programs of EU member countries, and draft ISO standards.

4.7. Coordination Efforts Among Programs

Many of the programs contacted for this report are trying to incorporate the interests of other

countries into their activities by sharing information and pooling resources with other programs,

as well as investigating mutual recognition of foreign labels and assisting foreign manufacturers

seeking labels. The number of foreign-based licensees listed in the chart (see Chart 4-15)

provides some indication as to the degree to which programs included in this report have

extended their sphere of influence beyond domestic borders, and whether it is feasible for foreign

manufacturers to compete for the environmental label. 

Chart 4-15: Programs with Foreign-based Licenses

(based on programs reviewed)

Programs with Foreign-based Licenses

Yes No

16 10
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 47

The second chart (see Chart 4-16) indicates how many programs included in this report are

coordinating labeling activities with one or more programs in other countries.

Chart 4-16: Programs that Indicate 

Working with Other Countries 

(based on programs reviewed)

Programs that Indicate Working

with Other Countries

Yes No

21 13

Such coordination can take the form of sharing information, product category justification, award

criteria or standards, or mutually recognizing labels, among others. For example, several

programs indicated that a part of their methodology is to review other programs’ criteria when

setting their own. Programs in developed countries are also making a point of reaching out to

programs that are in start-up stages in developing countries. For example, TerraChoice is

specifically working toward mutual recognition of award criteria with Taiwan through

standardization of operations based on ISO standards, mutual recognition of non-product-related

impacts, and cooperation in auditing, verification and testing. It should be recognized that the

effort spent on such coordination varies widely among programs.

Another indication of inter-program coordination is participation in ISO, which was founded in

1947 and has representatives from 130 countries. ISO’s main goal is to standardize products and

activities worldwide to promote international exchange of goods and services. It also aims to

foster global communication and cooperation over intellectual, scientific, technological, and

economic matters. ISO standards on environmental labels and declarations state that

environmental labels should communicate accurate and verifiable information about the

“environmental aspects of products and services in order to encourage the demand and supply of

those products and services that cause less stress on the environment, thereby stimulating the
9

ISO Draft International Standards, Series 14020-14024, Environmental Labels and Declarations, 1997.

48 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

potential for market-driven continuous environmental improvement.”9 Programs that are

members of ISO or have adopted ISO guidelines have made a commitment to working toward

standardization and thus coordination among programs. Participation in the ISO standards

development itself involves significant inter-program communication. In addition, other

interested parties, such as trade, consumer, and environmental organizations, participate in ISO

standards developments and may aid or provide guidance in evaluating labeling programs’

operations. Chart 4-17 illustrates the number of programs that indicated that they are making

efforts to coordinate with ISO standards.

Chart 4-17: Programs that Participate in ISO

(based on programs reviewed)

Programs that Participate in ISO

Yes No

26 11

4.8. Trade Issues

Trade issues have sometimes been raised in connection with environmental labeling programs. 

This report does not discuss trade issues in full, but provides an overview of the discussion

surrounding this issue. Some concerns have been expressed about potential conflicts between

provisions of international trade agreements and certain aspects of environmental labeling

programs. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements contain provisions precluding

discrimination among “like products.” Some interpret these provisions as precluding

consideration of (a broader set) of factors, beyond the physical characteristics of the products, as

a basis for distinguishing among products. Many environmental labeling programs, however, as

part of their life-cycle approach, rely on consideration of such a broader set of factors in
Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide 49

determining criteria for awarding labels. In trade parlance, these factors are sometimes referred

to as process of production methods (PPMs). Environmental labeling programs often consider

environmental aspects of the production process in determining the eligibility of a product for a

label. Some argue that consideration of such a broad set of factors in determining eligibility for

an ecolabel may violate WTO provisions. Others argue that the voluntary nature of many

ecolabeling programs precludes such a conflict. The World Trade Organization (WTO)

agreement now explicitly recognizes the objectives of sustainable development and

environmental protection. It may be inevitable that the WTO develops interpretations that allow

for recognition of environmental impacts of PPMs.

A second conflict arises from the essentially domestic focus of most environmental labeling

programs. Each program typically develops award criteria that are achievable by a least some of

their domestic manufacturers. Foreign producers, particularly in developing countries,

participate less actively in standard development and may be less accustomed to stringent

environmental standards. They may thus face greater problems in getting products certified for an

environmental label. The following example highlights this concern: Country A develops award

criteria for product X. Because Country A has environmental concerns specific to that country,

Country A’s award criteria for product X may differ from Country B’s criteria for the same

product. Manufacturers in Country B, having reformulated their product and production to meet

domestic regulations, and possibly labeling standards, may not be able to meet Country A’s 

criteria for product X. If so, this may give rise to a trade issue. This issue can be especially

compelling when the exporter is a developing country that is already struggling to compete in the

global market.

The following chart (see Chart 4-15) lists the number of programs that indicated that they have

experienced trade issues or conflicts. For example, Germany requires companies that do not

participate in its Green Dot program to take back their packaging and bear the cost of recycling

the packaging themselves. There are no exceptions for foreign companies. The take-back

burden is therefore far greater for companies that ship their products long distances to Germany

because they either have to pay the transportation costs of shipping the packaging back to the

country of origin or arrange for in-country processing. Many manufacturers exporting to

Germany from within the EU and beyond claim that the domestic demand for the Green Dot

label places imported goods at a market disadvantage. Manufacturers in India have also reported

trade conflicts with regard to its textile exports. In fact, the Indian Ecomark program recently

added textile products as one if its product categories in response to new regulations, enacted by

Germany and the rest of the EU, banning the use of certain dyes in textiles. Germany and the EU

are two of India’s largest markets for garments and textiles, and India has developed criteria that

specifically state that these banned dyes cannot be used in textile production. Thus, labeled

textiles will have an easier time entering the EU market.
50 Overview of Labeling Programs Worldwide

Chart 4-18: Programs that Report Trade Conflicts

(based on programs reviewed)

Programs That Report Trade Conflicts

Yes No

12 27

Indonesia’s Environmental Labeling Program, though still in its developmental stages, was

initiated by demand in the export markets. As a result of the growing concern among consumers

in particular markets for sustainable forest practices, Indonesia plans to develop environmental

labeling criteria and guidelines for sustainable forest management practices, as well as a timber

certification program. (Forest products are Indonesia’s second largest exports.) Additionally,

though Hong Kong does not currently have an environmental labeling program, studies have

been conducted by the Institute of Environmental Studies at the Hong Kong University of

Science and Technology (HKUST) to determine the suitability of a labeling program for Hong

Kong. HKUST determined that an environmental labeling program may be established for two

primary reasons: 1) to improve environmental quality and protection through market forces, and

2) to assist industries exporting to markets where environmental-labeled products are available. 

HKUST concluded that because Hong Kong is a major exporter, several product categories may

be suitable for a Hong Kong ecolabel.
Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs 51

5. Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs

The formation of labeling programs is driven largely by domestic forces. Because environmental

labeling programs serve to inform the public of the relevant country, they tend to form around

environmental goals and needs that are considered high priorities in that country. In general,

these forces include some combination of consumer demand, competition among producers, and

the leadership position of a sponsoring organization. Consumer demand drives program

formation by creating a market for a reliable source of information about the environmental

characteristics of a product. Competition among producers acts as a driving force as producers

seek ways to communicate the environmental attributes of their products to gain a competitive

edge. Finally, sponsoring organizations can also play a role in program formation by promoting

the usefulness of environmental labeling as a tool in a country’s overall environmental protection

plan. The relative importance of each of these forces will depend on the type of environmental

labeling desired. In the case of negative labeling, consumers and the sponsoring organization

(typically governments) will be the major forces. On the other hand, producers will have a stake

in promoting positive labeling (which is awarded only to “preferable products”) and perhaps, to a

greater extent, neutral labeling (which is available to all products regardless of differences in

environmental attributes).

The diversity in these domestic forces across countries has resulted in a varied group of

environmental labeling programs; each program differs in its mandate, operations, organizational

affiliation, and role in the marketplace. For programs with government involvement, the

program mandate often reflects the government’s environmental policy goals, which are typically

stated as the protection of human health and the environment. In such settings, labeling efforts

range from regulatory programs (such as the FIFRA, ozone-depleting substances, and battery

labeling requirements in the US) to “soft” policy tools (such as EPA’s Energy Star program in

the US, and the Blue Angel Program in Germany). In addition, there are private and quasigovernment programs that may have similar mission statements but are far more limited than the

government in their mandate and authority over environmental matters. For example, the

keystone of the US SCS program is the dissemination of information on environmental attributes

to consumers. Japan’s Ecomark and the Nordic Swan programs report that environmental quality

improvement and/or protection of public health are the most important mandate of their program. 

Few take on product categories that may be unpopular or for which the program will not be able

to cover its costs. Government regulatory programs, on the other hand, can address such

categories.

Although there are many other forces involved, the implications of these differences in program

mandates can be profound. For example, EU sees its role as an information disseminator,

responsible for formulating a consensus standard across EU markets. Consequently, the program

is challenged to balance its need for consensus on labeling standards from competent bodies

against the establishment of its own more stringent award criteria for the entire EU market,

which might arguably provide greater environmental benefits. 
52 Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs

Important factors influencing the formation of environmental labeling programs include

public/societal interests, consumer interests, retailer interests, producer interests, operating

costs/profits, standardization, and procurement applications. Each factor is discussed in detail

below.

5.1. Public/Societal Interests

The attraction of environmental labeling to those involved in formulating and implementing

public policies related to preserving and enhancing environmental quality is that, as a policy tool,

the benefits of environmental labeling are closely connected to consumers’ concerns regarding

the value of product environmental aspects, general environmental concern, and any tradeoffs

considered in particular purchasing decisions. Thus, the collective shifts in consumer demand

might be expected to reflect the interests of a large portion of society.

For environmental labeling to be an effective policy tool, a number of conditions must hold true. 

First, product evaluations must be known and accurate. Second, product standards must be

associated with significant environmental differences among products. Third, this information

must be disseminated to consumers. Fourth, consumers must understand environmental issues

and product-specific information well enough to make informed purchasing decisions. Finally,

the label must have substantial market penetration in order to affect a significant number of

producers. 

Environmental labeling programs face several challenges in trying to provide useful information

to consumers that will influence consumption patterns based on environmental considerations. 

For product evaluations to be known and accurate, programs must conduct reliable scientific

analyses. Such analyses, however, include life-cycle assessments, which are extensive, time

consuming, and often require information about processes that is not readily, if at all, available. 

These types of complications often require that the program make expert judgments; this

practice, however, may come under close scrutiny and debate. 

Programs also face the obstacle of disseminating information, a key factor in the success of the

program. For example, Canada has launched a large media and marketing campaign; though it is

fairly new, it could prove to be quite successful. The time, energy, and resources that go into

advertising are immense, however, and pose a significant challenge to the program.

Governmental sponsorship and involvement with labeling programs, which is common among 

existing environmental labeling programs, can improve the program's financial stability and

credibility in the eyes of manufacturers and consumers. On the other hand, a non-governmental

program run by a respected consumer or environmental organization may be more immune to the

political pressure that can affect governmental decision-making, and may differ in terms of

consumer credibility and confidence. Private sponsorship, however, has its own drawbacks. 

While not subject to the vagaries of the political climate, privately owned and operated labeling
10Environmental Research Associates, 1990.

Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs 53

programs may be heavily influenced by the need to cover costs, and consequently may not take

on the larger environmental mission that a government-sponsored program might. Ultimately,

government involvement in an environmental labeling program depends in part on the

government's ability to act as an advocate in the marketplace, and the role that non-governmental

groups play in consumer protection and environmental policy. One survey found that 37 percent

of the people who considered themselves the "primary food shoppers" of their household

believed that "environmental groups" were the best source of unbiased information about the

environment, 8 percent believed the government was, and 5 percent believed that product

manufacturers were.10

There are also several limitations in using environmental labeling programs as a policy tool. For

example, these programs rely on consumers’ ability and willingness to include environmental

considerations in their purchase decisions. Anecdotal information from several environmental

labeling programs, however, suggests that consumers in many countries are aware of

environmentally-labeled products and are willing to pay a premium to purchase environmentallypreferable products. For example, in a 1988 survey of German households, 68 percent were

familiar with the Blue Angel label and knew that it was linked with the concept of environmental

protection. Similarly, in a 1994 survey of households in Singapore, 78 percent recognized the

GreenLabel as a signature of environmentally-preferable products. Furthermore, 30 percent said

they consider a product’s environmental attributes as a part of their purchasing decision process. 

In Japan, a 1993 public opinion poll indicated that 53 percent of the population was familiar with

the Japanese EcoMark. A 1996 survey of Canadians found that one in five Canadians said that

they or someone in their household had purchased a product carrying the Ecologo in the past

year. In France, a 1996 survey found that 54 percent of households indicated that they would be

willing to pay up to 10 percent more for environmentally-preferable products (although few

studies have documented such behaviors). Finally, due to a lack of awareness among consumers,

the EU is in the process of revamping its environmental label and the awarding of labels. The

setting of the award criteria will be reduced into a three-step process decided upon by two

groups, the EU Commission and the newly established European Ecolabel Organization (EEO). 

The Commission hopes that criteria setting and ecolabel awards will be quicker and more

routine, thus increasing the number and recognizability of EU-labeled products on the market. 

(For more information on reform of the EU environmental label, refer to the EU program

summary in Appendix B.)
54 Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs

5.2. Consumer Interest

The power of consumer interest in and response to environmental problems is undeniable. The

continued funding and expansion of both governmental and non-governmental environmental

programs throughout the world, many of which have been in existence for over 25 years, is

compelling evidence of the strength of individuals’ concerns about environmental issues. 

Intermittent consumer activism in the marketplace, as seen in reactions to companies’

environmental performance or disclosure of environmental attributes of particular products, has

been well documented and is often referred to as the power that labeling programs seek to

harness. A recent example is the successful consumer boycott of household detergents in

Sweden, promoted by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC). The boycott gave

rise to the first multi-national environmentally labeled detergent on the Swedish market.

Environmental labeling is also tied to consumer right-to-know initiatives in several developed

markets, particularly the US. The premise is that consumers have a right to know about the

ingredients contained in a product, as well as each ingredient’s health and environmental hazards,

so that they can use this information to make informed decisions regarding the products they

purchase. The US Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Guides for Environmental Marketing

Claims was a direct result of an increase in consumer right-to-know developments. The concept

of a consumer’s right to know, however, is relatively new and not widely recognized. As such, it

remains a highly contentious issue. Opponents argue that consumer right to know may, in some

instances, be in direct conflict with GATT’s trade efforts and manufacturers’ proprietary

interests.

Consumer activism has played a role in creating a market for environmental labeling programs. 

First-party cause-related marketing (e.g., “Proceeds donated to...” or, “company supports WWF”)

and environmental claims (e.g. recyclable) have sought to capitalize on this consumer demand

for environmentally preferable products and services. The EPA, FTC, and others, however, have

also documented confusion and misunderstanding among consumers regarding environmental

issues, particularly when making choices among products. Environmental claims can create

misunderstanding because they often pertain to product characteristics, such as ozone-friendly,

with which a consumer generally has little or no experience or cannot physically perceive;

consumers therefore have difficulty in evaluating the credibility or value of the claim. 

Furthermore, claims such as recyclable and compostable relate to more than just the inherent

qualities of the product being promoted; they also reflect the context in which a product is used,

recycled, or disposed. Finally, some terms used in environmental marketing, such as sourcereduced, are often poorly understood by consumers. These kinds of claims and the existence of

claims that may be false have driven the need for labels that are accurate and verifiable, and

written to be simple and understandable. It has also driven most third-party environmental

labeling programs to provide product-specific information with which consumers can themselves

distinguish among product choices, or to identify products that cause less stress on the

environment based on the program’s independent evaluation. 
11Business and the Environment, vol. 9, no. 6, June, 1998.

Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs 55

To ease some of this confusion, the FTC’s Guides for Environmental Marketing Claims provides

manufacturers with stringent guidelines for making environmental claims on their products,

which are consistent with consumer understanding of these terms.11 Similarly, the EPA, through

its Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI), along with other US federal agencies and industry

stakeholders, are investigating ways in which product labels on household cleaners, indoor

insecticides, and outdoor pesticides can be improved to increase consumers’ comprehension and

use of information presented on these labels. (For a detailed description of the CLI, refer to the

program summary in Appendix B.)

5.3. Retailer Interests

Retailers can play a role in environmental labeling programs. On the one hand, they can play a

significant role in fostering environmental labeling by selecting products to sell based in part on

environmental attributes. For example, in the United States, Home Depot has made a

commitment to stocking products considered to be environmentally-preferable. On the other

hand, retailers have also attempted introducing their own environmentally-sensitive product

lines. For example, the Texas-based Whole Foods Market has developed its own line of organic

food products as well as other “environmentally sound” products such as personal health care

products. Such actions on the part of retailers can diminish the effectiveness of independent

labels on the retailers’ shelves because multiple, competing labeling may cause confusion. The

extent of retailers’ impact, however, is tempered by the size of their operations. If they handle a

significant market share of a particular product type (e.g., dishwashing soap), they will have the

power to educate consumers through environmental labeling (and other avenues) as well as to

influence producers production/marketing strategies. By and large, however, most retailers will

function only as intermediaries in the flow of environmental information from manufacturer to

consumer due to their relatively small size in national markets. 

5.4. Producer Interests

One of the unique qualities of environmental labeling is that it opens up an untapped source of

information to consumers. Much of the information concerning the health and environmental

effects of products and product constituents is currently generated by manufacturers. This

information, however, typically does not make it to the ultimate consumer in a form that is

readily understandable. Producers have the ability to make information easy to read and

comprehend, but doing so is a double-edged sword because some consumers will switch to

products deemed to be more environmentally sensitive.

Producers cannot ignore that environmental marketing has emerged as an increasingly important
56 Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs

issue for consumers, producers, regulators, and policy makers. Producers have responded to

consumer demand (real, anticipated, or perceived) for products that are manufactured with

environmental considerations in mind. They have done so by increasing environmental

marketing claims, submitting products to environmental labeling programs for certification, and

introducing new or redesigned “green” products. Producers do this primarily to remain

competitive in a market where consumers are demanding environmental information. Any

competitive advantage (such as certification) or handicap (such as a hazard warning) is important

to a producer in that it can set a company apart from its competitors. For example, when an

American paper company was the first to be certified by the Blue Angel program, a number of

German companies quickly followed suit. Conversely, California’s Proposition 65 has spurred

manufacturers to change their product formulations to avoid carrying a label that warns of the

risk of cancer and birth defects.

In addition, producers may be motivated by liability or public image concerns. By disclosing

environmental information on product labels, producers say they better equip consumers with

information to use, recycle, and dispose of the product/packaging safely. This may decrease

producers’ liability. By having their products certified by an environmental labeling program,

producers may be able to avoid financial and public relations risks as well as to increase sales.

For example, Germany’s Blue Angel is credited with creating incentives for manufacturers to

reformulate certain products (e.g., low-VOC paints and high-recycled-fiber-content paper

products) prior to any evidence of consumer demand for such products.

5.5. Operating Costs and Profit

An important factor in the success of any environmental labeling program is its ability to cover

its costs and therefore stay in business. The ease with which programs will be able to cover costs

varies depending on two questions:

< can the program charge enough in application, testing, audit and other fees to cover its

costs; and 

< can the program subsidize its environmental labeling activities from other program

activities?

Subsidies may be in the form of professional and administrative time, office space and supplies,

etc. Because government-sponsored and/or operated programs will typically have other

resources to draw on, profitability may not be critical to the success or longevity of the program. 

The same may be true for quasi-government programs, where there is still some access to

government resources, and for programs run by national standards institutes, for which

environmental labeling is just one part of their operations. For privately-run programs and other

programs that do not have other resources to draw on, however, the ability to cover costs will be

critical to whether or not they remain in operation in the long run. For these programs, there is an

inherent conflict in prioritizing efforts to develop award criteria and issue awards or otherwise
Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs 57

evaluate products. Programs can lose credibility if they are thought to be motivated by profit in

their selection of product categories or in the awarding of labels.

5.6. Standardization of Environmental Labeling Programs

One of the more recent forces affecting environmental labeling programs is an effort by the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to standardize environmental labeling

programs. ISO has set out standardizing criteria and is in the process of developing additional

criteria that prescribe certain elements to be present in environmental labeling programs meeting

the standards. Programs, in turn, have been adopting these principles even in draft form. Because

each program has different product categories, criteria, and environmental preferences, labels are

generally not transferable between one country and another. To avoid this problem, programs

have begun to standardize around the ISO principles, finding ways to harmonize their programs.

The lack of a national, third-party labeling program in the US may affect standardization of

environmental labeling programs. The majority of US government programs often exist to

implement specific requirements of statutes or regulations and have been in place for many years

(e.g., the US EPA’s pesticide program, through FIFRA, was established in 1947). Typically,

these are mandatory programs and are therefore usually hazard/warning labels. As a result, they

are specific to domestic US policy needs, and only US governmental authorities have the power

to impose such requirements. It may be more difficult to coordinate non-governmental US

programs with other worldwide labeling programs, particularly during bilateral or multilateral

harmonization and negotiations.

5.7. Procurement Programs

The procurement activities of governments and large organizations are increasingly considering

environmental attributes of purchased goods and services. Such consideration is typically given

because the purchaser’s mandate/mission also includes stewardship of environmental quality, as

is the case with governments, or because incorporating environmental attributes either benefits

the organization directly (e.g., reduced costs over the life of purchased goods) or indirectly (e.g.,

goodwill among stockholders or customers). Use of environmental labels in purchasing

decisions, however, has given rise to discussion about a number of issues, such as whether labels

provide purchasers sufficient information to improve decision-making.

Nonetheless, US procurement pilot projects are providing a proving ground for the benefits and

drawbacks of using environmental labels and environmental labeling information in EPA’s

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program. 
58 Forces Affecting Environmental Labeling Programs

The explicit consideration of environmental attributes in procurement can be addressed in a

number of ways. At one end of the spectrum, the organization or government conducts it own

research and establishes specific environmental attributes which may be preconditions for

submitting bids, used as price preferences. In some cases, however, a third-party environmental

labeling practitioner, rather than the government, may undertake the needed LCA-based analysis.

In situations where a procurement program relies on information provided or analyzed by a thirdparty environmental labeling practitioner, it may be important for the procurement process to

include careful consideration of the underlying analysis, data, evaluation methodology, and any

judgments that might be used.

The use of environmental labels by procurement programs has the potential to increase the market

presence of the labeled products and enhances the credibility of the labeling program. Although

most procurement programs do not require that only labeled products be bought, many programs,

such as Japan’s Green Purchasing Network (GPN), encourage the purchase of “environmentally

preferable products,” which include ecolabeled products. GPN aims to promote “green

purchasing” and has established purchasing guidelines for several product categories, as well as

providing consumers with information on the environmental impact of products through

guidebooks and newsletters. There are 425 companies, 107 government agencies, and over 90

non-profit organizations that are members of the GPN.

A similar program has been established in the US through Green Seal’s “Environmental Partners

Program.” Businesses, government agencies, universities, non-profit and other organizations who

join the program as Pledged Partners, commit to buying environmentally-preferable products and

services as part of their procurement policies. These partners must annually provide Green Seal

with a list of their purchases as a way to ensure compliance with the pledge. Green Seal provides

all its Partners (pledged partners and those who simply subscribe to the program to receive

information) with the Choose Green Reports, which provide recommendations of specific

environmentally-preferable brands of products, including ecolabeled products, and list places

where these products can be purchased. The Partners program currently has over 400 members,

163 of whom are pledged members. 

In the case of private procurement, product evaluations and determinations of environmental

preferability are a matter of cost-effective decision-making and the cost of information. 

Government procurement, however, can be much more complicated because of the breadth of

government mandates and decision-making procedures. Though some countries, such as the

Netherlands, Japan, and Germany have informal procurement policies that simply encourage the

purchase of labeled products, particularly as part of a local or national government agency’s

policies, only a few labeling programs are associated with formal procurement requirements. For

example, the countries in the Nordic Council require that their local and national governments

purchase Nordic Swan labeled products whenever possible.
Recent Trends and Future Outlook 59

6. Recent Trends and Future Outlook

While there are marked differences among programs, their mission statements are basically

consistent on three major points, which are reflected in the ISO draft on general principles

(14020):

< the objective of environmental labels (and declarations) is market-driven continuous

environmental improvement;

< this will occur if labels can increase the demand for and supply of environmentally

preferable products and services; and

< ecolabels should communicate verifiable, accurate, non-deceptive information on the

environmental attributes of products and services.

Many involved in the formulation of environmental policy and those affected by it see

environmental labeling as one tool that differs dramatically from regulatory command-and-control

approaches affecting manufacturing, yet may offer society a market-based means of capitalizing

on (individual) consumers’ interest in environmental protection and improvement. To date, the

effectiveness of labels as a policy tool has not been thoroughly studied. Some successes, such as

Blue Angel’s low-VOC paint labeling, have been documented, but worldwide there is insufficient

market penetration to make accurate assessments of environmental labeling’s value. This section

identifies a number of overview findings that provide context for the future of environmental

labeling in the near term:

< There is a marked trend toward globalization of previously domestic programs;

< There is a widespread commitment by the programs to standardize methodologies and

harmonize programs; and

< There are several issues (e.g., free trade agreements) that, depending upon their resolution,

may drive wedges between programs or otherwise constrain the growth and use of

environmental labeling, particularly third-party labeling programs, as a policy tool.

A wide range of government policy makers, manufacturers, and consumers are acutely interested

in whether these trends will continue. Many labeling programs and some manufacturers have

made significant investments in order to participate or compete in labeling. Objections to the use

of environmental labeling have come from several sectors. Certain trade officials and

manufacturers, fearing possible loss of their competitive position, have objected to the use of

LCA-based product standards as contrary to GATT. Companies that do not want the added costs

of certification or having to place an environmental claim on their labels have also raised

complaints. Some foreign manufacturers see ecolabeling programs as a form of protectionism for

domestically manufactured goods. Proponents see labeling as a relatively non-intrusive policy

tool with which to make more transparent the environmental attributes of goods and services. The

future level of environmental labeling activity in the US and world markets depends on a diverse

combination of factors including: prevailing economic conditions; political support for and

opposition to global free trade, societal commitment to consumer right-to-know; ambient
60 Recent Trends and Future Outlook

environmental quality and goals; local conditions that might affect the environmental impacts of

manufacture; consumer use of labeling information; the development of standardized

methodologies and operating practices for environmental labeling programs worldwide; and their

individual and collective success in the marketplace.

6.1. The Proliferation and Globalization of Environmental Labeling Programs

Of the programs for which information could be collected, 17 had formed as of 1989. By 1997,

the number had grown to 49. This proliferation has occurred for many reasons, including marketspecific reasons. In addition to the increased number, the operations of and interactions among

programs is expanding beyond their domestic origins. From a larger perspective, there are several

drivers of program proliferation and globalization:

< trade in goods has become increasingly global;

< there has been increasing recognition of consumers’ right to know in the US and abroad;

< competitive pressures on manufacturers and countries to initiate programs have arisen; and

< new programs have been able to accelerate their development based on the experience of

and information generated by existing programs.

As mentioned earlier, foreign trade in proportion to domestic consumption of goods has increased

over the past fifteen years. International trade worldwide has increased from $4.0 trillion in 1985

to $7.3 trillion in 1993. Environmental labeling programs have responded to the changing pattern

of trade and consumption in a number of ways. Programs are having to consider logistical and

cost recovery issues related to evaluations of imported products and to factor in imports in certain

market analyses. In addition, certain programs have been involved in facilitating the entry of

their own country’s exports into foreign markets where environmental labeling exists. 

Governmental consumer right-to-know initiatives in the US (e.g., the Toxics Release Inventory,

the Federal Aviation Administration’s publication of airline performance statistics, and EPA’s

Consumer Labeling Initiative) and abroad (e.g., UNEP’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s

1985 Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, as amended in 1989, which

establishes the principle of shared responsibility of governments and others to ensure consumers

are informed and safe through a variety of means including product labeling) have established the

right of consumers to have access to information on potential health and (local) environmental

hazards. Non-governmental right-to-know initiatives may take the form of grass root movements,

such as boycotts, information dissemination such as environmentally-oriented buying guides, or

petitions establishing statutory requirements, such as California’s Prop 65. At the same time,

consumer environmental interests have broadened to include information on other environmental

attributes, such as possible environmental impacts at remote locations — often expressed as

concern for sustainable production practices. Product labeling is among one of the most direct

ways to summarize and transmit to consumers assessments of the products’ environmental

attributes. 
12They include Austria, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, New

Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Taiwan (ROC), Thailand, US, and

UK.

Recent Trends and Future Outlook 61

New programs have been created for a wide variety of reasons. Among the mission statements

submitted, one of the most frequently cited goals is to inform and provide information to

(domestic) consumers, although no programs referenced a consumer demand study when

providing background on their formation. However, competitive positioning of manufacturers,

trade ministries, and governments has also played a role in the genesis of particular programs. For

example, the Indian government has asked several research institutions in the country to provide

local textile manufacturers with information about dyes that have been banned by the EU, one of

India’s largest textile importers. The government and universities are providing Indian textile

manufacturers information about these dyes as well as information about alternative, less toxic

dyes.

In an effort to move toward equivalency, harmonization, and/or mutual recognition, the Global

Environmental labeling Network (GEN) was formed by national and multinational ecolabel

licensing organizations. “The GEN shall foster cooperation, information exchange, and longerterm harmonization with regard to environmental labeling...” and “... shall promote environmental

labeling programs worldwide.” The short-term objectives of GEN are to create an ongoing

framework for information exchange, to ensure that the interests of environmental labeling

programs are represented, and to provide a forum for regular member meetings. In addition, their

long-term goals include moving toward harmonization and offering information to developing

programs. To the extent that groups such as GEN are successful in reducing the barriers to entry,

the number of labeling programs may continue to grow.

Thus far, GEN has 20 members.12 While membership is open to all national and multinational

environmental labeling licensing organizations, they must meet the following criteria:

< based solely on voluntary participation for potential licensees;

< run by not-for-profit organizations without commercial interests;

< exhibit independence from undue commercial interests;

< the source of funding shall not create a conflict of interest;

< seek advice from, and consult with, stakeholder interests;

< legally protected logo;

< determination of criteria based on an assessment of the overall life of a product category;

< open access to potential licensees from all countries;

< criteria levels established to encourage the production and use of products and services

that are significantly less damaging to the environment than other products; and
13From World Wide Web site http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/gen.html

62 Recent Trends and Future Outlook

< periodic review, and if necessary, update of both environmental criteria and categories,

taking into account technological and market place development.13

Coordination and cooperation among labeling programs increases the ability of new programs to

accelerate their development based on the experience of and information generated by existing

programs. For more developed programs, such cooperation can facilitate development of new

product categories or award criteria. One example of inter-program coordination is Green Seal

and Canada’s TerraChoice. Both programs recognize each other’s product criteria, and have

adopted each other’s product criteria for certain product categories.

The increased pace of information transfer has also been fostered by the efforts of several

international organizations, most notably GEN and ISO. Still slightly less than one-half of the

programs responding (21 of 49) reported that they actively work with programs in other countries.

In addition to information transfer, programs have also explored several other harmonization

measures that reduce the hurdles of program formation and development. In general, such

measures recognize the research and judgments of another program, falling into two categories:

mutual recognition and technical equivalence. Mutual recognition means that two or more

programs agree to recognize each other’s licensed seal or product assessment. The underlying

premise for mutual recognition is that each program sufficiently captures the environmental

attributes of products given differing local conditions. That is, a product having received a label

in one program is eligible for a label from the second program (typically in another country or

market) and need not undergo complete product evaluation again. For example, paper products

that have been certified under the EU ecolabling program need not go through additional

evaluation if they seek to receive the Nordic Swan label. Technical equivalence means that two or

more programs view the other’s product category definition, award criteria, and/or product

assessment methodology as essentially the same as their own. This is true of certain product

categories common to both the US Green Seal program and Canada’s TerraChoice program.

Programs can use technical equivalence as a basis for coordinating research, information

gathering, and even mutual recognition. 

6.2. Standardization

Since 1992, many labeling programs have participated in a variety of standardization and

harmonization efforts. Most significant is the international coordination of developing

standardized definitions, analytical procedures, and program characteristics under the auspices of

ISO. Product evaluation and program standards are being developed by ISO for two types of

third-party programs: Type I applies to seal-of-approval programs; Type III applies to eco-profiles,

or report cards. As part of this research, programs were asked about their level of participation in
Recent Trends and Future Outlook 63

the ISO process and the program’s commitment to ISO draft and/or final standards. In addition,

some less formal standardization occurs as part of harmonization -- the formal and informal

cooperation and coordination of programs to increase consistency across programs.

Activities range from using common terminology to the informal sharing of methodological

approaches used to develop award criteria. It should be stressed that the ISO standards

development process is ongoing. Of four proposed standards on environmental labeling, only two

are close to being finalized. In addition, the Organization for Economic Cooperation

Development (OECD), GEN and EU-US bilateral agreements have and will continue to foster

standardization by reducing the very real barriers to information transfer, thus enabling programs

to access the best, most up-to-date information available needed for individual labeling efforts. 

For example, research on topics such as product evaluation methodologies and data sources that

occurs under the auspices of OECD (funded by OECD member countries) assists programs

worldwide in learning from one another. GEN provides a current inventory of the existing

standards of its members and facilitates the sharing of individual program’s research. Bilateral

agreements can foster mutual recognition of the larger mission of both governments and their

respective labeling programs. They can also assist both parties to identify common interests and

basic areas of cooperation (typically the sharing of methodologies and information). However, to

the extent that the dominant programs differ in their opinions of the benefits of and need to

standardize, there is a risk that ISO standards will not be finalized. If so, environmental labeling

will continue to be characterized by diverse methodological approaches and inconsistency.

One example of standardization’s possible effects on individual programs involves the stipulation

that the development of award criteria should be based on some form of life cycle analysis. The

draft ISO standards call for use of life cycle considerations in all phases of labeling: product

category selection, establishment of award criteria, and product evaluation. This approach was

neither feasible nor common in the 1980s, when a number of the currently active programs began. 

Recent trends, however, have shown that more and more programs are utilizing either full LCA or

a modified version of LCA. Of the 49 programs covered in this report, 21 of them use life cycle

methodologies. Several older programs, such as Japan’s EcoMark, have shifted toward LifeCycle-Assessment-based methodologies, but the investment in past standards may be problematic

for programs such as Germany’s Blue Angel, which have standards for 88 product categories,

most based on post-manufacture phases of the life cycle. Should that program adopt a full LCA

(following SETAC’s guidelines), all existing standards would need to be revisited at a tremendous

cost to the program. 

Currently, ISO technical committees, technical advisory groups, and working groups have been

organized to address standardization of a wide range of matters, including general principles of

ecolabeling, guiding principles and procedures for Type I programs, guiding principles and

procedures for Type III programs, and principles and framework of LCA. The draft standards for

program administration recognize the benefits of transparency and non-discrimination, which

some programs have been criticized for not providing. These standards, in conjunction with the

development of product evaluation methodology and LCA standards, are expected to improve
64 Recent Trends and Future Outlook

programs’ interactions with all interested parties, increase the efficiency of operations, improve

the credibility of labeled information in the marketplace, and ultimately drive environmental

quality improvements. 

Consensus on the benefits of, the need for, and a definition of LCA may be elusive precisely

because those participating in ISO have differing self interests. Those participating in standards

development in the US delegation include all levels of government, consumer product and

commercial product manufacturers (both US and foreign-owned), trade associations, consultants,

academics, public interest groups, labeling programs, and testing organizations. Many programs

are actively participating in the development of standards pertinent to their program. Some, such

as Japan and the EU, have made interim program improvements that are consistent with draft

standards. However, because the ISO process is lengthy and ever-changing, programs will be

unlikely to commit resources or reinvent themselves to meet ISO standards until they are

finalized.

6.3. Wedge Issues

Several issues may drive wedges between programs or otherwise constrain the growth and use of

environmental labeling as an effective policy tool. Such forces range from those within the

labeling programs themselves (e.g., self interest in preserving the status quo) to forces external to

programs (e.g., international trade agreements) and issues involving the programs and their major

customers/constituents (e.g., self-sufficient financing). The ultimate resolution of these issues

cannot be predicted at this time. Of those identified in this section, some have already had real

effects on labeling programs, for example, GATT prohibition of PPM restrictions. Others, such

as the possible limitations of ISO standards, are described as potential obstacles. Each issue

should be viewed as important and a possible determinant to the future success or failure of

existing labeling programs.

Program Goals

As mentioned above, environmental labeling program mandates are very similar. One important

difference among programs, however, is their differing expectations regarding the ability of

labeling information to inform and educate consumers and to change consumer purchasing

decisions. The seal of approval programs (ISO Type I) assume that the information needed to

accurately describe numerous environmental attributes and LCA results is too complex and too

extensive to present on a label. Consequently, the labeling organization synthesizes this

information and establishes what it hopes to be a credible judgment of preferability (the licensing

of the logo for qualifying products). On the other hand, report card programs (ISO Type III)

believe that individual consumers can themselves prioritize across environmental burden (or

stressor effect) categories (e.g., water consumption and air pollutants released) and that the

consumer needs no interpretation. In that respect, the report cards (e.g., nutritional labeling)

standardize and present environmental information.
Recent Trends and Future Outlook 65

One important difference between environmental report cards and the nutrition label is that

environmental attributes are far more complex and difficult to standardize. For example,

environmental impacts are typically site-specific, and differences in how the product is used and

disposed of must be assumed. At present there is no conflict between these labeling approaches,

since they have yet to gain significant penetration in the same market. If they do, consumer

confusion might result from labeling clutter. (If products in the same category had different label

types, comparisons cannot be made. Multiple labels on different products might confuse

consumers.) Such differences in how consumers use label information could affect a program’s

suitability to label certain products, affect non-retail use of labels and labeling information, and

shape their near-term objectives and goals. In an overarching sense, the competition between the

differing approaches to presenting environmental information on the label can be expected to

constrain information-sharing alliances and may create conflicts among programs.

Limitations to Standardization

ISO and other processes drive standardization and have already prompted several programs to

change their operations. Programs may be limited, however, in facilitating certain changes at the

program level. The most significant limitations may be the adoption of effective program

transparency and how to reconcile new methodologies with existing program protocols and

licensed awards. In addition, harmonization of nontechnical matters, such as cultural norms and

values used in prioritization and tradeoff analyses among attributes, may impede mutual

recognition of award criteria in particular product categories.

In the US, regulatory development is an excellent example of a readily transparent process. The

regulatory agenda is published, as are preliminary proposals. All governmental analyses of the

proposals are publicly available upon request, as are summary reports detailing proposals. Public

comments are solicited for anywhere from 60 to 90 days at several stages. A public docket is

prepared so that anyone may review all comments. Public meetings may be held at various times

throughout the process. Subsequently, the Agency must respond, in the record, to each comment

made, prior to revising analyses or proposals. Several rounds of proposals and public input may

occur prior to the proposal of a final rule along with its estimated impacts and benefits -- based on

assumptions, data sources, and analytical methodology that have been thoroughly reviewed. This

is fairly costly for the government and a time-consuming process, but one that is thought to

guarantee transparency and facilitates participation by as many interested parties as possible. 

Environmental labeling programs, particularly those with very limited funding, may operate with

limited input on the development and/or limited review of proposals for product category

selection and award criteria. This streamlined approach eases development of new product

categories and criteria and allows the program to better control the process. In addition to the

procedural constraints, there are practical limits to widespread participation when stakeholder

access is limited in duration. For example, foreign manufacturers and public interest groups are

more likely to be excluded from a limited process, or one in which regular participation on ad hoc
66 Recent Trends and Future Outlook

committees is required, because of the high cost of participation. Unless there are changes to the

amount of information made public and how it is disseminated at each step of the process, the

more streamlined labeling programs may not comply fully with the ISO principle of transparency. 

Draft ISO standards also call for non-discrimination. That is, all domestic and foreign parties

should be treated on an equal footing. This is an immense challenge for programs because

currently there is no system to disseminate proposals and operational information and to collect

input on an international scale. International information exchange efforts using the Internet, as is

being tried by GEN, may help programs reach the goals of transparency and non-discrimination. 

As the ISO process moves forward, each program is assessing how iy might reconcile new

methodologies with its existing program. Even if the methodological differences can be

standardized, mutual recognition remains the only solution to certain inherent differences among

programs. Such country/market differences will certainly result in differences among award

criteria for the same product. For example, Country A’s market basket analysis may contain a

small share of environmentally preferable performers (imported from Country B). In Country B,

the share of those products may exceed 50 percent. Country A’s labeling program could help to

shift the market toward the environmentally preferable alternatives at the expense of its domestic

manufacturers. Alternatively, the LCA could reveal that the impact of the greatest environmental

burden of the product manufacture differs dramatically between the countries based on local

conditions (e.g., availability of water or suitable disposal capacity). LCA itself does not

incorporate cultural values.

6.4. Future Outlook

In addition to the background information presented in this report, it would be useful to have an

accurate forecast of how environmental labeling activities and programs will interact with

governmental policies and social concerns. Unfortunately, the future of such labeling in the

marketplace is too complex. There are, however, a number of issues that are important for which

trends can be projected into the near term, and others that can be identified as important but for

which the near-term outcome cannot be anticipated at this time. 

Given recent history and the interests of those participating, ISO efforts on draft standards are

expected to continue, although there will be differences in rates of standards development and

outcome. To the extent that the standard setting process involves major stakeholders and a

representative (international) group of minor stakeholders, most standards are likely to be

finalized. The extent to which standards are adopted by individual programs will depend upon: 1)

the adoption of programmatic changes called for in draft ISO standards, such as effective and

inexpensive means of ensuring transparency and public participation; and 2) the extent to which

LCA and harmonization issues have been articulated and addressed during in the intervening

period.
Recent Trends and Future Outlook 67

What trade issues will arise, how these conflicts are resolved, and in what venue they will be

resolved (e.g., WTO decisions, bilateral negotiations) are all important near-term drivers

affecting the long-term future of environmental labeling. The fact that the first few will be

precedent-setting throughout the world makes them of particular interest. Consequently, those

labeling programs and efforts less likely to attract trade conflicts (e.g., because their product

criteria do not include PPMs or product content in a significant way), are better positioned to

succeed in the short term. In the longer term, compatibility with ISO standards, trade conflict

resolution precedents, and cost-effective operating practices will play an increasingly important

role in the success of environmental labeling.

Demand for environmental information as provided by labeling programs is generated from

several sources. The major consumers of such information are expected to continue or increase

their demand in the next five to ten years. Governmental procurement programs in the US and

Europe already consider environmental attributes in their decision-making and look to labeling

programs as important contributions to the process. Similarly, product stewardship and vendor

screening activities as related to ISO 14000 programs will foster use of such information in

private sector procurement and product design. Regulatory requirements will also increase

demand for environmental information. In the US, for example, facilities covered by the

expansion of Toxics Release Inventory reporting to new industries will need information on the

content and composition of inputs.

Demand from retail consumers is associated with knowledge of and concern about environmental

issues and is far less predictable. One of the primary limitations in environmental labeling

programs to date has been a lack of awareness on the part of consumers. Increased consumer

awareness about environmental issues and the existence and purpose of environmental labeling

could significantly affect the success of programs. If national and international news events, in

combination with consumer education, increase awareness of environmental issues and labeling

information is found to be credible and useful, retail consumer demand is likely to increase. The

degree of change in retail consumer interest over time is, however, more uncertain. In turn, the

viability of programs dependent upon fees for services and licensing fees are more at risk from

any downturn in demand from customers (throughout the supply chain) than are programs with

other sources of funding (such as governmental subsidies) or those programs with a diverse set of

products/services (such as consulting and testing not directly related to labeling).

Appendix A:

Overview Table of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered

in this Report

Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal Category

Mandatory/ 

Voluntary Type of Label

Type of 

Program

Govt/ NonGovt Year FoundedNo. of Product 

Categories

Developed 

Programs

Austria Austrian Eco-Label Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1991 35

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1988 49

China - Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1994 12

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt Unknown 33

Czech Republic - Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1994 17

Denmark Nordic Swan Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 42

EU European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme Type I/III V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 11

Finland Nordic Swan Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 42

France NF-Environnement Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 6

Germany Blue Angel Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1977 88

Germany Green Dot Type I V Single Attribute Positive Quasi 1990 7

Iceland Nordic Swan Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 42

India Eco-Mark Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1991 16

Japan Ecomark Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 69

Korea Ecomark Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 36

Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 11

Malaysia Product Certification Program Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1996 1

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1992 32

New Zealand Environmental Choice Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1990 17

Norway Nordic Swan Label Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 42

Singapore Green Label Singapore Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 21

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1993 3

Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1989 42

Sweden Good Environmental Choice Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1990 17

A-1
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal Category

Mandatory/ 

Voluntary Type of Label

Type of 

Program

Govt/ NonGovt Year FoundedNo. of Product 

Categories

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1992 35

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1993 6

UK European Union Ecolabel Scheme Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 11

US Battery Labeling N/A M

Information 

Disclosure Neutral Govt 1996 3

US Chlorine Free Products Association Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1997 2

US ECO-O.K. Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1987 5

US Ecotel Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1994 1

US Energy Guide Type III M Report Card Neutral Govt 1975 19

US Energy Star Limited Attributes Seal V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 26

US Fuel Economy Information Program Type III M Report Card Neutral Govt 1975 1

US Green Seal Type I V Seal of Approval Positive

Private - nonprofit 1989 88

US ODS - Ozone M Hazard Negative Govt 1990 Undefined

US Office of Pesticide Program (FIFRA) M Hazard Negative Govt 1947

US Proposition 65 Other M Hazard Negative Govt 1986 Undefined

US SCS - Claim Certification Type II/various V Seal of Approval Neutral Non-Govt 1991 4

US SCS - Eco-Profile Type III V Report Card Neutral Non-Govt 1989 All

US SCS - Forestry Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1991 2

US SCS - NutriClean Type I V Single attribute Positive Non-Govt 1984 1

US Smart Wood Program V

US TSCA M Hazard Negative Govt 1976

US Vermont M Hazard Negative Govt 1991 35

US WAVE Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1992 1

US Greening the Government Buying Guide N/A Buying Guide Neutral Govt 1997 N/A

US The Green Pages Buying Guide N/A Buying Guide Neutral Govt 1993 N/A

US

US EPA VOC Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings N/A M

Information 

Disclosure Negative Govt 1998 50

Programs in 

Development

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Quasi 1993 2

US Consumer Labeling Initiative In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

US Electric Utility Labeling In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Quasi In Progress In Progress

US Small Spark Ignited Engines In Progress V Seal of Approval Positive Govt In Progress In Progress

Finland Type III Type III Report Card Neutral Govt

Indonesia BAPEDAL Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt 1995-present? In Progress

A-2
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal Category

Mandatory/ 

Voluntary Type of Label

Type of 

Program

Govt/ NonGovt Year FoundedNo. of Product 

Categories

Indonesia Ministry of Trade Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Govt unknown In Progress

Indonesia Indonesian Ecolabeling Working Group Type I V Seal of Approval Positive Non-Govt 1994 1

Germany Type III Type III Report Card Neutral not yet developed

Hong Kong Eco-label not yet developed

Not Operational

Australia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

US OAQPS labels/CA program N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Argentina - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chile - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No Information 

Provided

Greece

Italy

New Zealand Project 98 - food label

US Flipper

Sweden Swedish Type III

Germany Blue Angel's Green Passport - private

A-3
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Developed 

Programs

Austria Austrian Eco-Label

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice

China -

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label

Czech Republic -

Denmark Nordic Swan

EU European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Finland Nordic Swan

France NF-Environnement

Germany Blue Angel

Germany Green Dot

Iceland Nordic Swan

India Eco-Mark

Japan Ecomark

Korea Ecomark

Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Malaysia Product Certification Program

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur

New Zealand Environmental Choice 

Norway Nordic Swan Label 

Singapore Green Label Singapore

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente 

Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label

Sweden Good Environmental Choice

No. of Awards

Indicated that 

Standards Have 

Changed

Significant 

Program 

Changes

Other Programs/ 

Actvities

Foreign 

Based 

Licenses Methodology

150 Yes No No 10 LCA

126 Yes Yes Yes 10 LCA

43 unknown No No 0 single-attribute or few factors

15 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown LCA

198 No 0.41 LCA

350 Yes Yes No 20% LCA

182 Yes Yes No N/A LCA

350 Yes Yes No 20% LCA

>300 No Yes No 0 Simplified LCA

4135 Yes No No 17% modified LCA - only looks at final impact

N/A Yes No Yes Unknown Single attribute

350 Yes Yes No 20% LCA

1 No No No 0 LCA

2031 Yes Yes Yes Unknown LCA

219 No No Unknown Unknown modified LCA

182 Yes Yes No N/A LCA

unknown 0 No No 0 single-attribute

86 Yes Yes No LCA

55 1 Yes No 0 LCA

350 Yes Yes No 20% LCA

702 Yes No Unknown Unknown simplified LCA

14 No No No LCA

350 Yes Yes No 20% LCA

1139 Yes No Unknown Unknown simple multi-attribute

A-4
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme

UK European Union Ecolabel Scheme

US Battery Labeling

US Chlorine Free Products Association

US ECO-O.K.

US Ecotel

US Energy Guide

US Energy Star

US Fuel Economy Information Program

US Green Seal

US ODS - Ozone

US Office of Pesticide Program (FIFRA)

US Proposition 65

US SCS - Claim Certification

US SCS - Eco-Profile

US SCS - Forestry

US SCS - NutriClean

US Smart Wood Program

US TSCA

US Vermont

US WAVE

US Greening the Government

US The Green Pages

US

US EPA VOC Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings

Programs in 

Development

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality

US Consumer Labeling Initiative

US Electric Utility Labeling

US Small Spark Ignited Engines

Finland Type III

Indonesia BAPEDAL

No. of Awards

Indicated that 

Standards Have 

Changed

Significant 

Program 

Changes

Other Programs/ 

Actvities

Foreign 

Based 

Licenses Methodology

102 Yes Yes No 4 LCA

0 0 Yes No LCA

182 Yes Yes No N/A LCA

N/A N/A No No N/A N/A

2 0 No Yes unknown single-attribute

about 100 0 No Yes ? Other

34 unknown No Yes Yes proprietary

N/A N/A Yes No N/A N/A

Yes Yes Yes 0 single attribute

N/A N/A Yes No N/A N/A

300 Yes Yes Yes 5 LCA

N/A N/A Yes No N/A N/A

N/A No No N/A

N/A N/A No No N/A single-attribute

2000 Yes No Yes Yes single-attribute

Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes LCSEA

50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Other

400 growers No No Yes Yes single-attribute

No No

N/A No Yes Yes N/A single-attribute

750 0 No Yes No N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A No No No N/A single-attribute

In Progress In Progress In Progress ? In Progress LCA

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

A-5
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Indonesia Ministry of Trade

Indonesia Indonesian Ecolabeling Working Group

Germany Type III

Hong Kong Eco-label

Not Operational

Australia N/A

US OAQPS labels/CA program

Argentina -

Chile -

No Information 

Provided

Greece

Italy

New Zealand Project 98 - food label

US Flipper

Sweden Swedish Type III

Germany Blue Angel's Green Passport - private

No. of Awards

Indicated that 

Standards Have 

Changed

Significant 

Program 

Changes

Other Programs/ 

Actvities

Foreign 

Based 

Licenses Methodology

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

In Progress In Progress In Progress unknown unknown unknown

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

A-6
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Developed 

Programs

Austria Austrian Eco-Label

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice

China -

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label

Czech Republic -

Denmark Nordic Swan

EU European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Finland Nordic Swan

France NF-Environnement

Germany Blue Angel

Germany Green Dot

Iceland Nordic Swan

India Eco-Mark

Japan Ecomark

Korea Ecomark

Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Malaysia Product Certification Program

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur

New Zealand Environmental Choice 

Norway Nordic Swan Label 

Singapore Green Label Singapore

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente 

Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label

Sweden Good Environmental Choice

Use of NonEnvironmental 

Attributes

Developed/ 

Developing G7 EU

Stage at Which 

There is 

Stakeholder 

Involvement Used in Procurement

Used on 

Retail 

Products

No Developed No Yes criteria devlp Yes, unpecified Yes

No Developed Yes No prod/crit Informal Yes

No Developed No No

product selection, 

criteria 

development unknown Yes

No Developed No No criteria devlp Informal Yes

No Yes criteria develp Yes

Yes Developed No Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Formal Yes

No Developed NA Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Informal Yes

Yes Developed No Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Formal Yes

No Developed Yes Yes criteria devlp Informal Yes

Yes Developed Yes Yes

product cat sel, 

finalizing draft 

criteria Informal Yes

No Developed Yes Yes criteria devlp Formal Yes

Yes Developed No Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Formal Yes

Yes Developing No No no No Yes

No Developed Yes No crit Informal Yes

No Developed No No criteria devlp unknown Yes

No Developed N/A Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Informal Yes

No Developed No No

product selection, 

criteria 

development No Yes

No Developed No Yes prod, crit Informal Yes

No Developed No No prod, crit No Yes

Yes Developed No Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Formal Yes

Yes Developed No No product critera Yes, unspecified Yes

No Developed No Yes No Yes

Yes Developed No Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Formal Yes

No Developed No Yes

prod cat sel, 

criteria devlp Informal Yes

A-7
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme

UK European Union Ecolabel Scheme

US Battery Labeling

US Chlorine Free Products Association

US ECO-O.K.

US Ecotel

US Energy Guide

US Energy Star

US Fuel Economy Information Program

US Green Seal

US ODS - Ozone

US Office of Pesticide Program (FIFRA)

US Proposition 65

US SCS - Claim Certification

US SCS - Eco-Profile

US SCS - Forestry

US SCS - NutriClean

US Smart Wood Program

US TSCA

US Vermont

US WAVE

US Greening the Government

US The Green Pages

US

US EPA VOC Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings

Programs in 

Development

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality

US Consumer Labeling Initiative

US Electric Utility Labeling

US Small Spark Ignited Engines

Finland Type III

Indonesia BAPEDAL

Use of NonEnvironmental 

Attributes

Developed/ 

Developing G7 EU

Stage at Which 

There is 

Stakeholder 

Involvement Used in Procurement

Used on 

Retail 

Products

Yes Developed No No

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp will be formal in future Yes

No Developing No No product cat, crit Yes

No Developed N/A Yes

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp Informal Yes

No Developed Yes No

manufacturers 

lobbied for law No Yes

No Developed Yes No

membership (it's a 

trade association) unknown Yes

Yes Developing** No** No Y Informal Yes

Yes Developed Yes No N No Yes

No Developed Yes No N No Yes

No Developed Yes No Y Formal Yes

No Developed Yes No N No Yes

No Developed Yes No throughout Informal Yes

No Developed Yes No n No Yes

Developed Yes No Yes

No Developed Yes No prog formation No Yes

No Developed Yes No throughout No Yes

Yes Developed Yes No throughout Informal Yes

Yes Developed Yes No throughout No Yes

No Developed Yes No throughout No Yes

Yes No Yes

Developed Yes No Yes

No Developed Yes No unknown No Yes

N/A Developed Yes No N No Yes

N/A Developed Yes No N/A Yes N/A

N/A Yes No N/A Yes N/A

No Developed Yes No N/A No Yes

No Developing No No

product cat sel, 

criteria devlp In Progress In Progress

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

In Progress developed Yes No Y No In Progress

In Progress developed Yes No Y In Progress Yes

No Yes

In Progress developing No No In Progress In Progress Yes

A-8
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Indonesia Ministry of Trade

Indonesia Indonesian Ecolabeling Working Group

Germany Type III

Hong Kong Eco-label

Not Operational

Australia N/A

US OAQPS labels/CA program

Argentina -

Chile -

No Information 

Provided

Greece

Italy

New Zealand Project 98 - food label

US Flipper

Sweden Swedish Type III

Germany Blue Angel's Green Passport - private

Use of NonEnvironmental 

Attributes

Developed/ 

Developing G7 EU

Stage at Which 

There is 

Stakeholder 

Involvement Used in Procurement

Used on 

Retail 

Products

In Progress developing No No In Progress In Progress Yes

unknown developing No No In Progress In Progress Yes

Developed Yes Yes

No No

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

A-9
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Developed 

Programs

Austria Austrian Eco-Label

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice

China -

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label

Czech Republic -

Denmark Nordic Swan

EU European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Finland Nordic Swan

France NF-Environnement

Germany Blue Angel

Germany Green Dot

Iceland Nordic Swan

India Eco-Mark

Japan Ecomark

Korea Ecomark

Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme

Malaysia Product Certification Program

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur

New Zealand Environmental Choice 

Norway Nordic Swan Label 

Singapore Green Label Singapore

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente 

Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label

Sweden Good Environmental Choice

Used Within 

Industry Sector, 

i.e. pre-retail Participating in ISO Method of Financing

Indicated Working 

with Another 

Country

Report Trade 

Conflict or Issues

Unknown Yes Fees Yes Yes

No Yes Fees Yes No

No No Fees and Govt No Yes

Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown

No Fees and Govt Yes

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes Member states and fees Yes Yes

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes Fees Yes Yes

No Yes Fees No No

No N/A Fees No Yes

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes Fees No Yes

No Yes Fees Yes No

No Unknown Fees No Unknown

No Yes Member states and fees Yes Yes

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes Yes

No No Fees Yes No

No Yes Fees Yes No

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes Govt No No

No Yes Yes No

No Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes

Funded by Swedish Society 

of Nature Conservation and 

3 retailers No No

A-10
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme

UK European Union Ecolabel Scheme

US Battery Labeling

US Chlorine Free Products Association

US ECO-O.K.

US Ecotel

US Energy Guide

US Energy Star

US Fuel Economy Information Program

US Green Seal

US ODS - Ozone

US Office of Pesticide Program (FIFRA)

US Proposition 65

US SCS - Claim Certification

US SCS - Eco-Profile

US SCS - Forestry

US SCS - NutriClean

US Smart Wood Program

US TSCA

US Vermont

US WAVE

US Greening the Government

US The Green Pages

US

US EPA VOC Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings

Programs in 

Development

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality

US Consumer Labeling Initiative

US Electric Utility Labeling

US Small Spark Ignited Engines

Finland Type III

Indonesia BAPEDAL

Used Within 

Industry Sector, 

i.e. pre-retail Participating in ISO Method of Financing

Indicated Working 

with Another 

Country

Report Trade 

Conflict or Issues

Yes Yes Fees and Govt Yes No

No Yes

Funded by govt. industry 

and private orgs Yes

No Yes Member states and fees Yes Yes

No No Govt N/A No

Yes Yes

Inspection fees/Member 

dues No No

Yes No Donations N/A No

No No Fees No No

No No Govt N/A No

Yes No Govt N/A No

No No Govt N/A N/A

No Yes Fees Yes No

Yes No Govt N/A No

Govt

Yes N/A Govt N/A N/A

Yes No Fees No No

Yes Yes Fees Yes No

Yes No Fees No No

Yes No Fees No No

Govt

No N/A Govt N/A N/A

No No Govt N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Yes N/A Govt No N/A

In Progress Y Govt, Other cert. activities No No

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress

N In Progress In Progress N/A N/A

N In Progress In Progress N/A N/A

In Progress unknown In Progress In Progress Yes

A-11
Appendix A: Overview of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report

Country Seal

Indonesia Ministry of Trade

Indonesia Indonesian Ecolabeling Working Group

Germany Type III

Hong Kong Eco-label

Not Operational

Australia N/A

US OAQPS labels/CA program

Argentina -

Chile -

No Information 

Provided

Greece

Italy

New Zealand Project 98 - food label

US Flipper

Sweden Swedish Type III

Germany Blue Angel's Green Passport - private

Used Within 

Industry Sector, 

i.e. pre-retail Participating in ISO Method of Financing

Indicated Working 

with Another 

Country

Report Trade 

Conflict or Issues

In Progress unknown In Progress In Progress Yes

In Progress unknown In Progress In Progress Yes

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

A-12
1

Programs are presented in the same order as they appear in Appendix A, “Overview Table of

Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in this Report.” 

2

Exchange rates are based on early 1998 values.

Appendix B:

Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs 

Covered in this Report1, 2

i

List of Environmental Programs Covered in This Report

Country Program Page Number

Developed

Programs

Austria Austrian Eco-Label B-1

Canada Canada's Environmental Choice B-5

China - B-13

Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label B-17

Czech Republic - B-21

Denmark Nordic Swan B-23

EU European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme B-31

Finland Nordic Swan B-23

France NF-Environnement B-41

Germany Blue Angel B-47

Germany Green Dot B-55

Iceland Nordic Swan B-23

India Eco-Mark B-59

Japan Ecomark B-65

Korea Ecomark B-71

Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme B-31

Malaysia Product Certification Program B-75

Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur B-79

New Zealand Environmental Choice B-85

Norway Nordic Swan Label B-23

Singapore Green Label Singapore B-89

Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente B-95

Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label B-23

Sweden Good Environmental Choice B-99

Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan B-101

Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme B-107

UK European Union Ecolabel Scheme B-31

US Battery Labeling B-111

US Chlorine Free Products Association B-115

US Consumer Labeling Initiative B-119

US ECO-O.K. B-121

US Ecotel B-125

US Energy Guide B-129

US Energy Star B-133

US Fuel Economy Information Program B-139

US Pesticide Labeling under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA)

B-141

US Green Seal B-153

US EPA’s Ozone Depleting Substance Warning

Label (ODS)

B-161
ii

US Proposition 65 B-165

US Scientific Certification Systems -

Environmental Claims Certification Program

B-169

US Scientific Certification Systems - 

Certified Eco-Profile Labeling System

B-173

US Scientific Certification Systems - Forest

Conservation Program

B-179

US Scientific Certification Systems - 

NutriClean Food Safety Management Program

B-185

US Product Labeling under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA)

B-189

US Vermont B-193

US WAVE B-197

US Greening the Government B-201

US The Green Pages B-201

US US EPA VOC Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings

B-203

Programs in Development

Brazil ABNT - Environmental Quality B-207

US Consumer Labeling Initiative B-119

US Small Spark-Ignited Engine Labeling B-210

US Electric Utility Labeling B-210

Indonesia Environmental Labeling B-210
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-1

AUSTRIAN ECO-LABEL

Introduction

The Austrian Eco-Label was created in 1991 on the initiative of the Federal Ministry of

Environment, Youth and Family Affairs (BMUJF). The Eco-Label is a voluntary, seal-ofapproval, targeted to both consumers and manufacturers. It is designed to draw consumers’

attention to products and services that are “more environmentally friendly as compared to the very

harmful effects inflicted by other products fulfilling the same function” (Umweltbundesamt,

1994). The program also seeks to motivate producers and traders to “develop and offer less

environmentally-polluting products” (Umweltbundesamt, 1994). In addition to evaluating the

environmental impacts of a product, the Eco-Label also certifies the quality of the product,

ensuring “a high environmental standard without having to fear a loss of quality or safety”

(Umweltbundesamt, 1994).

As of August 1997, product criteria have been developed for 34 product categories under the

Austrian Eco-Label. Since 1996, new product categories include tourism, carpets, papers for

magazines, and office chairs. Currently, there are a total of 150 products that have been awarded

the eco-label, and ten foreign companies that carry the Austrian Eco-Label on their products.

Recent Developments

Austria’s ecolabeling scheme operates in conjunction with the European Union’s (EU)

ecolabeling program. The EU label, however, is not seen as a substitute for the Austrian label. In

fact, “as long as product-related market shares and technology developments differ strongly within

the large market areas like the EU, we [Austria] are of the firm opinion that it cannot be wise to

reject national schemes” (Jakl, 1997). Although criteria for product groups developed under the

EU ecolabeling scheme may be integrated into national ecolabeling programs, the EU Eco-label is

not be a precondition for receiving the Austrian Eco-Label.

Program Summary

BMUJF, the Federal Environmental Agency (UBA), the Austrian Consumer Association (VKI),

and the Austrian Association for the Promotion of Quality (ARGE) are the four primary

organizations responsible for administering the Austrian Eco-Label program. The ARGE

administers and coordinates with manufacturers wishing to obtain the ecolabel. The other three

organizations are involved with criteria development. In addition, several groups -- the Eco-Label

Advisory Board and the “expert groups”(one for each product category) -- have been established

to assist in the award process. Members of the Advisory Board and the “expert groups” include

individuals from the four administrating bodies, as well as people from environmental protection

organizations, manufacturing, trade associations, consumer protection organizations, and

individual experts.
B-2 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Product categories are proposed to the ARGE by manufacturers, institutions, and other interest

groups. ARGE then prepares a summary of the proposals for BMUJF. Based on assessments of

the proposed product groups’ overall environmental impacts, the BMUJF decides which product

categories will be pursued for the Eco-Label. Once product categories have been selected, the

Federal Environmental Agency, the BMUJF, and the Consumer Association jointly develop and

propose product criteria. Chaired by the Austrian Consumer Association (VKI), an expert group

(with representatives from a wide range of stakeholder organizations) is responsible for discussing 

proposed criteria and coming to a unanimous decision in passing a draft set of environmental

criteria for each product group.

The Eco-labeling Advisory Group approves the draft, which is then subject to a final examination

by the Federal Environmental Agency, who approves the product criteria. The criteria are then

authorized by the Minister for the Environment and published in the official Federal

Environmental Agency gazette, the Wiener Zeitung. Usually, criteria are valid for three years

unless there has been a major technology revision, in which case criteria may be reviewed before

the three years are over. If no manufacturer applies for an ecolabel in a given product group,

criteria for that product group may be withdrawn or altered prior to the three years.

The Austrian Eco-Label may be awarded to both products and services and is open to both

domestic and foreign producers, who submit applications to ARGE. If the manufacturer is in

compliance with the product criteria, a “label utilization contract” is awarded by BMUJF and

signed by the producer. Each product label may be used for two years, after which it is eligible

for renewal. There is an annual fee for use of the label, which varies depending on the sales of the

product; the fee can range from ATS 2,000 ($160.00 US) to an upper limit of ATS 25,000

($2,000.00 US). If a breach of contract is found, BMUJF has the right to prohibit further use of

the label, either temporarily or permanently.

Program Methodology

Product categories are proposed by manufacturers, institutions, and other interest groups to

ARGE. Product categories are selected through an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the

categories, as well as by stakeholder votes or a legislative body’s votes. The program reports,

however, that it does not conduct an environmental impact analysis when selecting product

categories or in establishing product criteria.

When developing product criteria, the Austria Eco-Label program conducts a life-cycle

assessment. In setting its criteria Austria Eco-Label collects information from previous literature

and studies pertaining to the product categories, other programs’ LCAs, independent testing and

auditing, and information from the manufacturers themselves. Products are assessed on an “allembracing and unified evaluation” of not only the environmental effects of product use but also

on the following factors: relative consumption of raw materials and energy during the production

process, toxicity of the product’s contents, wastes generated during manufacturing as well as

disposal, recyclability; quality and safety of the product, usability of the product, and durability
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-3

and ease of repair of the product. Additionally, Austria assesses product categories on other

factors such as occupational health, human health impacts, the use of animal testing, and general

compliance with health, safety and environmental regulations in the country. Austria Eco-Label

reports that it does not use SETAC guidelines in its life-cycle assessment.

Other Information

During the past year, Austria Eco-Label has participated in discussions with other European

countries to try to harmonize national ecolabeling programs in Europe. Preliminary pilot projects

have been established to try to develop unified product categories for three pilot product

categories -- vacuum cleaners, coffee machines, and furniture. The aims of this pilot project are to

1) identify the critical steps in the criteria development process (which could lead to mutual

recognition among programs); 2) establish what the key elements are in criteria development; and

3) to establish mutually-recognized testing procedures among participating countries. 

References

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 1996, Fact Sheet, “Certified Products.”

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 1996, Fact Sheet, “Approved Criteria for Awarding the Austrian

Eco-Label.”

Umweltbundesamt, 1994, The Austrian Eco-Label (Booklet).

Dr. Thomas Jakl, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, personal communication with Abt Associates,

July/August 1997.

Austrian Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family. Austria’s Approach to

Environmental Labeling. Website address:

www.bmu.gv.at/bmu/bmu/fachinfo/wum/UWZEnglish.html.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Refrigerators and freezers

Sanitary paper and tissues made of recycled paper

Varnishes and paints

Recycled paper for writing, copying, and EDP purposes (fine paper)

Filing systems made of recycled paper

Exercise books made from recycled paper

Household washing machines

Wood and wooded materials for indoor building purposes

Wooden furniture
B-4 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Water-soluble varnishes for wooden floors

Water-saving toilet flush tanks for non-chlorinated plastic materials

Individual electronic controls for sanitary facilities

Reprocessing of ink media (toner-modules, ribbon cassettes, ink cartridges)

Saw-chain oil and lubricants

Copying machines

Solar collectors

Wall paints

Products made from recycled paper (e.g., envelopes, etc.)

Detergents for dishwashers

Detergents for manual use

Textile detergents

Printing paper for newspapers mainly made of waste paper

Total chlorine free bleached paper, made from virgin fiber, for non-impact printing (e.g.,

inkjet and high speed laser printers)

Low pollutant print products (publications)

Wood-based playground equipment for outdoor use

Compostable paper bags for biogenic waste

Tickets for public transport (Go-for-the-Environment Tickets)

Returnable bottles for beverages and liquids

Compostments for cemeteries (e.g., compostable flower arrangements, etc.)

Kitchen rolls, paper towels and cleaning cloths made out of recycled paper

Cleaning agents

Tourism enterprises (e.g., hotels, restaurants, etc.)

Carpets

Paper made from recycled materials for magazines

Office Chairs

Categories Under Consideration

Thermal insulation

Heating systems

Energy supplying systems
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-5

CANADA'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICEM PROGRAM: THE ECOLOGOM 

Introduction

"The mission of the Environmental Choice Program (ECP) is to reduce the stress on the

environment by encouraging the demand for and supply of environmentally responsible products

and services”(Canada’s Environmental Choice Program, 1996). ECP was created as a voluntary

ecolabeling program by Environment Canada (the environment department of the Government of

Canada) in 1988. In 1995, TerraChoice Environmental Services Inc., a Canadian private sector

company, assumed management of the ecolabeling program, though Environment Canada still

retains ownership.

ECP has published 50 final guidelines, has generated 39 certification criteria documents through

the Panel Review and Certification Process (see below), and has awarded the EcoLogo to over

1,750 products, services, technologies, and events as an indication of their positive environmental

attributes. It has received a generally favorable response from consumers and industry -- a June

1996 survey found that one in five Canadians said that they or someone in their household had

purchased a product carrying the EcoLogo in the past year, and that two in three Canadians said

they had confidence in the EcoLogo as a buying guide. Additionally, in a 1995 survey, 80 percent

of marketing managers said they expected some increase in consumer demand for information on

environmental attributes of products.

Recent Developments

ECP has undergone several significant changes in the past few years. As mentioned above, ECP

management was transferred from the government to TerraChoice, a private consulting company. 

ECP has also begun a significant marketing program; they publish newsletters, distribute an

ecobuyer guide, and staff attend numerous trade shows. Not only has their marketing increased,

but it has also shifted targets; whereas retail consumers were the focus in the past, they are now

shifting their aim upstream to, for example, industry groups, school boards, and private

institutions. ECP has also increased use of their Panel Review and Certification Process for

awarding labels. Described in detail in the summary section below, this differs from most other

programs in that it will award a label to a single product that is particularly innovative without

previously creating a product category and establishing award criteria. This methodology is very

different from the conventional supply-side approach of most seal-of-approval programs that

create standards for groups of products at a time.

Program Summary

TerraChoice is responsible for selecting product categories, and does so based on either supply- or

demand-side indicators. The supply-side management approach, one of the most commonly used

by ecolabel programs, selects product categories based on the volume of the particular product in

the marketplace and the potential for environmental improvement. The demand-side approach,
B-6 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

unique to the ECP program, allows manufacturers to request a label for a particular product (most

other programs will field requests for product categories but not for specific products).

Criteria for the category are developed using a Technical Briefing Note (TBN) characterizing the

lifecycle of a product. A Review Committee, including experts from various fields, then reviews

the draft. Upon completion of the proposed guideline by the Review Committee, there is a fourto-eight-week public review period. While they are not formally required to reply, TerraChoice

responds to most comments. TerraChoice officials, along with the Review Committee, revise the

draft guidelines based on the public comments received. Upon acceptance by the government, the

final guideline is released.

Manufacturers can then apply for an ecolabel for a product meeting the published criteria for the

relevant product category. Applicants undergo a confidential certification and audit process

conducted by TerraChoice. Applicants are responsible for the cost of verifying that the criteria are

met by their product and that they meet general licensing requirements (e.g., compliance with

applicable environmental, safety, and performance legislation). These costs can be between $750

($542 US) to $2,500 ($1,807 US) Canadian dollars based on the certification criteria and the

requirement for site auditing.

Companies can also apply for certification for a product for which criteria have not been

developed, referred to as the Panel Review and Certification Process. Certification of applicants

with unique or niche products or services for which product category standards have not been

established are recommended. An expert panel reviews each specific product application. While

manufacturers are not charged a higher fee for this process, it tends to be more labor intensive

than the process for technical guidelines; the applicant must present a large amount of technical

and marketing information documenting its environmental excellence. If several similar products

apply for the award through the Panel Review and Certification process, TerraChoice may

develop a set of criteria for the product category as described above in the supply-side approach.

Once a manufacturer has been awarded use of the ecolabel, the company enters into a contract

with TerraChoice. The annual fee is based on gross annual sales, and can be anywhere between

$350 and $10,000 per license. Compliance is ensured through an annual statement submitted by

the manufacturer confirming continued compliance, and through a three-year review of guidelines. 

In addition, compliance monitoring is conducted and paid for by TerraChoice, and includes

location visits, product testing, and records verification.

Program Methodology

TerraChoice is responsible for selecting product categories, and does so based on either supply-or

demand-side indicators. The supply-side management approach, one of the most commonly used

by ecolabel programs, selects product categories based on the volume of the particular product in

the marketplace and the potential for environmental improvement. The demand-side approach,

unique to the ECP program, allows manufacturers to request a label for a particular product
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-7

without the development of overall labeling criteria. If several manufacturers express interest in

certification of the product, TerraChoice then considers the development of labeling criteria for

the whole class of products. These are known as Technical Guidelines.

Technical Guidelines for the category are developed using a Technical Briefing Note (TBN), 

which looks at the environmental impacts of the product throughout its lifecycle, as well as

market, economic, and technical information about the product category. In developing the

Technical Guidelines, information from public sources is gathered and evaluated. The Review

Committee then reviews the Guidelines for scientific validity.

Companies can also apply for certification for a product for which criteria have not been

developed, referred to as the Panel Review and Certification Process. Certification of applicants

with unique or niche products or services for which product category standards have not been

established, and which represent a clear and significant reduction in environmental impacts, are

recommended. An expert panel reviews each specific product application. While manufacturers

are not charged a higher fee for this process, it tends to be more labor intensive than the process

for technical guidelines; the applicant must present a large amount of technical and marketing

information documenting its environmental excellence. If several similar products apply for the

award through the Panel Review and Certification process, TerraChoice may develop a set of

criteria for the product category as described above.

Other Information

ECP is sensitive to the constraints of small and medium-sized businesses. Because its fee is based

on sales, the minimum fee is applied to businesses with smaller sales.

The program is informally connected to several governmental and non-governmental procurement

programs. In part, because the government owns the program, the ecolabel is used for

government procurement; most departments in the government are required to be “green,”

creating a large market for products with the label. Additionally, the Green Procurement Institute

is a Canadian organization set up to encourage green procurement. They work closely with ECP

and provide a wealth of information to retailers and governments interested in green procurement. 

The EcoBuyer newsletter, mentioned above, is an ECP creation used to reach retailers and

purchasing departments in private companies to inform them about ECP-labeled products. The

ECP reports that, in addition to specifying labeled products, some retailers rely on the criteria

outlined by the Canadian ecolabel but use their own verification process.

ECP is also active in coordination with other non-Canadian labeling bodies. The program is a

member of the Global Ecolabeling Network (GEN), and participates in International Standards

Organization (ISO) activities. ECP plans to incorporate the ISO 14020 and 14024 standards once

they are final. ECP representatives advocate “consistency, high credibility, and mutual respect

between existing and proposed programs,” and are working on mutual recognition with other

programs. To this end, ECP has exchanged information with both the Taiwan program and the
B-8 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

US Green Seal program. Specifically, they are working toward mutual recognition with Taiwan

through standardization of operations based on ISO standards, mutual recognition of non-productrelated impacts, and cooperation in auditing, verification and testing. While the panel review

process was not specifically designed to address these issues, it is a useful process for recognizing

and awarding labels to products from other countries based on their environmental leadership.

Additionally, TerraChoice, acting as a privately hired consulting company, has contracts with both

India and Mexico. While India already has a program structure set up, they have sought

TerraChoice advice and recommendations regarding potential program revisions. Mexico has

sought TerraChoice assistance in assessing the merit of, and issues relating to, the development of

a Mexican environmental labeling program.

While completely separate from ECP, another labeling program is being formed by TerraChoice

and the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement called the Environmental

Technology Verification (ETV) Program. In its pilot stage, this program is being coordinated

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Environmental Technology

Strategy and the California EPA. ECP expects to issue “certificates of authenticity” to

environmental technologies under the new program. The program is voluntary, and will provide a

set of standards across Canada and the US.

References

Canada’s Environmental Choice Program, October 1996.

The Environmental Monitor, June 1996.

Insight Canada, February 1995.

Canada’s Environmental Choice Program. “Environmental Choice Program, Annual Report.”

95/96.

Canada’s Environmental Choice Program. “Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)

Program.” May, 1997.

Global Ecolabeling Network, GENews, March 1997, Issue No. 2.

Binette, Sherry. TerraChoice Environmental Services Inc. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-9

Polak, John C. TerraChoice Environmental Services Inc. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Bozowsky, Evan. TerraChoice Environmental Services Inc. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Canada’s Environmental Choice Program. ECP-57 Industrial and Commercial Cleaners, March

1, 1997.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Automotive engine oil (8)

Products made from recycled plastic (2)

Specialty batteries (4)

Products made from recycled rubber

Water-borne surface coatings (31)

Fine paper from recycled paper

Miscellaneous products from recycled paper (35)

Newsprint from recycled paper

Solvent-borne paints (7)

Diapers (1)

Composting systems for residential waste (1)

Automotive fuels (6)

Reusable utility bags (5)

Energy-efficient lamps

Water conserving products (5)

Commercial car wash services

Automobile service stations

Autobody, collision repair, and refinishing services

General purpose cleaners (4)

Domestic water heaters

Building materials: acoustical products

Dry cleaning services

Building materials: thermal insulation (5)

Remanufactured printing cartridges (1)

Engine coolant concentrate

Adhesives

Sealants and caulking compounds

Photocopiers (1)

Printing inks
B-10 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Gypsum wallboard

Driveway sealers (1)

Photofinishing services

Industrial and commercial cleaners

Lithographic printing services (1)

Toilet tissue (1)

Kitchen towels

Facial tissue

Table napkins

Hand towels

Rechargeable consumer batteries (2)

Office furniture and panel systems

Recycled water-borne surface coatings

Biodegradable, non-toxic chain and saw lubricants

Polyethylene plastic film products (3)

Demountable partitions

Facsimile machines (1)

Marine inboard

Marine foul release coatings (2)

Business forms and other converted paper products

Envelopes

Guidelines Under Development

Biodegradable non-toxic hydraulic fluids

Industrial and commercial cleaners

Resilient flooring

Coated paper

Categories Under Consideration

Wood shakes and shingles

Carpets

Carpet insulation

Pre-finished hardwood flooring

Asphalt shingles

Steel-based roofing products

Fibreboard

Concrete-based products

Particleboard

Panel Review Criteria

Clothing made from certified organic cotton

Source reduced plastic cheese packaging film

Organic turf management service
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-11

Source reduced plastic petri dishes

Fire door kit for retrofit projects

Battery powered lawnmower

Cotton swabs

Pressed firewood logs

Technology for industrial laboratory extractions

Energy efficient tires

Laser jet-desk top printers

Household washing machines

Household dishwashers

Packaging management system

Alternative water well rehabilitation technology

Alternative source electricity generation by utilities

Paint and varnish remover

Outdoor furnishings manufactured from waste-wood

Packaging management system

Synthetic industrial lubricant

Flushable and biodegradable sanitary napkin

Particleboard manufactures from an agricultural fibre

Advanced wastewater treatment system

Re-refined industrial lubricating oil

Pouch packaging system for liquid milk

Biodegradable bicycle chain oil

Alternative source electricity generation from biomass utilities

Residential homes

Resin used in the manufacture of compost bags

Remanufactured mattresses

Outdoor community events

Electronic equipment recovery service

Fishing sinkers

Component pulp

Fibreboard manufactures from recycled resources

Warming cooking gel

Office facilities

Anticorrosion chemical for vehicles

Liquid laundry detergent and fabric softeners

In the near future, the TerraChoice website will include continuously updated information on the

ECP, a listing of all ECP certification criteria documents, and directions on how to order/obtain

ECP documents. The website address is: www.terrachoice.ca.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-13

CHINA'S ECOLABELING PROGRAM

Introduction

In May 1994, the Chinese government established the China Certification Committee for

Environmental Labeling Products (CCEL) to administer a third-party certification program under

the direction of the China State Bureau of Technology Supervision (CSBTS) and the National

Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA). The establishment of CCEL was prompted by several

factors, including the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, after which the

Chinese government declared environmental stewardship a high priority. Trade issues also

influenced the government's decision to establish a national environmental labeling program since

some exports, such as refrigerators and wallpaper, had been adversely affected in the international

market by the lack of such a product certification program. In fact, some provinces and domestic

manufacturers had already designed their own labeling programs to address these issues. 

The purpose of China's environmental labeling program is to "reduce domestic environmental

stress of products by using market forces as a means to supplement mandatory environmental

laws." In addition, the program strives to increase public awareness of the environmental impact

of consumer products, and to promote the trade of environmentally preferable products. 

Program Summary

CCEL, chaired by the Administrator of NEPA, consists of 16 government officials and eight

members from various professional disciplines and stakeholder groups including environmental

science, economics, quality standards organizations, consumer associations, and

environmentalists. Its role is to define and administer the policy, principles, and rules of the

environmental labeling program. CCEL reports to CSBTS and NEPA, and relies on a small

Secretariat, seated in NEPA, to handle the day-to-day activities of the program.

China's environmental certification process begins with proposals for product categories, which

may be submitted to the Secretariat by any interested party. The Secretariat reviews the proposed

product category and submits its recommendations to CCEL, which then accepts or rejects the

proposal. This decision is finalized only after approval by both NEPA and CSBTS. 

Once a new product category is approved, the Secretariat delegates the task of drafting the new

product criteria to a private standard-setting organization. This draft is edited by the Secretariat

through a multi-party consultation process involving relevant experts and manufacturers. These

criteria are then submitted to NEPA for approval and release to the public.
B-14 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Manufacturers may then apply for product certification. To be eligible, manufacturers must be

legally registered with the appropriate government agency, meet all applicable product quality

standards, satisfy national and local pollution emission requirements, and must not have been

fined or punished by the national or local environmental protection agency for one year prior to

the application submission. 

Eligible manufacturers begin the certification process by submitting an application to their local

Environmental Protection Agency. The agency conducts a preliminary review of the product and

submits its findings along with the original application to CCEL. A CCEL inspection team then

conducts a site visit to examine both the product and production processes. In addition, product

samples are tested at a separate laboratory facility. Reports of the inspection and testing

procedure, along with the application, are submitted to the Secretariat, which reviews the

documents and gives its comments to CCEL. CCEL will either convene a plenary meeting or

distribute the application among members to make the final decision. This decision is then

approved and announced by NEPA and CSBTS. 

Award recipients sign a three-year contract with the CCEL Secretariat, which grants them license

to use the CCEL seal of approval, given continued environmental compliance. Compliance is

ensured through annual or biannual inspections performed by the local environmental protection

agency. 

There are fees for the application process, site inspection and product testing, and product

approval. In addition, there is an annual license fee for use of the label. This fee is calculated

according to a matrix incorporating product sales, the nature of the product, and manufacturer

size. Such scaling helps make the label accessible to large and small manufacturers alike.

Program Methodology

Selection of product categories is based on several factors that reflect the program's goal of

reducing environmental degradation. The program gives preference to products that have 

traditionally had significant environmental impact and for which advances in the manufacturing

process can bring about the reduction of such impact. In addition, products must be closely

related to people's daily lives. This condition exists for two reasons: first, the widespread

exposure of frequently-used products helps to raise consumer awareness of environmental impact;

second, even small reductions in the purchase of widely-used products can result in a large

reduction in environmental impact. Low-toxic, low-emission, and energy-saving products that

themselves stimulate the development of new technology and new products are favored, as well as

products that are covered by foreign environmental labeling programs or contribute to global

environmental protection.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-15

CCEL consults other environmental labeling programs in the setting of its own product criteria. 

Product criteria are formulated to reflect four major considerations. First, products must meet all

applicable quality, safety, and hygiene standards, as stated by law. Second, labeled products must

minimize their potential environmental impact. Third, the criteria should reflect both the local

conditions in China. Finally, the criteria should be easily understood by the average consumer.

References

"ECOLABELING: Its Implications for China." [Online report]. URL:

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/trade/cciced/ecochina.htm

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.

Product Categories

Final Categories (as of December 1994)

Domestic freezing appliances

Gas dispersed products

Degradable film

Lead-free automobile petroleum

Water-based paint

Toilet paper

Silks

Mercury-free, cadmium-free, and lead-free rechargeable batteries

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-17

CROATIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL

Introduction

Croatia’s Environmental Labeling program was established to “stimulate the development of new

technologies, the production and consumption of environmentally friendly products, the reduction

of environmental pollution, and rational resource and energy management.” The program is also

intended to provide consumers with a guide to make the “best choice” in terms of environmental

protection. Run by the State Directorate for Environment in Croatia, the program is positive and

voluntary.

To date, Croatia’s program has developed criteria for 33 product categories, and the Label has

been awarded to products in 15 of these categories. 

Program Summary 

Croatia’s Environmental Labeling program is administered by the State Directorate for

Environment and is run by an expert institution. An appointed Jury, however, makes all decisions

regarding the Label. The Jury is appointed by the Director of the State Directorate for

Environment, and is composed of five members, including representatives from the State

Directorate for Environment, the State Bureau for Standardization and Metrology, industry, trade

groups, experts in environmental protection, and non-governmental environmental associations. 

Each Jury member serves for two years.

The Jury selects product categories that have some adverse effect on the environment. 

Manufacturers can propose product categories.

Product criteria are established by the expert institution for each product category. Criteria take

into consideration all stages of the product’s life cycle and all possible negative impacts during

every stage of a product’s life, from its production to its disposal. In particular, criteria are

developed so that awards can be given to products: 

 that endanger the environment to a lesser extent than other equivalent products,

 that can be reused,

 that contain replaceable parts, 

 that reduce harmful emissions to the environment during their use, and 

 whose manufacturer uses natural resources reasonably.

The development process involves the participation of experts and public stakeholders. The Jury

makes the final decision on selecting product criteria. The product criteria are valid for a specific

period of time that is determined for each set of criteria. At the end of the period, the Jury reviews
B-18 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

the criteria and determines whether the criteria are obsolete, or if they can be extended without

revision.

Manufacturers of consumer goods submit applications to the State Directorate for Environment. 

It is the Jury’s decision as to whether to forward the application to the expert institution. The

expert institution conducts an audit, before and during which the following are collected or

performed: product quality certificate; list of raw materials; description of the technical process;

description of technological modifications; power supply improvements; choice of raw materials;

comparison between the product and similar products in the Croatian market; water resource

permit and waste water quantitative analysis; analysis of the product’s impact on water regarding,

among other things, biodegradability; outcome of examining the working environment and

equipment; description of waste disposal methods; and air quality impact assessment. From the

information collected during the audit, the expert institution then issues an opinion on whether or

not to award the Environmental Label. The Jury evaluates the information collected during the

audit to determine whether or not the product is in line with the product criteria and valid

regulations and standards. The Jury makes the final decision on awarding the Label. 

References

PreradoviÉ, Nevenka. State Directorate for Environment, Republic of Croatia. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

State Directorate for Environment, Republic of Croatia. Environmental Label of the Republic of

Croatia. Summer 1997.

State Directorate for Environment, Republic of Croatia. List of Product Categories for Which the

Specific Criteria are Available. Summer 1997.

State Directorate for Environment, Republic of Croatia. Specific Criteria for Product Groups for

the Environmental Label of the Republic of Croatia. Summer 1997.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Returnable paper packaging

Returnable glass packaging

Returnable plastic packaging

Returnable plastic containers

Returnable metal packaging

Waste paper collection 

Waste glass collection

Waste plastic collection

Waste metal collection
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-19

Waste rubber collection

Waste oil collection

Scrap paper products

Scrap glass products

Scrap plastic products

Scrap rubber products

Scrap wood products

Carbon dioxide (CO2) from fermentation waste

Asbestos-free clutch linings

Asbestos-free brake linings

Matches free from toxic substances

Fire lighting material free from hazardous substances

Emulsifiers and dispersers of oil spills on water, free from hazardous substances

Hygienic litter for pets free from hazardous substances

Funeral equipment free from harmful substances

Retreaded tires

Reusable ribbon cassettes

Recovered toner cartridges

Water dispersive polymeric coatings

Water-based adhesives

Lubricating oil for motor saw chains

Linen towel on the rail

Paper products for packaging

Detergents

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-21

THE CZECH ECOLABEL

Introduction

The Czech Republic environmental labeling program was initiated by the Resolution of the Czech

Republic in 1993 and was started in 1994. It organizes its basic principles around the EU

guidelines. “The primary objective of the Czech Eco-labeling Program is to encourage

environmental protection via the production and utilization of products which have a reduced

environmental impact.” The program is voluntary in nature, and supports credibility, transparency

and public participation as primary principles. It also looks to provide equal access for domestic

as well as imported producers. The program, to date, has announced 17 categories of products

and has awarded labels to 198 products from 29 companies. 

Program Summary

The program is composed of two primary organizing bodies: the Board of the Czech Eco-labeling

Program and the Czech Ecological Institute Agency. The Board is an advisory body to the

Minister of the Environment and administers the program. It is composed of experts from

government, research, quality testing authorities, and environmental and consumer organizations

as appointed by the Minister. The Board assesses categories and criteria for products and submits

suggestions for revisions of the guidelines. The Minister then awards the right to use the ecolabel

and approves guidelines. The Minister also established and financially supports the Agency. In

conjunction with the testing authorities and the Czech Environmental Inspection Division, the

Agency is responsible for examining applications with regard to compliance to standards.

Draft guidelines for product criteria are prepared by an ad hoc group of experts and submitted to

the Board. Manufacturers are closely involved with the process in order to encourage product

design and development improvements. Criteria are revised every two years.

Applicants may then submit an application to the Agency for their product. An initial registration

fee is collected by the Agency. If a label is awarded, the manufacturer enters into a licensing

agreement with the Agency and pays a flat fee of 20,000 CZK. During this two-year contract, the

Agency ensures that the manufacturer meets the requirements.

Program Methodology

Draft guidelines for product criteria are prepared by an ad hoc group of experts and submitted to

the Board. These environmental criteria are developed using a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. 

Manufacturers are closely involved with the process in order to encourage product design and

development improvements.
B-22 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Other Information

The Czech environmental labeling program is part of the EU environmental labeling program and

works toward harmonization with other countries through the EU framework. The Czech

program organized a seminar titled “Eco-labelling in the Czech Republic - Harmonisation with

the European Union.” In addition, 41 percent of the companies awarded labels by the program are

foreign-based.

References

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. Eco-labelling in the Czech Republic. 

February 1997.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Thermal insulation made from used paper (1)

Lubricating oil for the cutting edge of chain saws

Textile detergents

Water dilutable paints (20)

Gas-fueled hot-water boilers with atmospheric burners (11)

Gas-fueled hot-water boilers with compressed air burners (6)

Liquid cleaning agents (1)

Water dilutable adhesives and sealants (3)

Hygienic paper made from recycled paper

Graph paper made from recycled paper

Gas-fueled flow-through hot-water boilers up to an output of 50 kW (5)

Wood-based agglomerated materials and products

Hot-water boilers and local solid-fuel units

Briquettes made from wood waste (1)

Hydraulic fluids

Gas-fueled light and dark infra-red radiators

Surfactant-based washing cosmetics
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-23

THE NORDIC COUNCIL’S NORDIC SWAN LABEL

Introduction

In 1989, the Nordic Council of Ministers introduced a voluntary and neutral seal-of-approval

certification program know as the Nordic Swan. Currently, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland,

and Denmark are participating in the program. The program was introduced in an attempt to unify

the emerging ecolabeling programs that were appearing throughout the Nordic countries. The

Nordic program is noteworthy because of its novel administrative structure. The Nordic

Ecolabelling Board acts under the Nordic Council of Ministers and makes final program-related

decisions. The participating national organizations propose new product categories, assist the

Board in establishing award criteria, grant licenses, and market the program.

The Nordic environmental label is an “independent label which guarantees a certain

environmental standard. Only products which satisfy strict environmental requirements on the

basis of objective assessments will be allowed to display the environmental label.” The label is

intended to provide consumers with guidance in choosing products least hazardous to the

environment, to stimulate manufacturers to develop products and processes that are better for the

environment, and to use market forces as a complement to environmental legislation.

A self-assessment of the program found that the “Nordic Eco-Labelling system - the ‘Swan’

symbol - is a fairly successful one, commanding a high level of respect among consumers and

producers.” A consumer survey conducted in December 1996 found that 80 percent of Norwegian

customers knew that the Swan was the official environmental label, and 79 percent said that they

prefer products labeled with the Swan. The widespread use of the Swan label on the most

common cleaning products has contributed to the label’s visibility.

As of July 1997, criteria for 42 product categories had been established, proposed criteria had

been sent out for review for four product categories, criteria were under development for eight,

and preliminary studies were being conducted for another four. Licenses have been awarded to

over 350 companies, and over 1,200 products currently carry the Nordic Swan logo. Of the

licenses awarded, roughly 20 percent are from non-Nordic countries. Most of the foreign products

carrying the Swan label are paper products; however, computers and photocopiers also carry the

label. The number of products to which the Nordic Swan has been awarded has steadily increased

over time, although when the paper criteria were made stricter in mid-1997, over 100 product

licenses were withdrawn. Given that the new criteria were available six months prior to the

change, about half the companies had already reapplied and re-qualified for the Swan logo.

Recent Developments

The most important change in the Nordic Swan program is the recent addition of Denmark. 

Denmark has been a member of the Nordic Council since its foundation in the 1950s; however,

when the Nordic Council established the Swan program Denmark was the only Nordic member of
B-24 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

the EU. Rather than adopting the Swan program, it chose to act as an observer and joined the

newly formed EU ecolabel program instead. Because the development of the EU ecolabel

program has not progressed as was anticipated, the Danish parliament decided to join the Nordic

Swan program in 1997.

Another recent development is the thorough evaluation of the ecolabeling system ordered by the

Nordic Council of Ministers in 1994. The results of the evaluation pointed out several inherent

conflicts within the Nordic Council’s system, and proposed specific changes with which to make

improvements. These proposed changes included: 1) defining environmental objectives more

clearly, 2) reinforcing activities at the Nordic level, and 3) improving the ability of central

management to control the program’s objectives.

Program Summary

The Nordic Swan program is administered in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark by

national boards, coordinated by the Nordic Ecolabelling Board, which in turn acts under the

authority of the Nordic Council of Ministers. The program’s agency in Norway is administered as

a foundation, while the Swedish, Finnish, and Danish agencies are incorporated into their national

standardization organizations. The program in Iceland is housed in the Ministry of Environment.

The five programs are very similar to ensure smooth operation and mutual recognition of

activities among participating countries. Fees, structures, and processes are quite similar among

the programs. 

The national Nordic ecolabeling organizations propose product groups, and, according to the

General Agreement for Nordic Eco-labelling, a pilot study is conducted to assess “the 1)

qualitative and quantitative environmental problems associated with the product, 2) scope

available for environmental improvements, 3) information needed by consumers, 4) requirements

of commerce and industry for ecolabelling in the field, 5) expected costs of the development of

criteria, and 6) product and market analyses for the Nordic market.” The Nordic Ecolabelling

Board makes the final decision on the selection of product groups, and determines which country

will take the lead in developing the criteria.

The Ecolabelling Board usually appoints an expert group to work in an advisory capacity with the

national organizations to develop the product criteria. The expert group is made up of

representatives from the particular industry and consumer and environmental organizations and

includes representatives from each of the Nordic countries. Once developed into a draft, the

criteria are sent out for review in the Nordic countries. According to “Guidelines for Nordic

Ecolabelling,” “Information concerning criteria established, ... the composition of expert groups,

and the state of progress of current work shall be open to the public.... The widest possible circle

of interested parties should be heard in connection with all draft criteria.” The criteria are to take

into account environmental factors throughout the product’s life, although the program considers

it impossible to evaluate the total influence of a product on the environment. In addition to

environmental criteria, the Swan also has a general regulation stating that manufacturers must
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-25

comply with domestic labor regulations, as well as quality and performance requirements.

The environmental protection requirements are set such that the market share of products that

meet the criteria should not exceed one third of the total Nordic market. In the past, however,

there have been situations that made this goal difficult to reach. At one point, the trade

association of tissue paper manufacturers boycotted the Swan, and none of their members

companies applied for it, even though they marketed their products’ environmental qualities. 

Little was done on the part of the Swan program to negotiate, although the story of the boycott

was in the press, and after about a year, the boycott was broken by one of the member companies.

The final set of criteria is either accepted or rejected by the Ecolabelling Board, and all decisions

must be unanimous. Approved criteria are widely available in English, and are available

electronically on the countries’ Web sites. Once approved by the Board, a product category and

its criteria are valid in all of the Nordic Council countries. Product criteria are usually valid for

three years, at which point they are reviewed, taking into consideration changes in production

technology and new knowledge about material inputs. The Board has the ability to cancel or

modify the criteria during this period if new information is discovered.

To receive the Nordic Swan, manufacturers from within a Nordic Council country send an

application to the program agency in his/her own country. Foreign manufacturers seeking an

award apply to the country that developed the product category. Claims made by manufacturers

are tested in independent laboratories, and manufacturers are required to perform and report the

results of tests to ensure that all other requirements in the criteria are met for all labeled products. 

It is uncommon for products to fail because manufacturers have access to the criteria before they

submit their application. Once an award has been made to a product by one country, the license to

use the label is valid in any of the other participating countries, although manufacturers must pay

an additional fee in each country to register their product. Follow-up inspections of products and

processes are conducted to verify compliance with the award criteria. All documents submitted

by the manufacturer are confidential.

Applicants for the Nordic Swan are required to pay a one-time application fee, between

approximately US$375-1,500, depending on the country. If the application is granted, licensees

also must pay an annual fee in each country where the label is used. The annual fee is .04 percent

of the applicant’s annual sales in each country where the product is registered, with a minimum of

approximately US$750-1,400, and a maximum of approximately US$5,500-45,000. The Nordic

Swan’s sliding fee scale is designed to be accessible to small and medium-sized businesses;

several companies participating have five or fewer employees. Approximately half of the

program’s funding comes from these fees, and approximately half comes from the participants’

federal governments.

Products bearing the Swan logo are also purchased at both the corporate and government level. 

Many companies and national and local governments have a purchasing policy requiring that

products they purchase are labeled with the Swan or its equivalent.
B-26 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Program Methodology

For each set of labeling criteria, a report is produced that contains a discussion of the significant

environmental impacts throughout the product life cycle and a discussion of the criteria

themselves. The lead country for the labeling criteria may contract the evaluation of the

environmental impacts to a consultant or academic expert. As a result of the evaluation of the

Nordic program and the recommendations by the Nordic Council of Ministers, there is now more

effort to include each of the participating countries in the development of criteria. There is also

more effort, such as through the use of written product category environmental evaluations and

draft criteria, to increase transparency and participation by other stakeholders in the process.

For example, for the criteria for furniture, the report discussed each of the major components of

furniture (wood, fiberboard, metal, plastic, glazing), the manufacturing of furniture, including the

use of adhesives and coatings, and the associated environmental impacts of each life cycle stage.

Following are the types of criteria for labeling of furniture products that were developed to

address the significant environmental impacts:

Wood: The criteria require the applicant to state the type of wood used and its place of origin. 

This requirement will lead to criteria for sustainable forestry, which will be developed in the

future.

Fiberboard: Wood-based board must satisfy the Nordic criteria for environmental labeling of

fiberboard panels, which primarily deal with formaldehyde emissions.

Plastic: Additives to plastic materials shall not be based on cadmium, lead, mercury or other

materials on a restricted list.

Metals: Halogenated organic solvents shall not be used in the processing or surface treatment

of metals. Metals, with the exception of smaller parts as screws, hinges and mountings, shall

not be plated with cadmium, nickel, chrome, and their compounds. Metal paint shall not

contain pigments and additives based on certain heavy metals or contain high solvent content.

Glass: Lead glazing is not permitted.

Adhesives/coatings: The criteria prohibit adhesives or coatings that require health warnings in any

Nordic country because they are classified as allergenic, toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or

damaging to reproduction. There are also restrictions on free formaldehyde content and on other

listed hazardous substances.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-27

Other Information

The Nordic Ecolabelling Board is a member of GEN and most of the Nordic countries are

participating with the development of ISO draft standards. Through its work with GEN and ISO,

the Board hopes to increase the coordination with other ecolabeling programs. 

The Board is also working with the EU to further develop the EU ecolabel scheme. According to

Norway’s information officer, it is Norway’s official policy that they will “give up the Swan label

if and when the EU ecolabel is able to replace it.” The EU ecolabel will be considered a success

when 80 percent of the public prefer EU labeled products over Swan labeled products; products in

“central” categories like paper and detergents carry the EU ecolabel; and manufacturers apply for

the EU ecolabel more than for the Swan. Norway’s information officer does not foresee a

difficult transition from the Swan to the EU if it is based on the aforementioned market pressures. 

The information officer also reports that the EU also believes that national and regional labels

should be phased out over the next five years. This non-market based transition could be more

problematic, especially depending on the relative strength of the EU ecolabel program at that time.

References

About the Swan label (Norway). [Online: Web]. Cited 8 September 1997. URL:

http://www.interface.no/ecolabel/english/index.htm

Backman, Mikael. Lund University, International Institute for Industrial Environmental

Economics. Personal communication with Gary Davis. November 1997.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Denmark). [Online: Web]. Updated 1996, cited 5

September 1997. URL: http://www.mst.dk/depa/index.htm

Finnish Standards Association (Finland). [Online: Web]. Updated 4 September 1997, cited 8

September 1997. URL: http://www.sfs.fi/summary.htm

Global Ecolabel Network. GENews. March 1997.

Konsument verket - KO. The Consumer and the Environment; Results of a survey into awareness

of the environment amongst Swedish consumers. Konsumentverket & Eurika Research AB. 

Sweden. 1996.

Kankaanpää, Anne. SFS-ECOLABELLING, Finland. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Nordic Council of Ministers. The Nordic Swan; Your environmental choice. 
B-28 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Nordic Council of Ministers. General Agreement for Nordic Eco-labelling. 5 October 1994.

Nordic Council of Ministers. Guidelines for Nordic Eco-labelling. 24 January 1996.

Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Eco-labelling; Scheme and Evaluation. 1996.

Nordic Ecolabelling Board. Environmental strategy. 2 February 1997.

Nordic Ecolabelling Program. Nordic Ecolabelling of Wooden Furniture. 31/1.2 19 September,

1996.

Nordic Ecolabelling; The Swan (Sweden). [Online: Web]. Updated 7 April 1997, cited 8

September 1997. URL: http://www.sis.se/Miljo/ecolabel.htm

Nordic Environmental Label (Norway, Sweden, Finland & Iceland). [Online: Web]. Updated 26

March 1997, cited 8 September 1997. URL: http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/nordic.html

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Case Study on Eco-Labelling

Schemes. Paris. 30 December 1997.

SFS-ECOLABELLING. The Environment Deserves an Award; Nordic Environmental Label.

1997.

SFS-ECOLABELLING. Nordic Environmental Labelling; Status of Licenses and Criteria

Development. June 1997.

Stokke, Jan Erik. Information Officer, Ecolabeling Norway. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Adhesives (3)

All purpose cleaners (24)

Automatic dishwashing detergents (10)

Building materials: chipboard fibre board and gypsum board (8)

Batteries, Primary (5)

Batteries, Rechargeable (6)

Car care products (57)

Chain lubricants (1)

Chemical deicers

Closed toilet systems (1)

Coffee filters
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-29

Composters (12)

Copying machines (3)

Correction fluids

Detergents for sanitary facilities (12)

Diapers/nappies (6)

Diapers Textile

Dishwashing machines

Dust binding agents

Female sanitary products

Flooring materials (7)

Floor care products

Graphic products

Grease proof paper

Hand dishwashing detergents (4)

Tissue paper (2)

Lawnmowers (9)

Light sources

Marine engines

Newsprint paper

Oil burners & oilburner/boiler combinations (5)

Paper envelopes (12)

Personal computers (2)

Printed papers (50)

Printing papers (46)

Printers & Telefaxes

Refrigerators, freezers

Shampoo & Soap (2)

System for towels in dispensers (1)

Textile detergents (33)

Textiles (4)

Tissue paper (2)

Toner cartridges (14)

Wallcoverings

Washing machines (1)

Wooden furniture and fitments (6)

Writing instruments (1)

Criteria Under Review

Dustbining agents for roads

Folders and ring binders (Fin)

Packaging paper (Sw) 

Windows (Fin)

Forestry, sawmill products (Sw)
B-30 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Criteria Under Development

Audiovisual equipment

Boats (Fin)

Boat care products

Concrete (Sw)

Industrial degreasing (Sw)

Heating systems for solid fuels (Sw)

Refrigerating and heat pump plants (Sw)

Tires (Fin)

Water and sewage pipes (Sw)

Water taps with fittings

Wood fired furnaces (Sw)

Preliminary Studies

Sealing agents

Services (Sw)

Telephones (Fin)
3 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Norway. Norway and Iceland have Competent Bodies

but cannot vote because they are not EU members, but members of European Economic Area (EEA).

4 Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Spain have their own ecolabeling programs. Denmark,

Finland, and Sweden participate in the Nordic Swan. Iceland and Norway participate in the Swan as well, but are

not member states.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-31

EUROPEAN UNION ECO-LABEL PROGRAMME

Introduction

On March 23, 1992, the Council of Ministers of the European Community (EC) adopted a

regulation that created a European Union (EU) “eco-label award scheme.” The EU Eco-label

program is intended to “promote the design, production, marketing and use of products which

have a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle, and to provide consumers with

better information on the environmental impact of products.” (Commission of the European

Communities, 1996.) The program is an element of a broader EU strategy to “promote

sustainable production and consumption.”

The EU Eco-label is run by the European Commission and administered at the national level by

Competent Bodies, which are representative organizations chosen within EU member states. 

Currently there are Competent Bodies in 17 countries.3 Eight of the member states participate in

their own environmental labeling program, while other national programs rely strictly on the EU

Eco-label. 4 Currently, the EU program is being revised (the revision process is explained below). 

The proposal for the revision envisions full complementarity between the EU Eco-label and the

national labels with regard to those products for which there are EU criteria.

To date, criteria have been published for 11 product groups and 12 others are in the development

process. The Eco-label has been awarded to 182 products, which corresponds to 40 licences

awarded to 22 manufacturers and one importer. The EU Eco-label program considers it too early

to assess the market effects of the Eco-label, given that it is still developing and has yet to gain

visibility.

Recent Developments

The EU Eco-label program is currently undergoing a major revision of Regulation 880/92. While

the program has evolved considerably since it was created in 1992, it is apparent to the European

Commission that there is a need to “streamline and improve the approach, methodologies, and

working procedures in order to increase its effectiveness, efficiency and transparency.” (EC

Newsletter on the EU Eco-label, 1/97) According to the Eco-label Revision, COM (96) 603 final,

SUMMARY, the current program needs to be revised because:
B-32 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

1. the present Eco-label program is considered to be too bureaucratic;

2. the program needs to be clarified, streamlined, and simplified in order to achieve greater

market penetration;

3. there is international pressure to better incorporate trade principals such as transparency,

non-discrimination, and use of internationally recognized standards; and

 4. the proliferation of national ecolabel programs needs to be to curbed, since it can lead to 

 internal market distortions and consumer confusion.

The following are among some of the changes that the Commission proposed in the revision:

1. establishment of an independent European Eco-label Organization to develop criteria, thus

taking the political process out of the eco-label scheme;

2. introduction of a graduated label with one “flower” representing the achievement of a

baseline standard, and two or three representing an improvement;

3. introduction of substantive provisions for ensuring compatibility with international trade

principals;

4. increased “complementarity” between the EU and the national programs in the EU, and

introduction of a ceiling for the annual fee and a reduced fee for small and medium-sized

businesses;

5. ability of non-European producers to apply directly to the scheme; and

6. ability of retailers to apply for products under their own brand name.

Before being adopted, the proposal must be approved by both Parliament and the Council of

Ministers. The approval process is iterative, and will require compromises and negotiations. The

European Parliament is currently preparing comments on the proposal, at which point the proposal

and comments will be sent to the Council of Ministers for comments. A representative from the

EU Eco-label program reported that the proposed changes could be adopted by the end of 1998;

however, there is no schedule. The representative pointed out that the revision process is quite

slow, due to the numerous institutions, industry representatives, and government bodies that are

involved, as well as to the wide range of views about the EU Eco-label that must be considered. 

One of the aims of the EU revisions is to create conditions favorable to ultimately establishing a

single ecolabel in the European Community. According to the EU Eco-label program, it is not

likely that the EU Eco-label without programmatic revisions will “supersede national schemes in

the long run,” unless “positive action” is taken to stop the proliferation of national programs. 

Even though national programs have contributed to environmental improvements, they limit the

market value of the EU Eco-label; the co-existence of national ecolabels, private ecolabels, and

the EU Eco-label is causing confusion in the marketplace. The EU Eco-label program is

proposing that over the next five years, national programs phase out the separate labeling of

product categories that are covered by the EU Eco-label program. The EU representative noted

that the full transition to a single European ecolabel would take much more time.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-33

Program Summary

Several bodies are currently involved in the development to the EU Eco-label program. The

proposed changes would greatly simplify this process. Under a revised Regulation, the European

Commission will be responsible for the adoption of the Eco-label product groups through

Commission’s Decisions published in the EC Official Journal. The Commission facilitates the

program operations and seeks guidance from and consensus among all the other parties. 

Competent Bodies (representative organizations within each EU member state) are designated in

Member States to administer the program at the national level. The Committee of Competent

Bodies meets every two to three months and before decisions are made. Interest groups

participate in these meetings. The Consultation Forum provides stakeholder input, and is

composed of Community-level representatives of five interest groups: industry, commerce,

consumer organizations, environmental organizations, and trade unions. There are 14 members in

the Forum. The Regulatory Committee, chaired by a non-voting representative of the

Commission, has final approval of criteria for product categories and settles any objections made

during the award process.

Proposals for new product categories are accepted from any interested party. The selection of

product categories is usually initiated by the Commission. The Commission conducts a feasibility

study to assess the suitability of the proposed product group, which is evaluated by the ad hoc

working group. The ad hoc working group meets at key stages of the process, and is composed of

representatives from Competent Bodies, interest groups, and the Consultation Forum.

To develop product criteria, the Commission conducts a market survey to understand the market,

and takes an inventory of the impacts of the product on the environment. The impacts are

quantified objectively on a “cradle-to-grave” or life-cycle basis using the indicative assessment

matrix shown below. These impacts are then evaluated in an environmental impact assessment,

which involves a life-cycle assessment (LCA). (The European Commission has issued guidelines

for applying LCA.) Based on this analysis, product criteria are proposed. EU’s goal is that the

product criteria are strict enough so that ecolabeled products represent only 5 to 30 percent market

share. The proposed criteria are presented to the Consultation Forum and voted upon by the

Regulatory Committee, although the Commission makes the final decision on adopting the

criteria. Criteria are valid for three years, at which point they are re-evaluated. 

Competent Bodies accept applications from manufacturers of products that are produced or first

marketed in their country, and from foreign manufacturers who first import into the EU through

their country. Results of independent testing must be submitted with the application, and testing

fees are to be paid by the applicant. Awards given to products must be approved by all Competent

Bodies, via the Commission. Competent Bodies award the ecolabels within their country, and

they must monitor that the ecolabels are properly used.
B-34 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

An application fee of 500 ECUs (~US$550) is required to cover administration costs, and, if the

product receives the award, an annual licensing fee is calculated as 0.15 percent of the annual

volume of sales within the EC. These are guideline figures; Competent Bodies have the discretion

to set actual fees at levels 20 percent greater or smaller than the guideline figures.

Program Methodology

To promote consistency in the use of LCA in the Eco-label scheme, the European Commission

has issued Guidelines for the Application of Life Cycle Assessment in the EU Eco-Label Award

Scheme, prepared by the so-called “Groupe des Sages,” a group of European LCA experts. First,

the guidelines make it clear that “LCA does not replace, or eliminate the need for other

considerations and processes within the decision-making procedure aimed at setting eco-label

criteria.” LCA, according to the guidelines, is “used to identify key environmental aspects for the

product group considered and provide quantified data on the range of such impacts.” Other

assessments are also necessary to determine the criteria, including the market share of the product,

the technical and economic feasibility of meeting the criteria, and the ability of the criteria to

achieve maximum overall environmental improvement.

The proposed approach for criteria development has not yet resulted in any product criteria, but

the following examples illustrate the manner in which the studies and criteria development are

proceeding under the new guidelines.

Example: Converted Paper Products

The contract to develop the draft criteria for labeling converted paper products was awarded in

late 1995 to a Danish consulting firm. Converted paper products include envelopes, stationary,

notebooks, and account registers as the principal product categories. The consultants prepared a

market and feasibility survey in early 1996, which was reviewed in April 1996 by the ad hoc

working group of experts that had been assembled by the EC. The ad hoc working group decided

that an extended market survey should be prepared in order to define as many product

subcategories for the labeling criteria as possible in order to widen the environmental benefits of

the label. This extended market survey was completed in October 1996 and identified ten product

subcategories within the overall category of converted paper products.

From this market study a goal and scope were defined for a life-cycle inventory that was

completed in October 1996. It was difficult defining a functional unit that would serve as the

basis for LCA of several diverse subcategories of products. The functional unit recommended

was 1 kg of paper used for the further manufacturing of the products. The LCA performed

stopped at this boundary and did not develop quantitative data on production processes beyond the

production of paper.

The EC and the consultants originally intended to gather primary data from the product
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-35

manufacturers, but these manufacturers and their trade associations were unable or unwilling to

provide the data for such a diverse range of product subcategories. Instead, the consultants relied

upon publicly available databases for data on the significant manufacturing processes involved in

the life-cycle of paper. The LCA report issued in October 1996 was more of a compilation of

these process data than an actual LCA, because it did not combine the processes and process data

into the production of a functional unit of 1 kg of paper.

The ad hoc working group met again in the fall of 1996 and could not come to consensus on the

functional unit that would apply to all of the product subcategories. There was a concern that the

proposed functional unit would focus more on the process of paper making than on the finished

products. As a result of the lack of consensus, one product subcategory was chosen, envelopes,

for further study and development of labeling criteria. Envelopes were chosen because they are a

well-defined product subcategory and are produced and consumed in greater quantities than any of

the other subcategories. While it was suggested by the ad hoc working group that plastic

envelopes should be considered in the product category, it was not feasible to develop a market

study and it was not feasible to develop a functional unit for evaluation. The LCA study did

include some data concerning plastic envelopes to allow for comparison to paper envelopes.

Once the product category was narrowed to paper envelopes, the functional unit was defined as

standard-sized envelopes with a clear plastic window. The consultants defined the goal of the

LCA as “semi-quantitative,” because it was not possible within the time and resources available to

compile data for all the products and substances involved in the production of envelopes and it

was impossible to define certain inputs during the manufacturing stage (e.g., the amount of ink

used to print on the envelope) in terms of the functional unit of the envelope. The quantitative

data were mostly related to the pulp and paper process, whereas the qualitative information was

mostly related to the chemicals used when converting paper to envelopes and to the specific

properties of substances that can affect the recycling of paper envelopes. Recycled paper as an

input and recycling as an end-of-life management method were included in the LCA study.

Meetings were held with five envelope producers during the LCA phase to gain a clear

understanding of the process of manufacturing and to collect some specific data. A meeting was

also held with Greenpeace International, and written comments from the American Forest and

Paper Association were also taken into account.

Although life-cycle data on some of the materials used in envelopes, such as glues, were not

gathered, it was still necessary and possible to address these materials in the development of

criteria. Glues, for instance, can contain toxic substances and can also significantly affect

recyclability of envelopes. Lists of substances contained in these glues were made as part of the

study.

The LCA report discussed in detail each stage of the life cycle of envelopes and identified the key

environmental features for each. Then an impact assessment was performed by categorizing key

inputs and outputs into impact categories and identifying impacts as local, regional or global. The
B-36 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

impact categories addressed were: energy consumption (e.g., purchased electricity, feedstock

energy in raw material); consumption of raw materials (e.g.,water, wood, recycled paper, fossil

fuels); eutrophication and pollution of streams and lakes with organic matter (e.g., Chemical

Oxygen Demand - COD); toxicity of halogenated organic discharges to water (e.g., Adsorbable

Organically bound Halogens - AOX); global warming--emissions of CO2, etc.; acid

rain--emissions of SO2, Nox; and substances affecting recycling of paper products.

Labeling criteria were proposed to address these life-cycle impacts, which included the following:

requirement to use recycled paper or wood from sustainably managed forests as raw material;

substances used for surface coatings, sizing, and glueing should be re-pulpable when the paper is

recycled; restrictions on substances used for glues, coatings and inks due to toxicity; the envelope

should be de-inkable; plastic films should not be used as coatings; plastic windows should be

either re-pulpable or filterable when the paper is recycled; limits on releases of COD and AOX to

water from the pulp and paper production; limits on emissions of CO2, SO2, and NO2 to air for

pulp and paper production; limit on percentage waste from cutting of envelopes; limit on energy

consumption in pulp and paper production.

Example: Shampoos

The EC contracted with the consulting firm to perform the feasibility and market study and LCA

for shampoos in late 1995. The feasibility report, delivered in April 1996, was based on a review

of the industry and consumer literature, interviews with company representatives and trade

association representatives, and a review of available life-cycle data for major ingredients of

shampoos (surfactants). The report recommended proceeding with development of labeling

criteria for liquid shampoos, excluding professional shampoos, dry or mousse shampoos, and

shampoos sold only by prescription. Because the amount of shampoo per use varies so much with

the user, the consulting firm recommended that the functional unit be based upon the main

characteristic of shampoos, their detergent power. 

The feasibility study and recommendations were discussed in the ad hoc working group in the

spring of 1996. Because there was no reliable test available to develop a functional unit based

upon the detergent power of shampoos, the ad hoc working group decided to base the functional

unit on the dry organic content of shampoos per average dose, which was defined as 3 grams of

dry organic matter. The consultants then prepared an LCA study based on this functional unit to

be used to develop the labeling criteria.

The data collection for the LCA study was made difficult by lack of industry participation. The

industry’s lack of participation stemmed, at least in part, from a disagreement with the EC over

whether a practical functional unit could be established for the development of criteria for labeling. 

As a result, the consultants focused the life-cycle inventory on the major ingredients of shampoos,

surfactants, and on the packaging, and relied upon existing LCA data for the study. Not

surprisingly, the use stage predominated for energy consumption and air emissions, especially

when the consultants took into account the use of hot water for washing and rinsing and the use of
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-37

a hair dryer for drying the hair. Based upon the available surfactant life-cycle inventory data, the

consultants concluded that differences in surfactant production impacts were dwarfed by the use

stage impacts. The firm also concluded that packaging type was significant principally in the

end-of-life stage when incineration was included as a waste management method for certain

plastics.

Applying life-cycle impact assessment to the inventory results, the consultants recommended that

criteria for labeling be set to address the following impacts: energy and water consumed during

use--consumer guidance on the bottle could recommend lowering water temperature, for example,

or the use of water conserving devices; packaging waste generation--decrease primary packaging

through refills or by increasing recycled content of bottle; water pollution during use--criteria to

address biodegradability, bioaccumulation, and nitrogen content; and dangerous

ingredients--criteria to restrict certain toxic substances.

Other Information

The EU Eco-labeling program is actively participating in ISO draft standards negotiations. The

proposed changes to the EU program are designed in part to ensure compatibility with the ISO

standards for environmental labeling. When ISO standards are finalized, the EU program will

incorporate them into their standards. In addition, steps have been taken to ensure full access, non

discrimination (EU and non-EU parties will be “treated on an equal footing”), and transparency for

foreign interests (largely late in the process). No mention is made of possible conflicts between a

life-cycle-based product evaluation and GATT’s prohibition of trade restrictions based on

processing and production methods (PPMs). The EU is not a member of GEN, but may request to

become a member shortly. Several of the member countries are members of GEN.

In an effort to make the EU Eco-label program transparent and to increase its visibility, the

following information is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities:

Commission decisions on product groups, product criteria, a list of products for which the Ecolabel has been awarded, the names of the licensees, and the names and addresses of the Competent

Bodies. It addition, a quarterly newspaper is published by the Commission that provides “an

update of the work in progress for each product group,” as well as the names of the Competent

Bodies and the members of the Consultation Forum (OECD, 14). 

The EU Eco-label program does not currently have a program for small and medium-sized

businesses; however, it is accessible to them via a sliding fee scale. As mentioned above, the

proposed revision would include provisions to reduce the annual fee for small and medium-sized

businesses. 

In addition to the Eco-label program, the EU is going to introduce a directive for end-of-life

electronic equipment. Initially it will address the electronics industry. It has not been decided,

however, if the directive will follow the published draft directive for end-of-life vehicles. The

planning group will begin working on the draft in fall of 1997 and hopes to present the draft to the
B-38 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Member States and industry later in the fall.

References

Aksel Bagh, John, dk-Teknik. Personal communication with Gary Davis. 23 April 1997.

Butzkamm, Rainer. European Commission, Brussels. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Butzkamm, Ranier, and Olivier Luansi. European Commission, DGXI. Personal communication

with Gary Davis. April 24, 1997.

Ecobilan. European Ecolabelling for Shampoos: Feasibility Study. April 1996.

Ecobilan. European Ecolabelling for Shampoos: Inventory, Environmental Impact Assessment. 

Feb. 1997.

Etienne, Roger. Ecobilan. Personal communication with Gary Davis. 25 April 1997.

Eco-label (EU). [Online: Web]. Cited 16 January 1997. URL: http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/g7/ecoeur.html 

European Commission. Commission Information on Eco-Labelling: Procedural Guidelines for

the establishment of product groups and ecological criteria, Issue No. 6. June 1994.

European Communities, Commission of the, Eco-label Revision; COM (96) 603 final;

SUMMARY. 

European Communities, Commission of the, EU Eco-label Awards. 14 May 1997. 

European Communities, Commission of the, Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) on a

revised Community eco-label award scheme; COM (96) 603 final. Brussels: 11 December 1996.

European Commission, prepared by the Groupe des Sages. Guidelines for the Application of Life

Cycle Assessment in the EU Eco-label Award Scheme. 1997.

European Commission, Environment, Nuclear Safety & Civil Protection. Several pages on ecolabel.[Online: Web]. Cited 2 July 1997. URL: http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/dg11home.html

Global Ecolabel Network. GENews. March 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-39

H.A. Udo de Haes, et al. Guidelines for the Application of Life-Cycle Assessment in the EU

Ecolabelling Programme, Leiden, The Netherlands. May 1994.

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.

Jones, Michael R. UK Ecolabelling Board. Personal communication with Abt Associates. 

January 1997.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Case Study on Eco-Labelling

Schemes. Paris. 30 December 1997.

Pulp & Paper. “EU’s new ‘eco-label’ called trade barrier.” October 1996: 19-20.

UK Ecolabelling Board. UK Ecolabelling Board Newsletter: Ecolabel Criteria. No. 10. August

1996.

UK Ecolabelling Board. UK Ecolabelling Board Newsletter. No. 11. April 1997.

Wheeler, David. “EC Ecolabelling myths.” Chemistry and Industry. 5 April 1993.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Washing machines

Soil improvers

Toilet paper

Paper kitchen rolls

Laundry detergents

Single-ended light bulbs

Indoor paints and varnishes

Bed-linen and T-shirts

Double-ended light bulbs

Copying paper

Refrigerators

Criteria Under Review 

Dishwashers (being revised)

Footwear

Cat-litter

Study Underway
B-40 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Bed mattresses

Batteries for consumer goods

Floor-cleaning products

Detergents for dishwashers

Shampoos

Rubbish bags

Converted paper products

Study Temporarily Suspended

Growing media

Insulation materials

Hair sprays

Preliminary Phase of Study

Personal computers

Textile products
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-41

FRANCE’S NF-ENVIRONNEMENT MARK

Introduction

France’s national, voluntary ecolabeling program, the NF-Environnement Mark (Norme Française

Environnement), has two functions: first, to fulfill the need for reliable information on the

environmental attributes of a product, and second, to recognize and reward companies that take

environmental attributes into consideration when making a product. The NF-Environnement Mark

is a seal-of-approval program aimed at certifying products that have a reduced negative impact on

the environment. Development of the label began in 1989. However, because of initial opposition

from industry, the program was not fully operational until 1992. The main administrative body for

the NF-Environnement Mark is the AFNOR (Association Française de Normalisation,) the

standards institute of France.

As a relatively new program, there have been only a few product categories for which product

criteria have been established. Currently, the NF-Environnement Mark can be awarded to products

in six product categories. There are over 300 products that carry the NF-Environnement Mark with

the majority of these in the paints and varnishes (160) and garbage bag categories (100), because

these were two of the first categories established. The number of eco-certified products in the

paints and varnishes category is expected to drop once criteria for this category are revised.

Despite being a relatively new program, the awareness of ecolabeling in France is growing. In

1996, AFNOR asked CREDOC, one of France’s largest national polling agencies, to survey 2,000

French households (representative of the population in France). The purpose of the survey was to

characterize consumers’ opinions on ecolabeling and environmental products. According to the

survey, 63 percent of the respondents said that there is a lack of quantitative and qualitative

information about “green” products and 92 percent of those surveyed said that they preferred

products with less packaging. Of those surveyed, 54 percent said that they would be willing to pay

up to 10 percent more for ecological products. The program hopes that “consumer leaders,” those

who are aware of the NF-Environnement Mark and ecolabeling in general, will spread the word to

others about ecolabeled products (Bœglin, 1997).

Recent Developments

On June 24, 1992, work on NF-Environnement Mark was suspended by the AFNOR pending a reevaluation of its methodology. Originally, the NF-Environnement Mark planned to use a multicriteria matrix similar to Blue Angel and the EU Eco-label. Products were assessed using a

systematic life-cycle assessment (LCA), which looked at products from “cradle-to-grave” (i.e.,

amount and types of raw materials used, production, transportation, effects of consumption, and

disposal), to evaluate their overall environmental impacts at each of these stages. However,

because of the time-consuming nature and costs associated with LCA, AFNOR decided upon a

modified life-cycle analysis approach, called the “New Simplified Procedure,” to develop criteria

and to evaluate products to receive the label (Bœglin, 1997). This new procedure uses a semi-
B-42 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

qualitative life-cycle assessment for the product, and identifies the “key stages” in the product’s

life cycle that have the most significant environmental impacts. This new process is iterative based

on both qualitative and quantitative data. The “New Simplified Procedure” was adopted to make

the NF-Environnement Mark less expensive and more available to small and medium-sized

businesses and industries.

NF-Environnement Mark plans to coordinate its efforts with other European programs, “both

through the process of harmonization of standards and through its participation in European

reciprocal recognition agreements” (General Rules, 1992). As a result of this coordination of

efforts, the product criteria for paints and varnishes were approved on June 3, 1992, based on a

study originally conducted for the EU Eco-label. NF-Environnement Mark is currently not a

member of the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) for financial and logistical reasons. However,

AFNOR is considering becoming a member soon to take advantage of the information exchanged

through GEN membership. AFNOR participates regularly in meetings and exchanges with other

ecolabeling programs on trade issues, standards development, and program implementation.

Program Summary

Four groups are involved in the NF-Environnement Mark program: the NF Environmental Label

Committee (Comité de la Marque), composed of 18 representatives from various stakeholders,

including industry, manufacturers, wholesalers, consumer and environmental protection

associations, and the French Ministry for the Environment; the ADEME (French Energy

Management and Environment Agency); the AFNOR (the French Institute for Standards); and

other stakeholders particularly interested in the product category.

The NF-Environnement Mark can be awarded to consumer goods and intermediate products. 

Theoretically, anyone can propose new product categories. In practice, however, industry

representatives or environmental authorities such as ADEME, typically propose products that they

feel may be suitable for the ecolabel. These proposals are collected by AFNOR and submitted to

the Label Committee, who then chooses the product categories for the ecolabel. Based on

environmental evaluations using the “New Simplified Approach,” the Label Committee, decides if

the overall product group(s) in which the proposed product(s) belong, would be good candidates

for the NF-Environnement Mark.

Draft product criteria, or as they are known, the “Réglement Technique” (Technical Rule), include

all the specific guidelines (environmental, product performance, advertising, etc.) which

manufacturers must meet to be awarded the NF-Environnement Mark. Once finalized by the

Committee and approved by the General Director of AFNOR, the criteria are published in the

Journal Officiel (France’s equivalent of the United States Federal Register), and applications for

the NF-Environnement Mark are accepted. Product criteria are usually re-evaluated every three
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-43

years, but may be evaluated sooner if there are new breakthroughs in technology relating to the

product category. Only the garbage bag and paints and varnishes product categories have reached

their three-year revision periods -- the other four product categories have been so recently

established that they still have another one to two years before their product criteria are reconsidered.

Applications for the NF-Environnement Mark are sent to the General Director of AFNOR. The

manufacturer must pay a flat-rate registration fee of 420 Francs (approximately $2,500 US) to

cover the costs of processing the application. In addition, the manufacturer must repay the costs of

verifying that the product conforms to the Technical Rules, as well as pay a site visit fee, an

administration fee, and compliance test fees. In addition, an annual royalty payment (0.1 percent of

the product sales) is payable for the right to use the NF-Environnement logo. If a manufacturer is

found to be mis-using the NF-Environnement Mark, AFNOR may apply sanctions on the product

and/or may withdraw the manufacturer’s right to use the ecolabel.

Program Methodology

Once proposals for products categories are made and collected by AFNOR, environmental

evaluations based on the “New Simplified Approach” are made by the Label Committee, who

decides if the overall product group(s) in which the proposed product(s) belong, would be good

candidates for the NF-Environnement Mark. Though a full LCA is not conducted, information

from other programs’ LCAs, where available, and information from producers are used in

evaluating a product’s suitability for the label. In addition, the program follows SETAC guidelines

in its evaluations.

When developing product-specific criteria, products are assessed to determine their environmental

impacts, based on multiple ecological factors, (e.g., the impact of the products’ wastes on the

environment -- to air, water, and soil). Once identified, these impacts are quantified for setting

threshold levels (e.g.,, limits on toxicity of chemicals, VOC content, hazardous materials content,

etc.). Products are also assessed on the following: energy use, raw material extraction and use,

emissions during production, product uses, potential for recycling, disposal, product ingredients,

type of wastes generated, environmental and health and safety hazards, and durability as well as

real duration of use. Additionally, the NF-Environnement Mark conducts a generic environmental

impact analysis when developing product criteria.

The NF-Environnement scheme invites stakeholders from various organizations to participate in all

stages of criteria development. For example, a working group composed of representatives from

industry, retailers, environment, and consumer NGOs, AFNOR, and if needed, experts from the

concerned product sector, are involved in drafting the Technical Rule. Foreign companies are also

invited to participate in the draft criteria development but must first express their interest in

participating in the process. They may then be given the option of participating in the criteria

development process and will at least be told what the draft criteria are and be invited to provided

their comments. For example, several foreign garbage bag and vacuum cleaner manufacturers
B-44 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

were involved in the criteria development for these categories.

Other information

Although possession of the NF-Environnement Mark is not an official requirement for

procurement, some distributors of paints and varnishes, and/or retail stores, require that their

suppliers provide at least one line of product that carries the NF-Environnement Mark. 

Additionally, certain municipalities and local authorities have specified that the garbage bags they

purchase must bear the NF-Environnement Mark. 

Because the NF-Environnement Mark is a relatively new program, there have been no studies to

determine overall trade and market effects. The NF-Environnement Mark has not yet developed

product criteria for products imported from developing countries. The only foreign products that

have been awarded the French ecolabel have been products manufactured by European companies. 

Because the NF-Environnement Mark is a relatively new program, it has not yet gained

international recognition, and information about the program has not been available internationally

-- in fact it is still in the early stages of recognition domestically.

References

Bœglin, Nadia, AFNOR, personal communication with Abt Associates, May 1997.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Case Study on Eco-Labelling

Schemes. Paris. 30 December 1997.

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), 1997, Fact sheet: La Preuve par NFEnvironnement.

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), February, 1997, Information File on the NFEnvironnement Mark.

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), April, 1997, La Marque NF-Environnement.

ADEME (French Energy Management and Environment Agency), Background information and

statistics from the CREDOC survey (1996).

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), 1992, General Rules Applicable to the NFEnvironnement Label.

Davis, G.A., The Use of Life Cycle Analysis in Environmental Labeling, US Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA/742-R-93-003, September,
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-45

1993.

Proia, Patricia, AFNOR. Personal Communication with Abt Associates (Gary Davis). April,

1997.

AFNOR. Information File on: The NF-Environnement Mark, February 1997.

Etienne, Roger, Ecobilan. Personal communication with Abt Associates (Gary Davis). April,

1997.

AFNOR. Marque NF-Environnement “Aspirateures Traineaux” Reglement Technique. AFNOR

207, March, 1996.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Paints and varnishes (160)

Garbage bags (100)

Carpet glues

Vacuum cleaners

Soap-saving washing machine balls

Garbage compressors

Categories Under Review

Furniture

Scouring solvents/powders

Containers

Photography developing equipment

Categories Under Consideration

Pharmaceuticals

Agro-foods

Services

Automotive sectors

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-47

GERMANY'S BLUE ANGEL

Introduction

Germany introduced the Blue Angel program in 1977, making it the first country to implement a

national ecolabeling program. The Blue Angel was launched by the Federal Minister of the

Interior and the Ministers for Environmental Protection of the Federal States. The German

government views its ecolabeling program as a “soft instrument” of environmental policy, since

the program cannot establish binding requirements or bans, and because participation in the

program is completely voluntary. The Blue Angel is a seal-of-approval program, and relies on

information, motivation, and a commitment to the environment from both manufacturers and

consumers. 

The primary goals of the Blue Angel program are 1) guiding the consumer in purchasing quality

products with fewer adverse environmental impacts, 2) encouraging manufacturers to “develop and

supply environmentally sound products,” and 3) using the ecolabel as a “market-oriented

instrument of environmental policy” (Umweltbundesamt, 1990). As the oldest ecolabeling

program, the Blue Angel program has served as a model for many other ecolabeling programs in

existence around the world today.

The Federal Minister for the Environment attributes the success of the Blue Angel to “the growth

of environmental awareness on the part of consumers and producers” (Umweltbundesamt, 1990).

In a 1988 survey of 7,500 German households, 79 percent were at least familiar with the ecolabel,

and 68 percent correctly linked the ecolabel with the concept of environmental protection. Similar

opinion polls have been performed on a regular basis, showing that the Blue Angel is perceived as

a reliable ecolabel. 

The Blue Angel program has been and continues to be popular among manufacturers and

consumers. Compared to current levels, the program grew slowly at first, issuing only 500

ecolabels in 33 product categories as of 1984. By mid-1993, however, the ecolabel appeared on

3,503 different products in 75 categories. As of April 1997, 921 manufacturers (or importers) have

been awarded the Blue Angel for 4,135 products in 88 product categories. Approximately 17

percent of these awards were given to non-German companies.

Recent Developments

Since the program’s inception, criteria development has become increasingly more complex. As

technological innovations and ideas about environmental protection and pollution prevention have

progressed, criteria have been modified in order to incorporate these changes. Whereas previously

only one or two factors may have been considered when developing criteria, multiple

environmental attributes (e.g., hazardous substances, emissions, pollution prevention and safety)

 are now addressed. The overall process by which criteria are developed, however, has not
B-48 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

changed significantly since 1993 (Breier, 1997).

Pilot projects and preliminary research are currently underway to develop product criteria for

numerous product groups (e.g., electrical appliances and products, products for do-it-yourself and

handicrafts, household chemicals and alternatives, heating technology, consumer and industrial

products). Interestingly, the pilot project for the furniture made from rattan and jute product

category is being conducted in cooperation with developing countries like Bangladesh and India. 

Once developed, criteria for this product group will be unique in that they are for imported

products.

Germany does not foresee making major revisions to the Blue Angel program to make it more

innovative. Part of the success of the Blue Angel program is based on its history and tradition and

manufacturers’ familiarity with the program. For these reasons, major revisions to the program are

not planned (Breier, 1997). Germany has recently joined the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN),

however, as a way to improve harmonization and to obtain and exchange information about other

ecolabeling around the world.

Program Summary

The Blue Angel program is administered by three organizations: the Jury Umweltzeichen

(Environmental Label Jury), the German Institute for Quality Assurance and Labeling (RAL), and

the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt). The Environmental Label Jury is made

up of representatives from industry, the scientific and business communities, environmental

organizations, consumer organizations, trade unions, and churches. The RAL is a non-profit

standards organization that acts as the administrative body for the Blue Angel program.

The process of developing and awarding the Blue Angel ecolabel has three steps. First, product

categories are proposed (typically by manufacturers). From these proposals, the Federal

Environmental Agency and the Jury choose suitable product categories for the Blue Angel. Each

year an average of 150 product categories is proposed; typically, only six are selected as suitable

product categories for the ecolabel.

Once product categories are selected, the Federal Environmental Agency drafts criteria for each

product group. It takes between six months and one year to draft the basic product criteria. 

Criteria are typically revised every three years. If there are major technology or innovative

breakthroughs in the product category, criteria may be re-assessed prior to the end of the three-year

period.

Draft criteria are forwarded to RAL, which organizes “expert hearings” to address technical

questions regarding the draft criteria. Representatives from industry, manufacturing, consumer and

environmental organizations, and, occasionally, scientists and representatives from testing

institutes, are invited to ask questions and make comments on the draft criteria. Representatives

from foreign companies are also welcome to make suggestions and comments at the hearing. 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-49

Comments from the expert hearing are taken into consideration when the Federal Environmental

Agency revises and the Label Jury finalizes the criteria. The results are published in press reports

of the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. RAL

published the final basic criteria.

In the last step, manufacturers submit applications to become certified to use the ecolabel on

particular products. Compliance with criteria is verified by statements from the manufacturer,

testing by independent facilities, and data and product information sheets. If everything is in

compliance with the basic product criteria, RAL forwards the application to the Federal

Environmental Agency and the federal state in which the manufacturer is located. A contract is

signed for the use of the ecolabel, for a duration of four years. If during these four years, the Jury

revises product criteria, then manufacturers must re-apply for the contract for those products. 

Applicants must pay an initial application fee of DM 300 ($170.00 US), and an annual fee based

on estimated annual sales of the labeled product. In addition, users of Blue Angel must also

contribute to an advertising fund for the program. All fees are paid to RAL.

Program Methodology

Producers come forward to the Blue Angel program and make product proposals. However, unlike

many other ecolabeling programs, the Blue Angel does not conduct an impact analysis when

choosing product categories. Characteristics of the manufacturing process used to produce the

product are of less importance for Blue Angel certification. The program’s reasoning for excluding

earlier stages of the product life cycle is that Germany’s environmental protection laws and

regulations address the reduction and avoidance of environmental damage during the production

stages. Instead, when choosing product categories, the Blue Angel considers the following:

transportation and distribution costs, product uses, potential for the product to be reused,

maintenance costs, recyclability, final disposal, and the product’s ingredients and materials

restrictions.

When developing draft award criteria, the Blue Angel considers previous literature and studies

relating to the product category as well as other programs’ life-cycle assessments of the category. 

Additionally, the program may also conduct its own independent tests and studies and often

obtains information from participating producers themselves about the product category. Draft

criteria are based on the potential environmental damage the products may have during usage and

disposal. A series of environmental and other factors is assessed. This series includes: the amount

of toxic and/or hazardous substance in the product; the emissions to air, water, and soil; noise

pollution; waste prevention, waste reduction and/or recycling opportunities at each stage; amount

of natural resources used; the safety of the product; and, finally, the minimum requirements for the

product’s performance. The Blue Angel follows SETAC guidelines when developing its award

criteria.
B-50 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Other Information

Recently, the Blue Angel has served as a way to identify environmentally preferable products in

Germany. Many public procurement guidelines in local states and municipalities suggest buying

Blue Angel-certified products, or at least to consider the criteria developed for product categories

when making procurement decisions.

It has been suggested that ecolabeling programs can act as a barrier to trade for imported goods,

when product criteria relate to production stages. Because Germany’s Blue Angel program does

not include production process-related criteria, but instead concentrates on the final environmental

impact of the product, this aspect of the program is viewed as avoiding a potential trade barrier. 

Many of Germany’s award criteria do have minimum recycled content requirements, however,

which are difficult to meet for many exporters to Germany. In this respect, many foreign countries

(e.g., Brazil, who is faced with these minimum requirements for their paper packaging) see these

requirements as trade barriers. Any manufacturer, domestic or foreign, may apply for the Blue

Angel ecolabel as long as they meet the specified product criteria.

References

Breier, Nicola, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

(Bundesministerium für Umwelt), personal communication with Abt Associates, 1997. 

Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), April 1997, Information Sheet on the

“Environmental Label”: Current Facts and Figures.

German Institute of Quality Assurance and Labeling (RAL), (Deutsches Institut für

Gütesicherung), and the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), November 1996, The

Environmental Label Introduces Itself.

German Institute of Quality Assurance and Labeling (RAL), (Deutsches Institut für

Gütesicherung), and the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), June 1997,

Umweltzeichen, Environmental Label, German “Blue Angel”: Product Requirements.

Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), 1994, Das Stellt Umweltzeichen Sich Vor.

Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), 1990, Twenty Arguments Against the

Environment Label... [20 Argumente gegen das Umweltzeichen...und was man davon zu halten

hat].

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Case Study on Eco-Labelling

Schemes. Paris. 30 December 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-51

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Retreaded tires (4)

Returnable bottles (90)

Low waste hair sprays, deodorants, and shaving foams

Sanitary paper made from recycled paper (182)

Low-emission oil burners (84)

Low-pollutant paints (1,345)

Powder paints

Salt-free blunting spreading material (46)

Recycled paper (315)

Zinc-air batteries (16)

Potting containers and similar mould parts made from recycled material (6)

Sound-proofed glass collection bins for noise-sensitive areas (16)

Waste water-poor car-washing plants (17)

Environmentally sound pipe cleaners (14)

Reusable packing for food production (1)

Reusable packing for transportation (19)

Products made from recycled plastics (68)

Products made from waste rubber (14)

Water-saving flushing cisterns (46)

Electronically operated shower facilities (7)

Products free from insecticides for indoor pest control and prevention (24)

Wall paper and ingrain wall covering made from recycled paper (109)

Wall paper covering paper and plastic materials

Building materials made from recycled paper (5)

Halogen-free cooling and insulating liquids for electrical equipment (4)

Low-formaldehyde products from wooden materials (for indoor use) (105)

Low-emission gas burners (86)

Combination boilers and circulating water boilers for gaseous fuels (34)

Combined burner/boiler units with gas blast burner (14)

Low-noise mopeds (2)

Water-saving flow restrictors (31)

Water-saving flushing valves (4)

Soil meliorators and soil adjuvants made from compost (43)

Combined oil burner/boiler units (62)

Solar-energy products and mechanical watches (34)

Rapidly biodegradable chain lubricants for power saws (94)

Building materials predominantly made of waste glass (3)

Lithium batteries free of mercury and cadmium

Environment ticket in public transport (17)

Highly heat-insulating multi-layer window glass (15)
B-52 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Low-noise construction machines (191)

Low-noise compost choppers (32)

Reusable ribbon cassettes and refillable toner cartridges (38)

Photoconductor drums for laser printers (1)

Recycled cardboard (368)

Thermal techniques (hot air) for pest control of ligniperdous insects (7)

Low-noise and low-soot municipal vehicles with diesel drive (18)

Low-noise and low-soot municipal vehicles with gas drive (1)

Building materials and gypsum made from recycled materials

Low-emission and energy-saving gas fired condensing boilers (59)

Low-emission and waste reducing copiers (135)

Rapidly biodegradable lubricants and forming oils (45)

Unbleached hot-filter paper (18)

Low-pollutant fire extinguishers

Lead-free seals (2)

Cadmium-free hard-solder (7)

Low-waste, resource-saving text marker (5)

Component-system detergents (1)

Independent burning gas heaters and flued-bed built-in appliances with atmospheric burners

(18)

Newspaper printing paper (consisting predominantly of recycled paper and bleached paper

without chlorine (30)

Solar collectors (17)

Low-pollutant nail varnishes

CFC-free and energy saving refrigerators and freezers

Low-emission chipboard (3)

Low-waste and low-water pollutant towels in dispensers (21)

Computers (73)

Rapidly biodegradable hydraulic fluids (27)

Low-emission gas burners (14)

Electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps (5)

Tooth brush with exchangeable heads (6)

Low-noise and low-emission chain saws (5)

Sewage plant-compatible sanitary additives (8)

Printers

Recyclable video and audio cassettes (1)

Electrical appliances for hand drying (3)

Mercury-free medical temperature sensors
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-53

Categories Under Consideration

Household appliances (including combi-appliances)

Rechargeable consumer batteries

Halogen-free electric cables and wires

Cadmium-free infrared lamps

Television sets

Coffee machines

Mobile sound-reproduction sets with headphones (walkmen)

Commercial refrigerators and freezers

Appliances of office communications

Gas stove and electric cookers

Low-noise and low-emission motor-lawnmower

Electric-equipment

Low-solvents special coatings

Dispersion paints in returnable containers

Graffiti cleaners

Construction materials made of recycled material for use in building construction

Low-emission paint-spraying guns

Heat-insulation materials made of renewable resources

Biological pest control agents

Disinfectants

Technical devices as an alternative to sanitary additives

Biodegradable motor oil for two stroke engines

Electronically controlled circulating pumps

Heat cost distributer/heat quantity meter

Products made from jute

Products made from rattan

Tabular Plastic containers for non-beverage uses

Satchels

Flame retardants

Easy de-inkable and dyes for printing containing less harmful substances

Retrofitable and low-waste mug oil filters for cars

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-55

GERMANY’S GREEN DOT PROGRAM

Introduction

In 1991, Germany established the Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste (Packaging

Ordinance). According to the Packaging Ordinance, domestic and foreign manufacturers and

distributors are required to take back all transport packaging such as crates, drums, pallets, and

styrofoam containers (i.e., primary packaging) and recycle or reuse these materials. In 1992, these

regulations were expanded to include all secondary packaging. Accordingly, manufacturers,

distributors, and retailers are now required to take back and recycle secondary packaging (e.g.,

cardboard boxes, blister packs, and other product packaging such as that used to prevent theft, for

protection, and for promotional purposes) from consumers. Since 1993, however, the Ordinance

was further expanded to included all types of consumer packaging used to contain and transport

goods from the point of sale to consumption. The most recent regulations created an option that

exempts manufacturers from these regulations. 

Specifically, the Packaging Ordinance states that manufacturers, retailers, and distributors (both

domestic and foreign) may be exempt from taking back packaging if they participate in an

established national waste management program. Such a program had been in existence in

Germany since 1990, under the Duales System Deutschland GmbH (Dual System of Germany). 

The Duales System is a non-profit organization set up to collect, sort, and recycle post-consumer

packaging from both households and small businesses throughout the country. By participating in

the Duales System program, manufacturers may label their products with the Green Dot. A Green

Dot indicates to the consumer that the manufacturer of the product participates in the program, and

that instead of returning the packaging to the manufacturer or distributor, the packaging should be

collected, sorted, and recycled through the Duales System program.

The new packaging laws in Germany have been successful in reducing packaging and encouraging

the use of recycled and re-fillable packaging. Foreign companies have expressed concern,

however, that these laws are a possible trade barrier. The claim has also been made that Germany

is developing and implementing these packaging laws without consultation from or concern for the

European Community and its goal for a Single European Market.

Recent Developments

The program reports that there have been no major changes in the methodology by which the

Green Dot is granted since 1995.

Program Summary

Although the Green Dot operates as a response by industry and trade associations to avoid

individual take-back regulations, its overall goal is the prevention of excess, unnecessary waste. In

this regard the Green Dot fee structure acts as an incentive for manufacturers to reduce the amount
B-56 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

of packaging they use for their products in the design of products and packaging. Manufacturers

wishing to obtain the Green Dot must pay a license fee to the Duales System. Fees are based on

the type and weight of the packaging materials. In general, the heavier and more difficult it is to

recycle the packaging, the higher the license fees. Fees vary according to the packaging materials,

with plastics having the highest fees and natural materials and glass having the lowest fees. 

License fees range from about DM 3.00/kg to DM 0.15/kg ($1.70 US to $0.08 US).

The Duales System collects glass, paper, cardboard, and lightweight materials such as polystyrene,

plastic, beverage containers, composites made of a mixture of materials, aluminum, and tin-plate. 

The Duales System has established two types of collection systems, which can be modified to

accommodate existing local and regional collection systems. The first, and most widespread, is the

curbside system where consumers collect Green Dot packages (except glass, paper, and cardboard)

in the yellow bags or bins provided to their households. The bags/bins are placed on the curbside

to be collected during the regular garbage pick-up. Glass, paper, and cardboard are collected

separately in special bins/containers set up in the neighborhood -- glass is often separated

according to color. In the curbside system, the consumer does the basic initial sorting of the

packaging. The alternate system is the “bring” system where consumers bring all their waste

packaging to central collection stations. Under the “bring” system all packaging is sorted by

Duales System employees into different bins, which are set up for the different packaging

materials.

Once collected, the materials are sorted by waste management companies under contract to the

Duales System. Once the materials have been sorted, they are ready to be shipped to recycling

facilities. According to the Duales System Deutschland GmbH, the recycling goals set by the

Packaging Ordinance have been met since the Green Dot program began. Since 1992, one year

after the Packaging Ordinance went into effect, the weight of packaging consumed (i.e., not for

recycling) in Germany has steadily declined. Because of the take-back requirements set by the

Ordinance, and the license fee structure, manufacturers have been motivated to reduce the weight

of their packaging in order to reduce their eventual recycling costs.

Program Methodology

The Duales System collects glass, paper, cardboard, and lightweight materials such as polystyrene,

plastic, beverage containers, composites made of a mixture of materials, aluminum, and tin-plate. 

These product categories were chosen based on evaluations of their environmental impacts, as well

as their potential for reuse and recyclability. The Duales System establishes criteria for these

product categories, which manufacturers must adhere to for their packaging materials in order to be

part of the program. That is, packaging made with paper products must meet certain standards set

by the program in order for that packaging to be awarded the Green Dot, and therefore be accepted

for recycling through the program. Product criteria are based on previous studies conducted for
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-57

these product categories, as well as information from other programs’ life-cycle assessments for the

categories, independent testing, and information from producers themselves. Criteria are peerreviewed, and peer-reviewed critiques and Duales System’s responses to them are available to the

public.

Other Information

Unless companies participate in the Green Dot program, they are required to take back their

packaging according to the Packaging Ordinance. This take-back burden is far greater for

companies that ship their products long distances to Germany -- they conceivably pay the

transportation costs of shipping the packaging back to the country of origin. Many exporting

countries, particularly developing countries, may not have the infrastructure or the technical ability

to meet all the packaging standards set by Germany. One alternative that foreign companies may

opt for is hiring a German company to overcome the cost burden or to meet the standards. For

example, the German company would be responsible for packaging the imported good(s) in

Germany so that they comply with local requirements. In addition, the company would take back

the returned packaging.

Although foreign products are not required to carry the Green Dot, many manufacturers exporting

to Germany claim that the domestic demand for the Green Dot label places imported goods at a

market disadvantage. (European Union based importers can also apply for the Green Dot.) 

Additionally, distributors and retailers may shy away from foreign products without the Green Dot

because otherwise the responsibility of recycling the packaging falls on the distributors/retailers.

References

Federal Government of Germany, 1991, Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste

(Packaging Ordinance - Verpackungsverordnung - VerpackVO) of 12 June, 1991.

Duales System Deutschland GmbH, March 1996, Recycling Data - Techniques and Trends.

Duales System Deutschland GmbH, May 1996, Changes and Developments - Plastics Recycling

Today.

Duales System Deutschland GmbH, December 1996, Info-Grafik: Green Dot License Fees.

Duales System Deutschland GmbH, April, 1997, Press Information: Green Dot Presents 1996

Materials Mass Flow Verification.

Duales System Deutschland GmbH, January, 1996, Life-Cycle Analysis on Recycling and Recovery

of Post-Consumer Plastics.

Bernhardt, K., 1992, Germany’s New Packaging Laws: The “Green Dot” Arrives, Business
B-58 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

America, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 36-37.

Cotter, M. J., Henley, J. A. Jr., 1995, Germany’s “New” International Strategic Weapon:

Environmentalism, Multinational Business Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 93-97.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-59

INDIA’S ECOMARK

Introduction

As part of an effort to improve environmental quality and to increase environmental awareness

among industries and consumers, the Indian Parliament initiated a voluntary ecolabeling program

known as the Ecomark in February 1991. The Ecomark is a government operated seal-of-approval

program for environmentally-preferable consumer products. The Ministry of Environment of

Forests (MoEF), with the technical advice of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),

manages the program. Unlike many other international ecolabeling programs that are independent,

India’s Ecomark is tied with the BIS’s product quality standards. In order to be Ecomark certified,

products must meet these product quality standards, as well as product-specific environmental

criteria set by the Ecomark program. In meeting Ecomark requirements, manufacturers will also

have both the BIS’s quality standards label on their products.

The objectives of the Ecomark program are fivefold: 1) to provide manufacturers and importers an

incentive to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of their products, 2) to reward genuine

initiatives by companies to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of their products, 3) to assist

consumers in becoming environmentally responsible in their daily lives by providing them with

information on environmental impacts that they can incorporate in their purchasing decisions, 4) to

encourage citizens to purchase products that have fewer environmental impacts, and 5) to

ultimately improve the quality of the environment and encourage sustainable management of

resources.

The Ecomark label is seen as a “movement of consumers” and is therefore given exclusively to

consumer products. Interestingly, even though (as of January 1997) sixteen product categories had

been selected for the Ecomark, only one product, in the detergent product category, has been

awarded the Ecomark. So far, however, there are no products available on the market with the

ecolabel; the manufacturer of the detergent product that had been awarded the Ecomark did not

market the product with the ecolabel. According to Dr. Sudhir K. Ghosh, Member Secretary of the

Ecomark Technical Committee, “Indian industries are not coming forward to get eco-certification

of their products, though they are involved in the process of criteria development.” Some attribute

this to the costs involved in applying for the Ecomark and the numerous regulatory requirements

manufacturers must meet before being awarded the ecolabel. Other reasons may include

industries’ concerns about the Ecomark program, which are outlined below.

Recent Developments

The program reports that there have been no significant changes in the methodology for

determining award criteria since the beginning of the program. Due to the lack of response from

manufactures (and consumers) regarding ecolabeling, however, the Ministry of Environments and

Forests has recently (August 1997) launched a market survey for ecolabeled products.
B-60 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Program Summary

There are three committees involved with product category selection, criteria development, and

award of the Ecomark. First, an inter-ministerial Steering Committee in the Ministry of

Environment & Forests determines the product categories to which an Ecomark may be granted. 

The Committee is also in charge of promoting of the labeling scheme to manufacturers and

consumers. Once the Steering Committee has made proposals for product categories, a Technical

Committee in the Central Pollution Control Board determines the specific product to be included

under the Ecomark scheme.

The Technical Committee is the central committee for the Ecomark scheme and constitutes subcommittees for the development of Ecomark criteria for each proposed product category. The

Technical Committee provides technical assistance and recommendations to the Steering

Committee for finalizing product categories, and is also in charge of developing product specific

criteria, based on life-cycle assessments, wherever possible. Once criteria are finalized, the Bureau

of Indian Standards and/or the Directorate of Marketing translates the product criteria into Indian

Standards, assesses and certifies the products, and coordinates (via testing and contractual

arrangements) with manufacturers wishing to use the Ecomark label on their products.

Manufacturers wishing to obtain the license to use the Ecomark label on their products submit

applications to the Bureau of Indian Standards and deposit a non-refundable fee approximately Rs.

500 ($14.00 US) for each product. The applicant is responsible for any testing and inspection

costs, if required. In addition there is a usage fee, based on the annual production of the product,

which is determined by the BIS. If the manufacturer is found to be in compliance with the award

criteria, the BIS draws up a contract for use of the Ecomark. The label is initially granted for one

year, but there is the option to renew the license for the Ecomark label for a fee of Rs. 300 ($8.30

US). If a manufacturer illegally uses the Ecomark, without BIS certification, they are subject to

punishment as per provision of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act of 1986.

Program Methodology

Once specific products are selected for the Ecomark, product criteria are developed. In general,

previous literature and other programs’ life-cycle assessments are used in conducting a simplified

life-cycle assessment that examines products in terms of their main environmental impacts. These

include: the product’s potential for generating less pollution than other comparable products;

whether the product is recycled, recyclable, or made from recycled materials or whether it is

biodegradable; and whether it makes significant contributions to saving non-renewable resources. 

Products are assessed specifically on their use, potential for reuse and recyclability, environmental

impact during final disposal, and their ingredients or their materials restrictions. India, however,

does not follow SETAC guidelines in its LCA. The Ecomark Technical Committee may also plan
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-61

 to incorporate the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14020 guidelines and general

principles once these are finalized. Draft criteria are peer-reviewed and peer-review critiques are

available to the public.

Furthermore, certain general requirements have to be met in order to grant the Ecomark label. 

First, products must meet the Bureau of Indian Standard’s product quality, safety, and performance

standards. Second, manufacturers of the product must provide evidence that they are in

compliance with India’s Water, Air, and Environmental Protection Acts and, if applicable, with the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. Third, the

product must display a list of all the critical ingredients in descending order of quantity present. 

Fourth, the manufacturer may opt to display (on the packaging) the criteria upon which the

Ecomark label is based. Fifth, instructions on the product’s proper use, performance, and disposal

may be shown on the product’s packaging as well.

Other Information

The overall response to the Ecomark program within India itself has been quite limited and

manufacturers are hesitant to apply for the Ecomark label. Several factors are seen as possible

causes for this hesitation. First, the Ecomark scheme is a self-financing program, requiring

manufacturers to pay for the application, testing, licensing fee, and renewal costs involved in

certification. Some estimates indicate that these costs can amount to a 10 percent increase in a

manufacturer’s production costs -- which are not guaranteed to be returned in increased profits. 

Second, products have to comply to BIS’s quality standards before being able to apply for the

Ecomark. The BIS standards add another layer of regulation and approvals for manufacturers,

which are perceived as a burden with few immediate benefits.

Additionally, industry has complained that India’s Ecomark has not done enough to involve it in

product criteria development. Industry feels the Indian Government has “rushed through” with the

Ecomark. Industry feels that the labeling program will not help environmental improvement if

criteria concentrate on single issues, or if they are based on other programs that do not take the

local situation into account. Industry also says that the labeling program inhibits innovation that

comes with consumer goods production and can, therefore, be a hindrance to environmental

improvements. Finally, industry feels that because of the lack of consumer awareness of

environmentally preferable products, the Ecomark program may send consumers the “wrong”

message by indicating to consumers that non-Ecomark labeled products are not environmentally

safe. 

Indian exporters feel that many of the product categories chosen for Ecomark, with the exception

of textiles and certain food items, do not reflect India’s major export products for which an

Ecomark might be of value. Several manufacturers have, in fact, adopted the ecolabeling standards

of their importing customers’ countries in order to operate in those markets. The textile and leather

products sectors (two of India’s largest exports) have made efforts to conform to ecolabeling

standards in EU countries such as Denmark and Germany. Such conformance has been possible
B-62 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

through bilateral support from these foreign governments. In response, the Indian Government is

now in the process of developing award criteria for the leather and leather products categories.

With regard to trade, the Indian Ecomark program does recognize the increasing popularity of

ecolabeling schemes around the world, and the Ecomark Steering Committee recognizes that,

“whilst there is a need for greater transparency, voluntary ecolabeling schemes should not be

brought under the scope of the technical barriers to trade agreements.” As a result, the Indian

Government stresses that the Ecomark program is a “purely voluntary scheme open to all

manufacturers, both domestic and foreign.” According to the Ecomark Technical Committee, in

order to make the scheme more globally transparent, much of the information on the Ecomark can

be found on the World Wide Web (http://www.nic.in/envfor/cpcb/cpcb.html). The site was created

by the Central Pollution Control Board in collaboration with the National Information Centre in

India.

The Indian government has already prohibited the handling of 70 “azo” dyes, in response to new

regulations by Germany and the EU in place as of early 1996. About 70 percent of dyes

manufactured and used in textiles in India contain ‘azo’ dyes, and about 25 percent (190) of these

have been banned in Germany and the EU. Germany and the EU are two of India’s largest markets

for garments and textiles (10 percent of India’s textiles and textile goods exports go to Germany

and 50 percent are sold to the EU as a whole). These new regulations are likely to affect India’s

exports in these sectors. 

To help exporters understand these new regulations, the Indian Government has set up committees

in charge of information dissemination to trade and industry, legal measures, research and

development, and identification of substitutes. The committees have asked trade and research

associations, export promotion councils, state governments, and other textiles-related

organizations, to produce outreach materials (e.g., pamphlets, leaflets, publications, videos,

advertisements in daily publications, workshops, and seminars), in both English and local

languages, to provide manufacturers with information regarding the regulations.

India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has issued restrictions on manufacturing of the 190

banned dyes, as well as placing these dyes on a list of restricted imports under India’s ExportImport policy. In addition, a provision in the Textiles (Development and Regulations) Order of

1993 will be included specifying which toxic or harmful dyes and chemicals should not be used in

the manufacturing of textiles. In addition, a list of the banned dyes, a list of safe substitutes,

product related eco-standards, and a list of guidelines for manufacturing environmentally

preferable textiles have been distributed.

The Department of Chemical Technology at the University of Bombay, the Technology Institute of

Textiles and Sciences, and other research institutions are requested to identify toxic chemicals and

dyes to be phased out from textile manufacturing. Additionally, numerous laboratories have been

set up throughout textile centers in the country to perform tests on the banned dyes and to find

possible alternatives.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-63

Finally, in an effort to achieve harmonization and mutual recognition with other ecolabeling

programs, the Indian Ministry of Commerce presented a paper at the “Seminar on Trade Effects of

Eco-labelling” in Bangkok, Thailand, in early 1997. The Ministry suggested forming an

organization, called the Asian Environmental Network (AEN), similar to the Global Ecolabelling

Network (GEN) but specifically for the Asia Pacific region. They proposed that AEN could be set

up for better exchange and dissemination of information about ecolabeling, and to work toward

greater harmonization among ecolabeling programs in Asia. The Ministry of Commerce suggested

that AEN could set up generic ecolabeling standards for the Asia Pacific Region, as well as provide

technical assistance to countries trying to further develop or who are trying to set-up ecolabeling

programs. Also, information on mutual recognition, equivalency, new technologies, new products,

and regional protocols could be disseminated via a newsletter or on the Internet. AEN is still in the

development stages, however, and has not yet been formally established.

References

Dr. Sudhir Ghosh, Additional Director and Member Secretary, Ecomark Technical Committee. 

Personal communication with Abt Associates. November, 1997.

Bhat, A. N., Ecomark Issues and Role of Indian Industry, National Seminar on Green Purchasing

and Ecolabeling.

Ministry of Commerce, January/February, 1997, Seminar on Trade Effects of Eco-Labelling -

India: National Experience on Eco-Labelling, Bangkok, Thailand.

Central Pollution Control Board, 1997, Ecomark: A Scheme on Labelling of Environmentally

Friendly Products.

Central Pollution Control Board, Ecomark Scheme of India, Ecomark Homepage,

http://www.nic.in/envfor/cpcb/cpcb.html.

Singh, Y.P., and Phalgumani, G.R., 1995, Meeting Eco-requirements for Export: Example of

Indian Textiles, International Trade Forum, no.3, pp. 12-15.

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, 1991,

Resolution, published in The Gazette of India, no. 71, part II, section 3, sub-section i, New Delhi,

Thursday, February 21.
B-64 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Product Categories

Final Categories

Soaps and detergents

Paper

Food items

Lubricating oils

Packaging materials/packages

Architectural paints and powder coatings

Batteries

Electrical/electronic goods

Food Additives

Wood substitutes

Cosmetics

Aerosols Propellants

Plastic Products

Textiles

Categories Under Development

Leather and Leather products

Fire extinguishers

Household pesticides
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-65

JAPAN'S ECOMARK

Introduction

The EcoMark program, the second oldest ecolabeling program after Blue Angel, was started in

February 1989 as a positive seal-of-approval program to "disseminate information on the

environmental aspects of products and to encourage consumers to choose environmentally sound

products." The program is implemented by the Japan Environment Association (JEA), a nongovernmental organization, under the guidance of the Environment Agency. As of June 1997, the

program has issued 2,031 awards in 69 product categories.

Two studies have been conducted to evaluate the influence of the EcoMark. Both indicate that the

EcoMark is becoming well known. The first was a survey of local governments, distributors and

companies with EcoMark-approved products, conducted by the JEA in the Spring of 1991. More

than half of the companies who had acquired the logo did so to improve their corporate image,

citing also "requests from customers and increased sales." Almost all local governments were

aware of the program, compared to only 40 percent of distributors. The other study, a 1990 public

opinion poll conducted by the Prime Minister's Office, found that 22.3 percent of the respondents

said that they were familiar with the EcoMark. By 1993, this rate had jumped to 53 percent.

Recent Developments

The EcoMark program has undergone several changes in the past few years. First, the number of

awards has actually decreased. Two product categories have been eliminated: spray containers not

containing CFCs, abolished December 1993; and cans with stay-on tabs, abolished June 1995. In

addition, consolidation of the pulp and paper industries has resulted in a decrease in the number of

paper brands receiving awards (decreasing number of paper companies leads to decreases in the

number of paper brands). The program has recently added two product categories, printing ink and

recycled suitcases, to its list. Because the program seeks to label a small percentage of products

within a product category, categories can either become more stringent or be abolished altogether if

the labeled product market share is too large. The EcoMark program is in the process of revising

16 product category criteria to become more stringent based on new manufacturing procedures. It

is expected that more currently labeled products reapplying for the label will fail, limiting the

market share of awarded labels to only those products meeting the very highest environmental

standards.

The program has also revised its methodology for selecting product categories and awarding labels. 

Originally, the EcoMark program based selection on the finished products’ attributes, and did not

incorporate the manufacturing processes of individual products within a category. In this way the

logo was used more to call attention to products that were part of "an ecological lifestyle," than to

weigh the relative impacts of consumer products throughout the life cycle. The process was also

generally not open for comment from the public. These procedures were revised in March 1996 to 
B-66 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

conform to the draft ISO 14024 standards. The program now employs the use of life-cycle

analysis, consults with related parties, and provides for public review of draft criteria.

Program Summary

The EcoMark Secretariat is located within the Japan Environment Association, as are the two

committees (the Promotion Committee and the Expert Committee) responsible for administering

the program. The Secretariat sets up a working group of experts and concerned persons for each

product category under consideration. This group then establishes draft criteria using life-cycle

analysis, which are publicized in EcoMark News for 60 days for public comment. The draft

criteria are submitted, with the incorporated suggestions, to the Promotion Committee (composed

of specialists in environmental conservation, administrative agencies, consumer groups, and

relevant enterprises), which then approves or rejects the criteria.

Once award criteria have been set, confidential product applications are accepted. Manufacturers

must supply relevant information to the Expert Committee (composed of experts in environmental

impact assessment), but the Committee may request further testing by a third party. If a product is

awarded a label, a two-year contract is signed with the JEA. While JEA does not directly monitor

for misuse, it relies on other manufacturers, administrative organizations, and consumer

organizations to inform it of possible instances of misuse. 

Unlike most environmental certification programs, the fee charged for use of the award is based on

the retail price of the product, not the number of units sold or the market share. The annual license

fee is between 40,000 (348 USD) and 100,000 yen (870 USD). Additionally, the Japanese

program is unusual in that there is no application or advertising fee.

Program Methodology

As mentioned above, the Japanese EcoMark program recently changed its methodology to

incorporate life-cycle assessments, specifically a life-cycle matrix, which considers the

environmental impacts within each stage of the product life cycle. This change was made as a

response to draft labeling standards being developed by the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO). In assessing products, the EcoMark utilizes literature and other programs’

life-cycle assessments, as well as independent testing and studies and information from

participating producers. Additionally, information about product criteria from other programs may

also be adopted by the Japanese EcoMark program, where applicable. Japan does not follow

SETAC guidelines in their life-cycle-analysis.

Once product selection by the EcoMark office and the Expert Committee is completed, the

EcoMark office sets up ad hoc working groups for each product group to develop labeling criteria. 

Product selection is based on proposals from manufacturers as well as the use of a political process

in consideration with the environmental impacts of the product. Product criteria, based on the lifecycle matrix approach and at each stage of the product’s life cycle, considers the following factors:
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-67

extraction and processing of raw materials; manufacturing, transportation, and distribution of the

product; the product uses; potential for reuse; potential for recycling; and emission of wastes, toxic

substances, and harmful pollutants.

Other Information

The program is open to participation by small and medium sized businesses; more than 75 percent

of the manufacturers awarded are small or medium in size.

JEA is a member of GEN, which it finds very useful, not only for information exchange but also

for assisting ecolabeling programs worldwide with program information and for the removal of

unnecessary trade barriers. When criteria are being developed and revised, JEA collects data on all

criteria in similar product categories via the GEN database and uses these to guide its development. 

In accordance with the draft ISO 14024 standards, existing criteria are revised within three years

(16 of the 69 current award criteria are in the revision stage).

EcoMark has a strong relationship with procurement programs. For example, the central

government is in the process of establishing guidelines for green procurement and references the

EcoMark as one possible source of information. Some of the more progressive local governments

have already established green procurement guidelines and also reference the EcoMark.

According to JEA, the program has not been involved in any critical trade conflicts to date. In fact,

JEA has shown initiative in addressing trade issues before a conflict can arise. For example, in

1996, JEA made a concerted effort to get input from the US on the trade implications of

developing product categories for personal computers and copy machines. By including the US in

its process, it hoped to avoid any trade conflicts.

Similar to the ecolabeling program, the Green Purchasing Network (GPN) was created in February

1996. The GPN is sponsored by the Environment Agency of Japan, and consists of organizations

committed to reducing stress on the environment by promoting green purchasing. Thus far, 425

companies, 107 local governments and government agencies, and 97 non-profit organizations are

members. The GPN establishes purchasing guidelines in product categories, publishes annual

guidebooks concerning the environmental impact of products, publishes a quarterly newsletter, and

conducts meetings. Although the GPN program and the EcoMark are independent of each other,

the GPN has a significant influence on the EcoMark.

References

US Environmental Protection Agency. Correspondence with Japan Environment Association. 

November 1996.
B-68 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Hashizume, Shigeyuki, The EcoMark System, Convertech Japan, 1994. 

Hashizume, Shigeyuki, Japan Environment Association. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

Hashizume, Shigeyuki, Japan Environment Association. Presentation of the Japanese EcoMark. 

Global Environmental Labelling Network Annual Meeting. September, 1997.

Japan Environment Association. Green Purchasing Network background documents. August 1997.

Japan Environment Association. The Eco Mark Program.

Japan Environment Association. The Eco Mark System. September 1991.

Japan Environment Association. Certification Criteria for Eco Mark Products.

Japan Environment Office. EcoMark Office. Offset Printing Ink. Product Category No. 102 for

the EcoMark Program. July 1997.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Spray products not containing CFC's (abolished)

Triangle strainers for kitchen sinks (16)

Strainers for kitchen sinks (28)

Filter bags for kitchen disposal (155)

Absorbents for used cooking oil (34)

Composting containers (30)

Magazines and books on environmental problems (20)

Toilet paper using 100 percent recycled paper (85)

Returnable containers (11)

Containers for collecting used bottles (0)

Soap made from used cooking oil (47)

Products made from used lumber (25)

Products made from used plastic (211)

Cans with stay on tabs (abolished)

Recycled paper for office use (102)

Recycled paper for printing (237)

Recycled paper for stationary (137)

Recycled paper for packaging (184)

Hot water supply systems using solar energy (3)

Cellulose sponges (39)

Cloth diapers for infants (44)
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-69

Products made from used tires (33)

Thermal insulation for buildings (3)

Tissue paper using recycled paper (11)

Biodegradable engine oil for two-cycle engines (7)

Products using solar battery modules (2)

Straw matting (9)

Flow-reducing valves and water-saving faucets (13)

Soundproof and vibration proof mats (3)

Blast furnace and fine powder slag and blast furnace cement (7)

Refillable containers (60)

Unbleached coffee filters (10)

Paint containing no aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (87)

Filters for cooking oil (6)

Boards made from waste wood (51)

Waste can collectors (7)

Drainage fixtures for rainwater dissipation (7)

Storage tanks for rainwater (0)

Packing materials made from recycled pulp (35)

Wallpaper, fusuma paper and shoji paper made from recycled pulp (36)

Filter bags of recycled paper for vacuum cleaners (7)

Tiles and blocks made from waste material (12)

Household gloves of natural rubber (22)

Unbleached clothes. bed linen, and towels (32)

CFC recovery systems for air conditioners (2)

Biodegradable hydraulic oil (10)

Biodegradable lubricant oil (18)

Cloth shopping bags (20)

Multi-pass thermal transfer ribbons (1)

Wooden products made of culled logs and small-diameter logs (13)

Textiles made of waste fibers (15)

Briquettes made of waste (2)

Low-waste printers for business machines (5)

Replaceable ink cartridges and ribbon cassettes (3)

Resource conserving containers for edible oils (12)

Recycled paving materials (4)

Fancy sound-absorption panels of iron-slag mineral wool (5)

Laminated fiberboard of recycled pulp (7)

Combustion apparatus using waste cooking oil (0)

Buffer materials made of culled logs and used timber (0)

Vegetation supporting concrete paving blocks (1)

Energy saving gas leak detectors (2)

Load-stabilizing devices for energy conservation (4)

Products made from recycled cullet (14)
B-70 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Building materials of fly ash (1)

Clothing made of used PET resin (10)

Inert-gas smothering systems and apparatuses using no ozone-layer depleting gases (3)

Easily repairable office chairs (7)

Low-benzene gasoline for vehicles (2)

Agricultural mulch sheeting of recycled pulp (1)

Solar-powered clock or watch (1)
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-71

SOUTH KOREA’S ECO-MARK

Introduction

According to the South Korean Ministry of the Environment (MOE or Ministry), rapid

industrialization and urbanization during the last three decades and South Korea’s rapid economy

growth may have contributed in deteriorating the country’s environmental conditions. As a result,

the Korean government established “Harmony between Environment and Development” as a main

policy goal of the country, with emphasis on pollution prevention and resource management. To

realize this policy, the Korean Ministry of the Environment launched its ecolabeling certification

program, known as “Eco-Mark,” on June 1, 1992. Eco-Mark is a voluntary program that awards a

seal of approval to environmentally preferable products. It is primarily intended to encourage

companies to promote the design, production, marketing, and use of products that have reduced

environmental impact, as well as to provide consumers with information to make environmentally

sound purchasing decisions.

Between 1993 and 1994, the number of Eco-Mark product categories increased from 12 to 36, and

within those categories the number of products awarded the Eco-Mark label increased from 96 to

219.

Recent Developments

Korea recently (as of June 1997) became one of the newest members of the Global Ecolabelling

Network (GEN).

Program Summary

The Korean Eco-Mark program is administered by the Korean Ministry of Environment. New

product category suggestions are directed to the Ministry’s Technology Development Division. 

This Division makes the final decision as to which product categories are suitable for the EcoMark. The Ministry then drafts the award criteria with technical assistance from the Korean

Academy of Industrial Technology (KAITECH). The draft criteria are released to the public for

comments during public hearings. Based on the comments received, criteria are revised and

finalized.

Once criteria are finalized and released to the public, manufacturers wishing to obtain the EcoMark can apply to be eco-certified. A “practical committee” within the Korean Environmental

Labelling Association (KELA), (who handles manufacturers’ applications) is in charge of awarding

the label to companies wishing to obtain eco-certification for their products that meet the

prescribed award criteria.
B-72 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Once the product fulfills the criteria, it is eligible to receive the Eco-Mark. In addition to the initial

application fee of 30,000 won ($33 US), the user of the Eco-Mark must pay an annual fee ranging

from 300,000 won to 1,000,000 won ($330 US - $1,090 US), based on the product’s annual sales

(more expensive goods command a higher fee). This fee, collected by the KELA, is used to

maintain the Eco-Mark program as well as to increase public awareness of environmental issues.

Program Methodology

The Eco-Mark program has found that, in practice, the significant data requirements of the lifecycle assessment approach typical for determining award criteria are difficult to meet. The Korean

Eco-Mark's approach to product certification is therefore based on defining the single most

important environmental impact for each product category.

References

United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), International Trade Division,

Trade and Environment Section, 1993. Eco-labelling and International Trade: Preliminary

Information from Seven Systems (Draft), Geneva, Switzerland, May 19.

Korean Environmental Labelling Association (KELA), The Eco-Labelling Program in Korea -- Its

administrative structures and procedures, Eco-Mark Homepage,

http://www.gcc.go.kr/ehome/ecomark.html.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Products made from recycled paper

Toilet paper

Products made from recycled plastic

Cloth diapers for babies

Non-asbestos brake lining and clutch facing

Filters for kitchen sinks

Non-bleached and non-dyed towels

Valves for adjusting flow and water saving-type faucets (including water saving tops)

Packaging materials using wastes

Soap made from waste edible oils

Bricks made from waste lime

Construction materials made from waste glass

Products made from used tires

Bulb-type fluorescent lamps

Cloth shopping bags
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-73

Construction materials made from waste stone powder

Biodegradable engine oil for two-cycle engines

Biodegradable hydraulic oil

Bricks made with inorganic sludge

Palette made with waste wood

Water-economizing toilet stool

Low sulfur petroleum

Building materials using remnants from burning

Blast furnace cement

Returnable can collectors

Refillable containers

Water-economizing fittings for toilets stools

Biodegradable sponges

Machines for recycling used antifreeze

Gravel made of waste materials

Oil filters

Electricity saving low mercury fluorescent bulbs

Plastic containers with same material log attached

Solar water heaters

Low pollution ferro-concrete pipe

Energy efficient refrigerator with no CFCs

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-75

MALAYSIA’S PRODUCT CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Introduction

The Product Certification Program, Malaysia's national environmental labeling program, was

launched in 1996 by the Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM). It is a

single-attribute, seal-of-approval product certification program. As of March 1997, SIRIM's

certification activities were delegated to a fully-owned subsidiary, SIRIM Quality Assurance

Services (SIRIM QAS). This delegation was undertaken to avoid any conflicts of interest with

SIRIM's other activities, namely testing, research, standards development, and measurement

services. SIRIM consults regularly with the Ministry of Environment, which is in charge of

Malaysia's overall environmental policy. Although SIRIM is not directly under the auspices of the

Ministry of Environment, SIRIM strives to coordinate its programs with Malaysia's official

environmental policy in this way.

SIRIM plans to develop (by 1998) certification criteria for lighting and appliance energyefficiency, as well as detergent biodegradability. To date, however, its only fully-developed

product criteria, published in July of 1996, are for CFC-free refrigerators. The impetus for

developing these criteria was the Montreal Protocol, which called for the phasing out of CFC usage

worldwide. The Malaysian government responded by imposing a deadline of 1999 for the

complete phaseout of CFC use. However, Malaysian refrigerator manufacturers that had

developed CFC-free refrigerators before the deadline found themselves suffering from market

share declines attributable to the higher prices they had to charge for the more expensive CFC-free

technology. These manufacturers sought the certification to help consumers differentiate among

manufacturers' environmental performance and to encourage consumers to support the CFC-free

technology despite the higher prices. One large domestic manufacturer has had its entire product

line certified. SIRIM is currently working to certify a second manufacturer's refrigerators. 

Because of the 1999 phaseout, however, it is expected that the CFC-free certification will become

obsolete and will eventually be phased out as well. 

Program Summary

Selection of product categories begins when a request for a product category is submitted by the

public. Though anyone can request product categories, manufacturers wishing to promote their

own products are usually the ones submitting requests. Certification requests may be prompted by

demand in either the domestic or export market. Most Malaysian refrigerators, for example, are

bought and sold domestically. However, the requests for detergent biodegradability labeling and

lighting and appliance energy-efficiency labeling were driven by Malaysia's large export market. 

SIRIM then selects product categories based on market presence and potential benefit, determined

through discussions with both consumers and manufacturers.
B-76 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Product criteria are established by an internal committee of SIRIM professionals who consult

foreign certification programs for information on similar products. These criteria are then

presented to a government-appointed advisory board composed of various stakeholders including

the government, professional bodies, and trade associations. Through a consensus-based decisionmaking process, the criteria are revised and released, officially launching the certification program. 

After their release, the criteria can be revised again at any time by the advisory board, which meets

at least three times each year.

Participation in the program is completely voluntary and open to both domestic and foreign-made

products (although, to date, no submissions have been made from foreign producers). SIRIM

evaluations require an at-cost fee, and include both product testing at SIRIM's in-house lab, and

site visits to assess the manufacturing process. 

Upon certification, manufacturers receive a certificate listing the manufacturer's name, the certified

product's brand and model, and details of its main components. The certificate also specifies the

type of certification issued. The certificate allows holders to print the certification category (e.g.,

"CFC-Free") on product labels. Certificate holders are subject to continued surveillance through

annual inspections by SIRIM, to ensure that certified products continue to satisfy the requirements

of the certification program.

Program Methodology

SIRIM's product certification program is a single-attribute, seal-of-approval program. Product

categories are submitted by the public (including manufacturers) and chosen based on market

demand for product certification, as assessed through periodic discussions held with consumers

and manufacturers. Product criteria are based on a single environmental attribute, such as being

CFC-free, energy-efficient, or biodegradable. The certification process involves both on-site

inspections and product testing by SIRIM employees.

Other Information

In a separate environmental management system (EMS) certification program, SIRIM has made

reciprocal arrangements with two foreign certification programs in the interest of companies who

export to or from Malaysia. One arrangement is with the Japanese Audit and Certification

Organization for Environment (JACO), with whom SIRIM conducts joint facility inspections for

EMS certification. Since many Japanese companies have Malaysian branches, this arrangement

reduces the expenses for Japanese and Malaysian inspectors conducting EMS certification. SIRIM

has another arrangement with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) in which Malaysian

companies, inspected by SIRIM according to CSA standards, are granted the CSA's EMS

certification. This arrangement is highly beneficial to Malaysian manufacturers because of the
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-77

large volume of Malaysian exports to North America. This system makes it possible for Malaysian

companies to obtain EMS certification that is more widely recognized in North America where

they conduct the bulk of their business, without the expense of flying CSA inspectors from Canada

to Malaysia. 

Malaysia has had significant involvement in ISO activities, having been a member of ISO

Technical Committee 207 since 1994 and also a member of each of the three sub-committees, of

which SC3 deals with environmental labeling. The Malaysian ISO delegation consists of a 16-

member committee, including one SIRIM representative.

A number of industries, namely textiles, timber, dyeing, rubber, and electronics, have developed

private industry-specific environmental management certification programs. The private

Malaysian Timber Industry Board has also proposed a timber certification program and conducted

a limited pilot program. National labeling standards for such products may be developed by

SIRIM in the future, though there are no concrete plans to do so as of yet. 

References

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.

Raj, Rajinder, General Manager of SIRIM QAS. Personal communication with Abt Associates,

Summer 1997. 

SIRIM. Certification of CFC-Free Freezers and Refrigerators. August 1997.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Refrigerators

Under Development

Detergents

Appliances

Lighting fixtures

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-79

THE NETHERLANDS’ STICHTING MILIEUKEUR

Introduction

The growing interest in environmental issues throughout the 1980s in the Netherlands encouraged

the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, and the Ministry of Economic

Affairs to create the “Stichting Milieukeur,” an independent foundation for voluntary

environmental labeling, in 1992. Prior to the creation of the Dutch ecolabel, the government had

established the Environmental Advertising Code to discourage the use of false environmental

advertising claims. The Stichting Milieukeur (the Environmental Review Foundation) built upon

the public policies that are the basis of the Environmental Advertising Code by creating a seal-ofapproval program.

The Stichting Milieukeur is made up of representatives from government, consumers,

manufacturers, and retail, trade, and environmental organizations. Although the EU, of which the

Netherlands is a member, has an ecolabel program, the Dutch government proceeded with its own

program to better accommodate goods and services unique to the Dutch market. It retains ties to

the EU program, however, as a Competent Body. As of October 1997, the Stichting Milieukeur

has set and published award criteria for 50 product groups, and has awarded the Milieukeur to 16

of these groups. The Milieukeur has also been awarded to foreign companies in the copy paper and

chairs product categories.

Recent Developments

The Stichting Milieukeur has not changed much since its inception. The primary change has been

an increase in reliance on market trends. More emphasis is being given to products categories that

have a strong market presence where competition for an award can have the greatest environmental

gain, for example, paper hand dryers, cotton hand dryers, and toner cartridges.

Program Summary

Although the program was founded and is supported by the Dutch government, the Stichting

Milieukeur operates the environmental labeling program independently. The Milieukeur Board,

assigned the essential role in selecting product categories and establishing award criteria, is

composed of representatives from the government and manufacturers, consumers, retail trade, and

environmental organizations that founded the Milieukeur. In addition to the Board, a certifying

institution, recognized by the Board and requested by the manufacturer submitting the product for

evaluation, is responsible for testing potential products based on a life-cycle assessment and

assessing whether or not a product meets the defined standards.

The first phase in the award process is coordinated by the Stichting Milieukeur. Manufacturers,

consumer groups, trade associations, or any other interested party can submit a request for the

creation of a new product category to the Stichting Milieukeur. The board may then approve or
B-80 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

reject this application based on a screening study, which may be contracted to an outside company,

that determines the expected environmental gain associated with the product category. Criteria are

developed only for product groups in which there are clear differences in environmental quality

among products in the same category. If the product category is judged to have the potential for

environmental gain, a certifying institution uses a “cradle-to-grave” approach to establish the

environmental burden of products in the product group. If this study suggests that the

environmental gain will be significant, proposed award criteria for the product groups are

discussed in a hearing with involved parties. The Stichting Milieukeur then decides whether to

adopt the product category and its associated criteria. Product categories are reviewed every one to

three years, and have been updated based on new technologies and changes in manufacturing

processes.

Once the criteria for the product category are approved and published, individual manufacturers

and importers may submit a product for individual certification to a certifying institution. If a

product meets specifications, the certifying institution awards the applicant the use of the logo and

signs a contract. All of these processes are confidential. An initial fee of 1,000 guilders ($505 US)

is collected, and then an annual fee of 1.5 percent of sales of the product is required for use of the

certification. Products are audited every 12 months by the certifying institution to ensure

compliance.

Program Methodology

As mentioned above, manufacturers, consumer groups, trade associations, or any other interested

party can submit a request for the creation of a new product category to the Stichting Milieukeur. 

Product categories are evaluated on their potential environmental impacts. Once product

categories are chosen, product criteria are developed using a life-cycle-analysis approach. The

Stichting Milieukeur does follow SETAC guidelines in its life-cycle assessment.

When selecting product categories and developing criteria, the Stichting Milieukeur takes into

account information from literature and studies relating to the product category , as well as other

programs’ previous life-cycle-analysis findings. The Stichting Milieukeur also may conduct its

own independent testing and studies, and will also obtain information pertaining to the product

category from participating producers. In developing its award criteria, the entire “cradle-to-grave”

of a product’s life cycle is taken into account and the product is assessed in terms of: the impacts of

raw material extraction and processing, the manufacturing of the product, transportation and

distribution of the product, the product uses as well as its potential for re-use, recyclability, wastes

during disposal, the product ingredients, and, finally, the environmental performance during the

production process.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-81

Other Information

One of the more unique aspects of the Stichting Milieukeur is that it established award criteria for

several food categories, including fruits, meats, dairy products, vegetables, and grains. To date, the

Stichting Milieukeur is the only environmental labeling program that has established criteria for

food as well as non-food categories. They made this decision based on the results of a study that

indicated a need for labels on food products.

Although the government uses environmentally-labeled products for procurement on an informal

basis, the Stichting Milieukeur is not involved in any formal arrangements with government or

retailer procurement programs. Retailers do not preferentially select environmentally-labeled

products, but do respond to consumer demand.

The Stichting Milieukeur is a Competent Body in the EU environmental labeling program. They

are aware of and employ ISO standards, though these standards do not now play a strong role in the

program’s activities. They are not a member of GEN.

The Stichting Milieukeur reports that it actively works toward transparency and harmonization. It

has a formal arrangement with Scandinavia’s Nordic Swan and Germany’s Blue Angel, two of the

more developed programs. The three programs share ideas and jointly develop criteria for products

(for example, toner cartridges and chain oils), allowing for more efficient criteria development and

operation.

References

Brenninkmeijer, Helga. Stichting Milieukeur. Personal communication with Abt Associates. 

Summer 1997.

Luykx, Elvira. Stichting Milieukeur. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Summer

1997.

Stichting Milieukeur, The Dutch Ecolabel: Added Value for Products and the Environment.

Stichting Milieukeur, Background Documents, 1996.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Product Categories

Adhesive label

Automatic car-wash

Board and card games

Bottom organic household waste bin

Car care products
B-82 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Cat litter (18)

Central heating systems

Chain forms

Chairs (1)

Cleaning and product recycling of industrial gloves

Clothes

Coffee filters

Coffee makers

Copying paper (6)

(Concrete) Pavement tiles

Envelopes

(Smooth) floor covering

Footwear

Furniture (with the exception of chairs and other seating) 

“Green Funds”

Hand dryers (paper)

Hand dryers (cotton)

Handshowers

Offset cleaning agents

Offset paper

Paints

Personal computers

Ring binders/organizers (5)

(Other) seatings with exception of chairs

Refrigerators

Television sets

Toilet paper (2)

Toilet chemicals

Toner cartidges

Window products (curtains, etc.)

Writing materials (1)

Writing paper (17)

Apple/pear (1)

Barley/beer

Bread (3)

Flowers and pot-plants

Mushrooms

Onions

Pepper (1)

Porcmeat

Potatoes (30)

Sprouts, leek, broccoli, cauliflower, headed cabbage, carrot, strawberry

Sugarbeet
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-83

Tomato, cucumber, courgette, aubergine, melon

Wheat (1)

Categories Under Development

Duvets/pillows

Carpets

Chain oil

Other concrete paving products

Paint cleaners

Dairy products

Meat

Sugar

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-85

NEW ZEALAND’S ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICE

Introduction

New Zealand officially started Environmental Choice New Zealand, a voluntary seal-of-approval

program, on July 10, 1990. The stated objectives of the program are: to provide an incentive for

manufacturers and importers to reduce the environmental impacts of products sold in New

Zealand; to recognize the genuine actions by companies to reduce the adverse environmental

impacts of their products; to provide a clear, credible and independent guide to consumers wishing

to take account of environmental factors in their purchase decisions; to encourage consumers to

purchase goods that have lower environmental impacts; and, ultimately, to improve the quality of

the environment and to encourage the sustainable management of resources. Product category

criteria have been published for 18 product categories. They are all currently under review. 

Revised criteria are expected to be published toward the end of 1997.

Recent Changes

There has been a significant change in the organizational structure of New Zealand’s

environmental labeling program. On July 1, 1997, Telarc (the Testing Laboratory Registration

Council, or the Council) New Zealand, the organizational body administering the environmental

labeling program, was restructured. A new separate company with its own Board of Directors,

Telarc Limited, was established to provide all certification services. The accreditation activities

are now operating under a new trading name, International Accreditation New Zealand.

Program Summary

Environmental Choice New Zealand is administered by the Testing Laboratory Registration

Council (the Council) under a formal memorandum of agreement with the Minister for the

Environment. The Council’s operational unit, International Accreditation New Zealand, is the

New Zealand accreditation authority for laboratories and inspection bodies, and manages

Environmental Choice New Zealand. The Council is a statutory body which operates

independently on a user-paid, non-profit basis.

The Environmental Choice Management Advisory Committee (ECMAC) is an independent

committee appointed to advise the Council on the operation of the program. ECMAC includes

individuals appointed to provide broad representation from manufacturing, retailing, packaging,

environmental, academic, and consumer interests. ECMAC also includes a representative from the

Ministry for the Environment.

ECMAC is responsible for choosing suitable product categories for Environmental Choice New

Zealand. Once ECMAC has decided upon a product category, it sets up a Task Group specific to

that product category to develop criteria. After the Task Group has completed a draft of the criteria

specifications, ECMAC releases the document for public comment. The public comment period
B-86 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

lasts for at least 60 days. The Task Group’s responses to these comments are not made available to

the public; only the background papers on product specification developments are made accessible

to the public. The Task Group then takes these comments and revises the Specification, after

which the document is referred to ECMAC. ECMAC, in turn, recommends the requirements to the

Council. The Council then decides whether to approve the specification for publication.

Product suppliers, which may include manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, and retailers, may

apply for a license to use the Environmental Choice New Zealand label as soon as a product

category specification has been published. A life-cycle approach is used to analyze whether the

product satisfies the criteria. Environmental Choice New Zealand may require product testing

performed by an accredited laboratory, and/or examination of the relevant manufacturing records to

verify that a product meets the product category specification. If the Environmental Choice

assessor is satisfied that a particular product complies with the requirements, the applicant is

granted a license to use the program's label. Applicants pay an application fee ($1000), and, if a

product is accepted, an annual licensing fee as well. Licensing fees are calculated on a sliding

scale depending on the sales volume for that product, and run between $1,000 and $5,000.

License holders are subject to payment of fees and continued compliance, which is monitored by

Environmental Choice New Zealand throughout the period. Licenses are renewed annually. 

Environmental Choice New Zealand gives license holders notice before revising product category

specifications and 12 months, if necessary, to adjust to new requirements. As of January 1997,

three companies have been granted licences. These licenses cover over 50 separate paint and

carpet products.

Program Methodology

ECMAC is responsible for choosing suitable product categories for Environmental Choice New

Zealand. A Task Group is then set up by ECMAC for each product category to develop criteria. In

choosing product categories, the environmental impacts of the potential categories, stakeholder

votes and advice from ECMAC, and suggestions from producers are all taken into account. A life

cycle approach is used to analyze whether the product satisfies the criteria, which takes into

account every stage of the product’s life cycle, from “cradle-to-grave.” Factors such as raw

material use, product uses, recyclability, potential for reuse, product ingredients, and environmental

performance of the production process are all taken into consideration. Similar to other

environmental labeling programs, Environmental Choice New Zealand also uses literature, other

programs’ LCAs, independent testing and studies, and participating producer’s suggestions when

developing their product criteria. Finally, Environmental Choice New Zealand uses generic

environmental impact assessments in developing its criteria. It does not, however, follow SETAC

guidelines in its LCA.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-87

Other Information

Because Environmental Choice New Zealand uses a sliding scale of licensing fees, it is able to

accommodate the needs of small and medium sized businesses.

In setting up Environmental Choice New Zealand, the government wanted to ensure that the

program be credible, practical, independent, nonpartisan, and comparable to other programs such

as Canada's Environmental Choice Program. To harmonize and coordinate with other programs,

Environmental Choice New Zealand has aligned its procedures with the requirements of: the ISO

14020 and ISO 14024 guidelines; the Global Ecolabeling Network guidelines; and the World

Trade Organization, Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, Code of Practice. Product criteria

developed by other programs are considered when Environmental Choice New Zealand product

specification documents are prepared. Additionally, Environmental Choice New Zealand is in the

process of exploring specific opportunities to recognize local conditions, such as regulatory

requirements, affecting other labeling programs as well as products manufactured outside New

Zealand.

Environmental Choice New Zealand reports that it has not had any trade conflicts to date.

References

Environmental Choice New Zealand. Published Specifications. July 1997.

Environmental Choice New Zealand. Schedule of Fees - 1997/8.

Heinke, Gary W. et. al. Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.

Russ, Marje. International Accreditation New Zealand. Personal Communication with Abt

Associates. September 1997.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Zinc air batteries

Carbon zinc batteries

Lead acid batteries

Recycled plastic products

Laundry detergents

Machine dishwashing detergents

Hand dishwashing detergents

Re-refined lubricating oil
B-88 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Paints (41)

Fine papers

Newsprint and derived products

Sanitary paper products

Moulded paper products from recycled paper

Macerated paper products from recycled paper

Recycled papers

Wool pile carpets (14)

Wool-rich pile carpets
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-89

SINGAPORE’S GREENLABEL

Introduction

The Ministry of the Environment (ENV) in Singapore launched its ecolabeling program, the

“GreenLabel,” in May 1992 to “promote green consumerism” among Singapore's citizens. The

GreenLabel was formed as part of Singapore’s “Green Plan,” which is the country’s overall

environmental management plan. The GreenLabel is a voluntary seal-of-approval program and is

open to both Singaporean and foreign companies that meet the specified product criteria. 

According to the Ministry of the Environment, the GreenLabel is designed to raise consumer

awareness of products that exert comparatively fewer impacts on the environment, and to raise

environmental awareness in general. In addition, the GreenLabel is designed to provide an

incentive for “manufacturers to account for the environmental impact of their products, and to

design and supply environmentally benign products” (Ong, 1997).

Singapore’s GreenLabel program cites several measures as evidence of its success in increasing

environmental awareness among consumers. In a 1994 survey of 1,600 households, 50 percent of

respondents said that they recognized the GreenLabel. Of these, 78 percent recognized the

GreenLabel as a signature of environmentally preferable products. A significant number of those

surveyed said that they would pay up to 10 percent more for environmentally preferable products. 

Thirty percent of those surveyed said that they consider a product’s environmental attributes as part

of their purchasing decision process.

When the GreenLabel program began in 1992, award criteria were released for only five product

categories. As of June 1997, the program covered 26 product categories broadly classified into ten

product groups. As of March 1997, 702 products carry the GreenLabel. These products are

produced by 137 different manufacturers.

Recent Developments

The GreenLabel program reports that since the program’s inception in 1992, it has adopted the

methodology for determining award criteria as outlined below. The program reports that there

have been no significant changes in this methodology since the program began.

Program Summary

The GreenLabel program is administered by the Environmental Health Department under the

Ministry of the Environment. The ENV Secretariat receives proposals for new product categories

from the public and industry. In addition, it is the Secretariat that receives and processes

applications for the GreenLabel from manufacturers, collects fees, responds to inquiries about the

program from the public and applicants, produces newsletters on the GreenLabel program, and

provides information about the program to the media. 
B-90 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Draft product criteria are developed by separate Technical Workgroups (one for each product

category) consisting of experts with knowledge of the manufacture, distribution, usage, and

disposal of products in the category under consideration. Once draft product criteria have been

developed by the Technical Workgroup, an Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives

from industry, academia, statutory organizations, and environmental groups, assists the Secretariat

in endorsing the most appropriate product criteria for the GreenLabel. These draft criteria are

released to the public and industry for comment.

As well as being peer reviewed, the public and industry have a 30-day period in which to provide

comments on the draft product criteria. The Secretariat collects these comments and forwards

them to the Advisory Committee for review and consideration. The finalized criteria are forwarded

to the Approving Board (consisting of senior staff members from the Ministry of the Environment)

for final approval. Although the public comments and the Advisory Committee’s responses are not

published, once approved, the Secretariat publishes the final criteria and manufacturers are then

allowed to apply for the GreenLabel.

Manufacturers with products that meet the specified product criteria are equally eligible to apply

for the GreenLabel. Applicants are given application kits that lay out the terms and conditions for

product approval and for the use of the GreenLabel. Compliance with the final criteria are verified

through quality control and production record checks, as well as testing of sample products in

accredited laboratories. An approved product is granted a license to carry the GreenLabel logo for

three years. Product criteria are reviewed every three years in order to keep up with the latest

technological developments associated with the product category. If major revisions to the product

criteria are made at this time, manufacturers may be required to have their products re-tested to

ensure that they comply with the revised criteria.

The GreenLabel is open to both domestic and foreign manufacturers wishing to become ecocertified in Singapore. This is especially important for Singapore, since the majority of products

available in Singapore are manufactured overseas. As a result, it is important for ENV to

encourage and convince foreign manufacturers to apply for and use the GreenLabel on their

products before shipping them to Singapore. Foreign companies often employ agents or

distributors in Singapore to work with them to apply for the GreenLabel. The Ministry of the

Environment has made suggestions that an international and/or regional body should be set up to

initiate information exchange and to promote methods of mutual recognition; however, a formal

proposal of this nature has not been made.

ENV bears all the administrative costs of the program so fees are kept low in an effort to encourage

as many manufacturers as possible to apply for the GreenLabel. If a company applies for

certification of a product within one year of the date of release of the final criteria for that product

category, it does not pay any fees for the first five years. If the application is made a year or more
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-91

after the release of the final criteria, fees are waived for a period of only three years. Other than the

certification fees, most of which are waived, the manufacturer is required to pay for product

testing.

Program Methodology

When the ENV Secretariat receives proposals for product categories, it determines their suitability

for the GreenLabel by evaluating the environmental impacts of the categories. Once product

categories are selected, award criteria are drafted. Award criteria are based on a simplified lifecycle assessment, which assesses the environmental impacts of the “few most important

parameters” for each product category. Instead of examining every impact that a product exerts on

the environment, from cradle-to-grave, the Singapore program isolates and studies the most

important environmental concerns for the country. For example, products may be assessed on their

potential impact on water and energy resources, since Singapore is not self-sufficient in either of

these areas. Or the assessment may be based on solid waste disposal impacts, since Singapore has

very limited solid waste disposal capacity. Award criteria may also based on literature and

environmental studies on the product categories’ impacts on the environment, other programs

studies and award criteria, previous life-cycle assessments that may have been conducted by other

programs, and participating producers’ input and knowledge about the product categories. 

Additionally, the product use, its ability to be recycled, and its ingredients are considered when

developing award criteria.

Other Information

Singapore’s Ministry of the Environment intends to review the GreenLabel criteria once the

International Standards Organization’s (ISO) 14020 standards for ecolabeling are finalized. 

However, the Ministry, does not believe that the GreenLabel scheme will undergo major

restructuring based on its review of the current ISO 14020 draft documents.

The GreenLabel program is non-revenue-generating; therefore, media promotion of the program is

done on a relatively limited basis. The major form of promotion for the program is actually

through the manufacturers themselves. Manufacturers who apply for the ecolabel are required to

use it on their certified products. Licensees’ advertisements are the main vehicle for spreading the

word about the GreenLabel. Advertising promotes the manufacturer’s products as being

environmentally preferable, adding value to the products, and is of benefit for the program. ENV

also publishes The Resource Conservation Bulletin, which provides regular updates on the

program. The GreenLabel is also promoted during Singapore’s annual “Clean and Green Week”

held in schools and youth fairs.
B-92 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

References

Dr. Peck Thian Guan, Deputy Director, Environmental Technology Centre, Singapore Productivity

and Standards Board. Personal communication with Abt Associates. July, 1997.

Mr. Alvin Ong, Ministry of the Environment. Personal communication with Abt Associates. 

August, 1997.

Ministry of the Environment, “Make the GreenLabel Your Choice: A Guide to the Singapore

Green Labelling Scheme.

Ministry of the Environment, Resource Conservation Bulletin, July, 1996.

Dr. Peck Thian Guan and Mr. Tan Choon Seng, The Singapore Eco-Labelling Scheme,

January/February, 1997

Product Categories

Final Categories

Stationary Paper

Hygiene Paper

Printing Paper

Office Automation Paper

Carbon-zinc battery

Alkaline battery

Compact fluorescent lamp (integral)

Compact fluorescent lamp (modular)

Standard laundry powder detergent

Concentrated laundry powder detergent

Laundry liquid detergent

Dishwashing detergent

Floor cleaner

Washing machine

Correction fluids/tapes

Hair-spray/gel/mousse

Deodorant sticks/rollers/spray

Shaving foams and creams

Computer system unit

Computer monitor

Computer system with ‘built-in’ monitor

Precast concrete products ()

Bricks (made from waste or recycled materials)

Tiles/Ceramics (made from waste or recycled materials)
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-93

Solar cell powered calculators

Solar cell powered watches

Categories Under Consideration

Air conditioners 

Refrigerators 

Freezers

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-95

SPAIN’S AENOR - MEDIO AMBIENTE

Introduction

The Medio-Ambiente ecolabeling program in Spain was developed in 1993 by the Spanish

Association of Standardization and Certification (AENOR). AENOR, a privately-run organization,

acts as the Competent Body for awarding the European Union ecolabel in Spain (as part of the EU

scheme). AENOR is a member of the Global Ecolabeling Network (GEN) and participates in the

development of the International Standards Organization (ISO) ecolabeling standards. The

program is voluntary, and aims to promote the production of environmentally preferable products

and to provide information about the environmental impacts of available products. To date,

criteria have been set for three product categories: paints and varnishes, polyethylene bags for

waste, and polyethylene bags for the supermarket. In total, 14 labels have been awarded for

positive environmental attributes.

Recent Developments

Spain’s ecolabeling program has changed little in its first three years of operation. Its rates of

product category definition and award criteria development are, however, increasing. Product

groups for which criteria development is very close to being completed include: paper products,

solar plates for solar lighting, photocopy machines, and cleaning products for cars. Additionally,

AENOR is working on criteria for vacuum cleaners, TVs, glass materials, tiles, and wood/metal

transporting materials. 

AENOR notes increased retailer interest. With the growing interest of retailers in Spain’s ecolabel,

this area could develop in the near future. Because the program is fairly new, however, associations

with procurement programs, either formal or informal, have not been developed.

Program Summary

Product groups and criteria are suggested by manufacturers and consumers and are selected by

AENOR based on market studies. They are then forwarded to the AENOR Environmental

Certification Technical Committee. This committee is composed of members of interested parties,

including manufacturer associations, consumer associations, ecological groups, test laboratories,

and control and inspection bodies. The criteria are then developed and approved by the

Committee. Criteria are reviewed every three years. AENOR reported that any interested party

may participate throughout the entire process.

Once award criteria are established, applicants may submit an application to the AENOR

environmental division. AENOR audits the applicant and sets up testing by an accredited

laboratory (selected by the Spanish Accreditation Body). If the review is favorable, the application

is passed on to the Environmental Certification Technical Committee. If there are no objections,

the Committee approves the application and awards the label. All application information is kept
B-96 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

confidential until an award is given, when applicant information becomes public. The applicant is

responsible for an initial fee of about $700, which includes all testing and audit fees. Once

awarded use of the label, the applicant then pays 0.1 percent of its annual sales to AENOR, as well

as the fees for an annual compliance audit (the cost of this audit depends on the size of the

producer’s facilities).

Program Methodology

A life-cycle analysis is conducted for each potential product group, taking account of impacts from

raw materials selection to product disposal.

Other Information

AENOR is sensitive to small and medium sized businesses, as reflected in its percentage-based fee

system, which allows companies with smaller sales to incur smaller ecolabeling costs. In fact, the

majority of products currently labeled in Spain are manufactured by small companies. 

As mentioned above, AENOR is a member of ISO and GEN, and is the Competent Body for the

EU. AENOR bases its criteria on ISO standards and is a participating member in continuing

standard development. It believes that GEN is a very good organizing body, especially for

increasing the role of mutual recognition in ecolabeling. With GEN offices in Sweden, Japan, and

the US, AENOR feels that GEN has strength in an international forum. In an effort to increase

coordination among programs, AENOR is participating in a study conducted by the Danish

Environmental Protection Agency about European ecolabels.

According to AENOR, the organization has not encountered any trade issues or conflicts.

References

AENOR, AENOR-Medio Ambiente Eco-Label.

Tejera Oliver, Jose Luis, AENOR. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Paints and varnishes

Polyethylene bags for waste

Polyethylene bags for supermarkets
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-97

Under Development

Paper products, including envelopes and folders

Solar plates for solar light

Photocopy machines

Cleaning products for cars

Vacuum cleaners

Televisions

Glass materials

Tiles

Wood/metal palates for transporting materials

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-99

SWEDEN’S GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICE

Introduction

Sweden’s Good Environmental Choice program was founded in 1990 by the Swedish Society for

the Conservation of Nature (SSNC), Sweden’s largest environmental organization. The

environmental certification program is private, positive, and voluntary, and has evolved into a

product and shelf labeling program from what was originally a guide to environmentally sound

shopping published by the Society in 1988. In 1989, the Swedish Cooperative Federation (KF),

one of Sweden’s largest retailers, initiated a shelf labeling program that encouraged the purchase of

goods recommended by the Society’s guide. By the end of 1989, the two other largest Swedish

retailers, ICA and Dagab, joined with KF in sponsoring an ecolabeling scheme that became the

Good Environmental Choice Program.

Good Environmental Choice has criteria for 17 product categories and has approved 1,139

products to date.

Program Summary

The Society for the Conservation of Nature administers the Good Environmental Choice program,

although some of the program functions are performed by the Board of the program. The Board is

composed of three representatives from the Society for the Conservation of Nature (one of whom is

the chairman with a casting vote), as well as three trade representatives (one from each of the

sponsoring retailers). 

The Board is responsible for selecting the product categories.

The Society for the Conservation of Nature develops criteria for each product category. Criteria

are based on single attributes. The Society does not attempt to perform a life cycle analysis (LCA)

to determine product criteria because it believes that unequivocal judgments, upon which LCA is

based, are not possible, even given “unlimited time and resources.” For this reason, the program

has decided to concentrate its efforts on “things that can be changed now.” The criteria are

written and approved independently of the Board, although in this process the Society may consult

universities, public authorities, and occasionally private businesses.

To have a product approved by the Good Environmental Choice program, manufacturers must

declare the ingredients of their products to the Society. In certain cases, more information is

required, such as the emissions of a product during production. Instructions of the required

information are available from the Society. Approved products are included in the register of

Good Environmental Choice products that is published by the Society, and are also identified by

program shelf labels in supermarkets of the three retailer sponsors. Because costs are borne by the

Society and the participating retailers, manufacturers are not required to pay a fee to have their

products listed in the register or displayed on the Good Environmental Choice shelves. A
B-100 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

manufacturer may also choose to print the Good Environmental Choice falcon logo on their

product, in which case they must apply for a licence from the Society and pay a fee of SEK 5000

(US$664) for the first product, and SEK 1500 (US$200) for any additional products.

Program Methodology

The Good Environmental Choice program selects product categories and qualifying criteria. After

analyzing a resource impact matrix for a particular product category, the most important aspect

(e.g., bleaching for paper products) is identified as the basis of the criteria. The program does not

attempt to perform a life-cycle assessment (LCA).

Other Information

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation began working in 1992 with the Swedish

Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO), the National Board for Industrial and Technical

Development in Sweden, and SEMKO (a tester and certifier of electrical products), to develop

environmental labels for personal computers. The goal of the labeling program is to influence

technical developments in the field of information technology, as well as make it easier for

companies to choose good equipment from the environmental standpoint. The first stage of the

program development created TCO’92, a label for computer monitors. The more recent program,

TCO’95, provides a label for complete personal computers (monitors, system unit, and keyboards). 

The label for used for TCO’95 shows the falcon emblem from the Swedish Society for Nature

Conservation.

References

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Bra Miljöval; Products approved as Good

Environmental Choice. 18 June 1996.

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Good Environmental Choice; Environmental Criteria. 

24 May 1996.

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Good Environmental Choice; Environmental Criteria

for [various product categories]. 1995.

TCO, Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees. TCO’95 Certification; Requirements for

environmental labelling of personal computers. Second Edition. Stockholm, Sweden. 12 April

1995.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-101

TAIWAN’S GREEN MARK PROGRAM

Introduction

The Green Mark Program was launched in 1992 by Taiwan’s Environmental Protection

Administration as a voluntary and positive ecolabeling program. The mission of the Green Mark is

to “promote the concept of recycling, pollution reduction, and resource conservation.” The

program is currently administered by the Environment and Development Foundation (EDF), a

private institution.

The objectives of the Green Mark are to guide consumers in purchasing “green” products, and to

encourage manufacturers to design and produce them. The Green Mark expects to meet these

goals through the following steps: selecting “environmentally benign” products to meet domestic

demands; developing criteria; encouraging the public to consume Green Mark products, which will

in turn stimulate their production; and participating in international activities such as ISO and

GEN. 

As of September 1997, The Green Mark Program had developed criteria for 41 product categories

(two more are nearly complete) and had certified 451 products. Of the current 102 licensees

(companies with one or more certified product), four are foreign-based -- two from the United

States, one from Indonesia, and one from Singapore. These foreign-based licenses are for mercuryfree batteries, detergent, and water-saving cisterns.

Recent Developments

Until recently, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) acted as the Implementation

Body of the Green Mark program; however, it was replaced by the Environment and Development

Foundation (EDF). EDF was created for the following reasons. First, because ITRI provides

consulting services for both the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and the Ministry

of Economic Affairs (MOEA) and is considered their “technical arm,” it is viewed by the public as

a government-funded private organization. In contrast, it is hoped that EDF will be viewed as a

more impartial, private organization. Second, the EPA hopes to gradually decrease its control and

funding of the Green Mark program; it is anticipated that independent operation will help the

program to become self-sufficient over the next five years. Third, because EDF is independent, it

can be more flexible than ITRI in international cooperation activities. In the future, ITRI will give

both technical and administrative assistance to EDF.

The effectiveness of the Green Mark Logo in the marketplace is unclear. The Logo is reported to

be well known within the industrial sector, and many manufacturers are enthusiastic about

applying for it. They would like to see the program expand the number of product categories. 

Among licensees surveyed, nearly 80 percent reported that the Logo is helpful for their company

image, and 72 percent said it is helpful for promoting business. Despite these positive veiws,
B-102 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

several non-profit environmental groups are unsatisfied with the Green Mark Logo’s low visibility

among consumers. A 1996 ITRI survey shows that only 40 percent of the general public recognize

the Logo, and only 30 percent of them report having bought labeled products.

Program Summary 

The Green Mark is overseen by Taiwan’s EPA and managed by EDF. The program is reviewed by

the Review Committee, which has representation from the government, non-governmental

organizations, academia, and other stakeholders. Other groups involved in the process are the

manufacturers who receive the Green Mark Logo, and stakeholders such as manufacturers

associations and consumer and environmental groups. 

As the managers of the Green Mark Program, EDF is responsible for selecting product categories. 

To do so, it performs an annual survey of experts, industrial associations, and NGOs. EDF also

collects information on product criteria, criteria scope, the major environmental concerns, and

sometimes test methods, from foreign ecolabeling programs. Among the attributes considered

during the review of proposed product categories are: threat to environmental quality; cannot be

replaced by an existing “environmentally benign” product category (e.g. mercury-containing

batteries can be replaced by mercury-free batteries); have less environmental impact than similar

products; and cannot have any adverse effects on health and safety of humans. In addition, there

must be a sizable number of domestic and foreign manufacturers. Proposed categories must be

approved by the Review Committee. 

EDF is also responsible for developing product criteria. The development process follows three

guiding principals:

1. Product criteria should take into consideration Taiwan’s local environmental conditions by

accounting for such problems as insufficient water and electricity supply, and a landfill

shortage, by including Green Mark criteria for low water and/or electricity use, or products

that produce less pollution. 

2. Between twenty and thirty percent of manufacturers must be able to meet the criteria with

“reasonable” process modifications. 

3. Criteria are compared with criteria from other ecolabeling programs. 

Non-environmental attributes are addressed generally; it is the responsibility of manufacturers to be

in compliance with environmental and “other related regulations,” such as quality, safety, and

industrial hygiene. As an example, the criteria for “Compost” cites the Council of Agriculture’s

specific regulation on compost regarding functional characteristics, among other things. Proposed

criteria are submitted to a technical group convened for each product category. Criteria are

announced at public hearings with manufacturers, government agencies, and experts. Finally, the

proposed criteria are approved by the Review Committee. EDF usually develops six product

criteria every year.
5

 EDF can invite experts and scholars to assist with product inspections.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-103

EDF is currently in the process of redesigning the product criteria review process. The Review

Committee consists of 21 members with very diverse opinions, and decision-making has become

difficult. Furthermore, the group meets only once every two months to review the product criteria. 

A smaller committee is under consideration to ease meeting logistics and to reach consensus

decisions more quickly.

To be considered for the Green Mark Logo, manufacturers must provide documentation about both

the company in general, as well as the specific product. Importers can apply for the Green Mark

Logo if they can certify that they have had no significant environmental performance problems

during the year prior to the application date. Documentation must include test reports completed

by accredited laboratories on all quantifiable and measurable requirements in the criteria. 

Applicants must also submit signed statements regarding other qualitative or nonmeasurable

requirements, for example, certification that a particular chemical was not used in the product’s

formulation. EDF reviews the submitted documents from manufacturers, conducts an audit,

samples and inspects the product, makes a recommendation for award, and monitors the use of the

Green Mark Logo. 5 The Review Committee is responsible for awarding the Logo. The award is

valid for two years, and the licensee may re-apply, following all requirements set forth in the

guidelines. No licensee has ever failed to qualify upon renewal. 

Although it is the responsibility of the licensee to ensure that they remain in compliance with Logo

requirements, EDF conducts a follow-up site test with a random 20 percent of the licensees. EDF

also performs on-site investigations when EPA notifies them of a possible label misuse. Another

way that the Green Mark Program ensures that the label is used correctly is through market

sampling on the part of non-governmental organizations, as well as EDF and ITRI staff. EDF

reports that most instances of misused labels have been in advertising.

Currently, EDF collects only an application fee from applicants, although it plans to begin

collecting annual fees next year. The application fee is approximately US$715 for new

applications, and approximately US$535 for renewals. The Green Mark program’s funding is

mainly from the EPA. Its budget increased from $70,000 in the initial years to $363,000 in the past

four years, and is expected to be $500,000 in fiscal year 1997.

The number of products approved for the Green Mark Logo has increased over the years, with the

exception of a significant drop in 1996 when the category “products using CFC substitutes” was

discontinued. This category was no longer necessary when all products in it, such as refrigerators

and air conditioners, changed to CFC substitutes. Products bearing the Logo are not only

purchased by retail consumers, but by industry as well. Industrial products include cement,

insulation material, and bricks. According to the Program Director, Taiwan should have a
B-104 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

“Government Procurement Policy” within the next few years, which would require government

agencies to buy Green Mark products or products with equivalent environmental attributes. 

Taiwan will give a “price preference” of 10 percent for such products, meaning that the

government will pay up 10 percent more for a product with specific environmental attributes.

Program Methodology

The Green Mark program is beginning to incorporate the concept of life-cycle assessment (LCA)

into its product criteria development. Taiwan adopted LCA because ISO 14204 requires that Type

I ecolabeling programs use “Life Cycle Consideration” when developing product criteria. This

approach differs from the early stages of Green Mark’s product criteria development, when criteria

were often simple and based on one attribute, such as a preference for cloth diapers because they

reduced inputs into the solid waste stream. Because of the complexity of LCA, however, the Green

Mark program uses only simplified LCA techniques, using the matrix in ISO 14024 to make

qualitative judgments regarding the environmental attributes associated with each product. As an

example of the simplified LCA approach, when the criteria were developed for compact

fluorescent lamps, the following attributes were considered: the amount of mercury discharged

upon disposal, the level of electricity conserved, the volume of waste lamps disposed, and the

nature and quantity of toxic materials used in the manufacturing process.

When selecting product categories, EDF evaluates environmental impacts of potential categories,

uses a political process of voting, and selects categories when producers come forward voluntarily. 

The following have been considered in the development of product criteria: extracting and

processing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution, product uses, reuse,

recycling, final disposal, and ingredient or materials restrictions. The development process

includes collecting information from literature, other programs, and participating producers. 

Proposed criteria are peer reviewed, but the critiques are not available to the public. The Green

Mark Program does not conduct an impact assessment, but does follow SETAC guidelines.

Other Information

The program is accessible to all small and medium sized businesses, and although the Program

does not have a program to encourage their participation, half of the licensees are small or medium

sized.

Taiwan is an active member of GEN and is working closely with other ecolabeling programs on

ISO draft standards. In addition, Taiwan has finalized a mutual recognition agreement with

TerraChoice in Canada. One problem encountered during the negotiations was that Green Mark

requires recycled content tissue paper to be 100 percent domestically recycled. To facilitate the

agreement, “domestically” was deleted from the standard. Taiwan is also working with

TerraChoice on establishing a mutual recognition framework and process. The goal is to establish

a system that “enables reciprocal acceptance of tests, inspections, conformity assessment,

administrative procedures, and, where appropriate, environmental criteria.” According to the
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-105

March 97 issue of GENews, such a system would include a set of guiding principals incorporating

international trade agreements and ISO standards, and would deal with transparency and open

access, as well as mutual confidence and respect; flexibility to deal with “different ecosystem

sensitivities, products, values, priorities and marketplaces in different countries;” and cooperation

mechanisms. 

In an effort to expand the awareness of the Green Mark Program, the program participated in the

five-day National Environmental Protection Week held in January 1997. The Green Mark booth

exhibited products bearing the Green Mark Logo. It received over 200,000 visitors during the

exhibition. On a more regular basis, the Program educates the public about new product criteria by

way of announcing them in the newspaper, distributing a quarterly journal to over 3,000 industrial

and governmental sector recipients, and posting updates on its Internet Web site

(http://www.greenmark.itri.org.tw).

References

Yu, Ning, Ph.D. Environment and Development Foundation, Taiwan, ROC. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Global Ecolabel Network. GENews. March 1997.

Green Mark Program, Taiwan, ROC. [Online: Web]. Updated 26 March 1997, cited 10

September 1997. URL: http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/taiwan.html

Industrial Technology Research Institute. Green Mark; The Environmental Labelling Program in

Taiwan, Republic of China. January 1996.

Industrial Technology Research Institute. List of Green Mark Product Categories. 30 June 1997.

Green Mark Program, Taiwan, ROC. [Online: Web]. Cited 10 September 1997. URL:

http.//www.greenmark.itri.org.tw

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Categories

Products made from recycled plastic or waste rubber (15)

Office use papers from recycled paper (2)

Toilet papers from recycled paper (1)

Stationery papers from recycled paper (33)

Packaging papers from recycled paper (41)

Portland blast furnace cement (3)

Thermal insulation materials for building (5)

Mercury-free batteries (15)
B-106 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Products using solar energy battery

Cloth diapers (1)

Water-based paints (13)

Products made from recycled wood (6)

Products using substitute for CFCs [dropped] (82)

Beverage cans with stay-on tab (39)

Refilling pouch (4)

Single flush cisterns (96)

Personal computers (2)

Monitors (16)

Printers

Reusable shopping bags (2)

Electric motorcycles

Compact fluorescent lamps

Washing machines (29)

Laundry detergents (1)

Dish-washing detergents for handwash

Non-bleached towels

Dual-flush water saving cisterns (2)

Household refrigerators and freezers (30)

Household air conditioners (13)

Compost (1)

Building Material Made from Recovered Wastes (1)

Agricultural-use products from degradable plastics (new)

Packaging-use products from degradable plastics (new)

Sanitary products from degradable plastics (new)

Consumer products from degradable plastics (new)

Non-asbestos friction material (new)

Tooth Brushes with Replaceable Heads (new)

Glow Starter for Fluorescent Lamps (new)

Water-saving Faucets/Devices (new)

Water Conserving Dual-flush Cistern Retrofit Devices (new)

Guidelines Under Development

Shower heads

Stabilizers
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-107

THAILAND’S GREEN LABEL SCHEME

Introduction

The Thai Green Label Scheme was initiated by the Thailand Business Council for Sustainable

Development in October 1993. It was formally launched by the Thailand Environmental Institute

(TEI) in association with the Ministry of Industry in August 1994. The scheme awards as seal of

approval to products meeting its criteria, and is voluntary in nature.

The program was developed with three objectives in mind: to provide reliable information and

guide customers in their product choices; to create an opportunity for consumers to make

environmentally conscious decisions and thus create a market incentive for manufacturers to

supply environmentally sound products; and to reduce environmental impacts that occur during

manufacture, use, consumption and disposal of products. To date, the program has developed

product criteria for nine product groups. The Green Label has been awarded to 41 products to date

in seven of the nine product categories.

Recent Developments

The program reports that it has not undergone any significant changes since its inception.

Program Summary

The Thai Green Label is composed of several committees. The Thai Green Label Board is the

overarching entity responsible for making all major decisions, including deciding on basic

strategies, selecting product groups for consideration, deciding on criteria, deciding on the

structures and levels of fees, and deciding on supporting activities. Its members are appointed by

the Minister of the Ministry of Industry. 

The Board is supported by two groups: the Technical Subcommittee and the Secretariat (TEI and

The Thai Industrial Standards Institute-TISI). The Technical Subcommittee develops proposals

including product criteria, test methods, and the requirements for applicants. A new subcommittee

is established for each product category, composed of experts from relevant institutes, industry,

and environmental groups. The Secretariat organizes meetings and prepares materials to be

discussed by the Board.

The general public presents proposals for product groups to the Secretariat, which are then

submitted to the Board. Once the Board decides on the product categories, it sets up a technical

subcommittee to work on the criteria. The Secretariat is then responsible for submitting the final

proposal to the Board, which decides on the criteria and announces the decision to the public. The

criteria are developed on the basis of a life-cycle review and are reviewed every two years. The

draft criteria are made available to the general public upon request. The public can provide

comments on the draft criteria. Responses and critiques to these comments are not published.
B-108 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Once award criteria have been set, product applications are accepted. TEI examines applications to

make sure that all criteria are met, and then passes them along to TISI for further investigation. 

Once criteria fulfillment has been determined, TEI registers the application and enters into a

contract with the manufacturer. An application fee of 1,000 Baht ($29 US) is collected from the

applicant, and then another fee of 5,000 Baht ($144 US) is collected once the product has been

awarded the label. TEI is responsible to ensure that the label is not misused. 

Program Methodology

When choosing product categories, the Green Label uses “life-cycle-considerations” which

evaluate products based on their environmental impacts at each stage of the product’s life-cycle. 

Additionally, a political process and stakeholder and legislative body votes are used to chose

product categories. When product categories are selected, the product criteria are drafted.

Information for draft criteria are obtained from independent studies and testing, participating

producers, and other programs’ previous LCAs. In fact, the Green Label maintains contact with

ecolabeling programs in Singapore, the EU, and Japan, and have adopted some of these programs’

criteria in establishing its criteria. Criteria take into account product uses, potential for reuse,

potential for recycling, ingredients, resource use, and wastes generated during final disposal.

Other Information

The Thai Green Label program is accessible to both small and medium sized business. The

Thailand Industrial Standards Institute is a member of ISO, and a representative attends ISO

meeting on a regular basis. The Green Label program maintains contact with the German,

Singapore, EU and Japan ecolabeling programs. Germany has, in fact, helped them to form their

program. The program does not report any trade conflicts to date, with regard to the Green Label. 

Thailand is not a member of GEN.

References

Green Label Thailand. Product Category Summary. July 1997.

Green Label Thailand. A Guide to the Thai Green Label Scheme. August 1997.

Heinke, Gary W. et. al. Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-109

Product Categories

Final Categories

Products made from recycled plastics

Energy-saving fluorescent lamps

Environmentally sound refrigerators

Low-pollutant emulsion paints

Water-economizing flushing toilets

No mercury-added dry-cell batteries

Recycled paper

Low-energy air conditioners

CFC-free sprays

Guidelines Under Consideration

Environmentally sound detergents

Energy-saving motors

Water-economizing closing faucets

Products made from non-bleached cloth

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-111

US PROGRAMS

RECHARGEABLE BATTERY LABELING

Introduction

During the early 1990s, many in the rechargeable battery industry sought to create a nationwide

battery collection and recycling program. This voluntary industry initiative was impeded, however,

by differing state battery labeling and waste management requirements. One type of battery waste

might be subject to differing regulations, depending on the state in which it was generated. In

particular, differing waste management requirements stemmed in part from the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, which regulates the management of hazardous

wastes such as used rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries. In May of 1995, EPA sought to

remedy the situation by promulgating the Universal Waste Rule which, among other things, eased

the regulatory burden on businesses that generate batteries and certain other hazardous wastes by

streamlining some of the most stringent provisions of the hazardous waste regulations. The Rule

only took effect, however, when states formally adopted it into their own regulations. As of May

1996, only 32 states had done this, resulting in differing requirements across states and further

complicating efforts to implement a nationwide recycling program. Subsequently, the Portable

Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) pushed for the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable

Battery Management Act (the Battery Act), which was signed into law on May 13, 1996. The goal

of the Battery Act was twofold: to reduce the mercury content of consumer batteries and to

encourage battery recycling. As part of the latter goal, the Act made the Universal Waste Rule

effective immediately in all 50 states. In addition, it specified national uniform battery labeling

requirements for the collection, storage, and transportation of batteries covered by the Battery Act. 

Covered batteries include rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries, certain small sealed lead-acid

batteries, and certain rechargeable consumer products powered by such batteries. 

Program Summary

Battery labeling under the Battery Act is unlike most other environmental labeling programs. As a

mandatory program, it is dedicated not to product quality differentiation like most labeling

programs, but to promoting recycling efforts following product use. 

The Battery Act requires that each regulated battery (rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries and

certain small sealed lead-acid batteries) or rechargeable consumer products without an easily

removable battery manufactured at least one year after the Act's enactment, bear the following

labels:

(1) 3 chasing arrows or a comparable recycling symbol.

(2) On each regulated nickel-cadmium battery, the chemical name or abbreviation "Ni-Cd" and 
B-112 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

the phrase "BATTERY MUST BE RECYCLED OR DISPOSED OF PROPERLY."

(3) On each regulated lead-acid battery, "Pb" or the words "LEAD," "RETURN," and

"RECYCLE," and if the regulated battery is sealed, the phrase, "BATTERY MUST BE

RECYCLED."

(4) On each rechargeable consumer product containing a regulated battery that is not easily

removable, the phrase, "CONTAINS NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY. BATTERY MUST

BE RECYCLED OR DISPOSED OF PROPERLY." or "CONTAINS SEALED LEAD

BATTERY. BATTERY MUST BE RECYCLED.", as applicable.

(5) On the packaging of each rechargeable consumer product, and the packaging of each

regulated battery sold separately from such a product, unless the required label is clearly visible

through the packaging, the phrase "CONTAINS NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY. 

BATTERY MUST BE RECYCLED OR DISPOSED OF PROPERLY." or "CONTAINS

SEALED LEAD BATTERY. BATTERY MUST BE RECYCLED." as applicable (Public Law

104-142, Section 103)

Alternative labels can be certified by EPA if they convey the same information or conform to a

recognized international standard created for the same purpose as the regulation. The Battery Act

also gives EPA the authority to impose similar labeling requirements on other classes of

rechargeable batteries, should they be deemed toxic and harmful when disposed of through land

disposal or incineration.

EPA was designated the official administering agency of the Battery Act. Within EPA, specific

responsibilities have been delegated to various offices and divisions. Enforcement issues are

handled by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, while the Office of Solid Waste

(OSW) is responsible for many of the other tasks. Specifically, OSW's Municipal Information and

Analysis Branch has been assigned responsibility for interpreting the labeling and easy

removability requirements of the act. Its responsibilities also include reviewing applications for

alternative labels, as well as petitions for exemptions from the easy removability requirements.

Program Methodology

All regulated batteries and certain rechargeable battery-containing products must be labeled

according to Section 103 of the Battery Act. Though some of these regulated product categories

are established by the law, the Battery Act does allow EPA to include other classes of batteries

should they be deemed toxic and harmful to human health and the environment when incinerated

or disposed of in landfills. In this way, the setting of product categories beyond that established by

the Act is left to EPA. Labeling criteria are set by the Battery Act however, since EPA can only

certify alternative labels if they convey the same information as the labels specified in the

regulations. With regulated products labeled, individual product evaluation does not occur.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-113

Other Information

In December 1995, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) published International

Standard IEC 1429 for the labeling of batteries with a Moebius loop (three chasing arrows,

established by ISO 7000-1135 as the international recycling symbol) and chemical symbols

indicating the electrochemical system of the battery. IEC 1429 hasn't been adopted by the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as a voluntary US standard. In promoting the

Battery Act, however, US rechargeable battery manufacturers recognized that it would be

advantageous to comply with IEC 1429 in the interest of wider consumer recognition and reduced

burden on manufacturers seeking to comply with both domestic and international standards.

References

Bagby, Jefferson. President, Global Labeling International Limited. Personal communication with

Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Bleacher, Sam. Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.

England, Norm. Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Fall 1997.

Fishbein, Bette. Extended Product Responsibility: A New Principle for Product-Oriented

Pollution Prevention. University of Tennessee, Center for Clean Products and Clean

Technologies, June 1997.

Lindsay, Clare. Office of Solid Waste, EPA. Personal communication with Abt Associates,

Summer 1997.

Mooney, Saskia and Howrey and Simon. Personal communication with Abt Associates, Fall 1997.

Nogas, Susan. Municipal Information and Analysis Branch of the Office of Solid Waste, EPA. 

Personal communication with Abt Associates, Summer 1997.

The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, Public Law 104-142.

Product Categories

Toxic rechargeable batteries (e.g. nickel-cadmium and certain small sealed lead-acid batteries)

Rechargeable consumer products without easily removable batteries

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-115

THE CHLORINE FREE PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION (CFPA)

Introduction

During the early 1990s, environmental campaigns against the use of chlorine bleaching in paper

manufacturing prompted some manufacturers to seek alternative methods of paper processing. 

Wishing to publicize the use of such alternative methods, paper and pulp manufacturers interested

in chlorine-free bleaching established the Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA) in March of

1994 as a non-profit trade association dedicated to the elimination of chlorine-based chemistry in

manufacturing processes. Supported primarily by pulp and paper manufacturers and associated

businesses, CFPA's activities are focused on advocating totally chlorine-free (TCF) processing,

educating consumers on chlorine processing alternatives, and developing markets for TCF

manufacturers. On June 9, 1997, CFPA announced the development of a certification program for

the pulp and paper industry. It is also in the process of developing a certification program for

recreational and drinking water purification.

Program Summary

The CFPA pulp and paper certification program is completely voluntary and examines the

bleaching chemistry used in paper mills, bleach plants, and/or de-inking facilities. Facilities whose

bleaching processes are free of chlorine and chlorine compounds may be certified. While hired

technicians perform the actual site visit, CFPA staff set the criteria for chlorine-free processing

based on standard TAPPI (Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry) processes used in

the pulp and paper industry. The manufacturing plant is visited biannually to ensure compliance

with TCF standards. Though CFPA itself is funded by member dues, there are unpublished

evaluation fees associated with the certification, which must be renewed annually. 

For the pulp and paper industry, CFPA has developed two logos for use on paper products. 

"Totally Chlorine Free" logos are reserved for virgin fiber papers that have been produced without

the use of pulp bleached with chlorine or chlorine compounds. "Processed Chlorine Free" logos

are for recycled content papers and indicate that any virgin fiber is totally chlorine-free and that the

recycled content, though it may have originally undergone chlorine bleaching, was not re-bleached

with chlorine-containing compounds when recycled. The logo also ensures that a minimum of 20

percent post-consumer waste was used. Once certified, companies may use the proper CFPA logo

in ads and on retail products. Certified pulp manufacturers may provide their logos to distributors

who market or process their chlorine-free goods, but they are responsible for the correct use of the

logo. Any use of the logos must be registered with CFPA. CFPA also asks certified facilities for

annual sales reports so that they can track the market success of CFPA's certified products. Two

facilities are currently certified. The pulp and paper industry is the first to use the logo, but others

will use it soon, except water purification.
B-116 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Program Methodology

CFPA's selection of product categories is done through environmental impact evaluation, political

processes, and manufacturer initiative. Product criteria are developed through a published peerreview process. Product criteria address manufacturing processes, product uses, reuse, recycling,

ingredient or materials restrictions, and the environmental performance of production processes. 

Both manufacturers' input and impending studies serve to inform the selection of product

categories and the setting of product criteria.

Other Information

As part of its efforts to promote chlorine-free processing, CFPA has been involved in efforts to

obtain federal procurement preference for chlorine-free papers under President Clinton's 1993

executive order 12873. This executive order directs federal agencies to purchase "environmentally

preferable" products, a designation whose current definition does not include chlorine-free papers. 

The development since 1993 of several chlorine-free papers that meet federal specifications helps

argue for inclusion in the federal government's procurement program.

References

Beaton, Archie. Executive Director, Chlorine Free Products Association. Personal communication

with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Chlorine Free Products Association. Guide to TCF & PCF Papers. 1997.

"CFPA Works to Broaden 'Environmentally Preferable' Designation." CFPA Today Spring 1997:

2.

Chlorine Free Products Association. Use of TCF/PCF Logos 1997 Certification Program. June 9,

1997.

Chlorine Free Products Association. A New Association was Formed to Promote TCF Technology

and Products. March 16, 1994.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Virgin fiber paper

Recycled content paper
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-117

Categories Under Consideration

Drinking water purification

Recreational water purification

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-119

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S 

CONSUMER LABELING INITIATIVE

The Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI) is a voluntary cooperative effort to foster pollution

prevention, empower consumer choice, and improve understanding by presenting clear, consistent,

and useful safe use, environmental, and health information on household consumer product labels. 

The CLI was created by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reach out to

consumers, the chemical industry, trade associations, and environmental and public interest groups

to determine what information is needed on consumer product labels, and how that information

should be presented. It is one of several EPA efforts resulting from the President’s goal to

“Reinvent Government.” The CLI has been highlighted as a prototype for the Agency due to its

innovative research process, one that brought together a cross-section of stakeholders and

successfully worked to gather input from diverse points of view. The CLI research and policy

formulation began with work groups that included EPA, federal and state government staff,

representatives from the United States’ leading chemical companies, public interest organizations,

and other stakeholders. These groups worked together to ensure that the CLI would be as useful as

possible and that results could be used productively by everyone involved at the government,

industry, and consumer level.

The CLI is a multi-phased pilot project focusing on indoor insecticides, outdoor pesticides, and

household hard surface cleaners, some of which are FIFRA certified, meaning that they are

registered antimicrobials or disinfectants. Phase I of the project involved a qualitative consumer

research study, a review of comments solicited through a notice in the Federal Register, and a

literature review of relevant publications and reports of studies. Phase I research findings were

categorized into three areas: 1) labeling issues not requiring further validation; 2) labeling issues

requiring further development or statistical validation; and 3) education, policy planning, and

coordination issues. EPA has already implemented a number of interim label recommendations

based on Phase I findings. These include encouraging producers to: print telephone numbers on

product labels, use common names instead of formal chemical names, list “Other Ingredients”

instead of “Inert Ingredients,” and use “First Aid” instead of “Statement of Practical Treatment.”

Phase II of the CLI will include quantitative and secondary research, as well as education activities

and policy planning and coordination activities. The research study will focus on consumer

comprehension, attitudes, behavior, and satisfaction regarding labeling, as well as an evaluation of

labeling alternatives. Education activities will be aimed at consumers and will emphasize the

importance of reading the label. Through the policy and coordination activities, EPA will

investigate issues relating to ingredients, health and safety, and product storage and disposal.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-121

THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE - ECO-O.K. CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Introduction

The Rainforest Alliance is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of

tropical forests. Founded in 1987, its mission is to develop and promote economically viable and

socially desirable alternatives to the destruction of rainforests, an endangered, biologically diverse

natural resource.

In 1991, the Rainforest Alliance created a labeling program called ECO-O.K, that specifically

targets agricultural products grown at the expense of tropical ecosystems. The program has

developed standards for bananas, coffee, and oranges, and is in the process of developing standards

for cocoa and cane sugar. They aim to promote sustainable production of these products in the

rainforests of Latin America. To date, ECO-O.K. has certified 5 farms for oranges, 3 farms for

coffee, and close to 100 farms for bananas.

Program Summary

Anyone can suggest an agricultural product to the Rainforest Alliance as a possible category.

Rainforest Alliance then evaluates the potential impact of the product and decides whether to

develop criteria. Certification criteria are developed by a team of producers (farmers), scientists,

conservationists, representatives of government agencies, and other stakeholders. Criteria are

determined by scientific and community issues, and vary based on specific community needs.

Once criteria have been determined, certification begins with a field evaluation by ECO-O.K.

technicians. The technicians document changes that must be made to meet criteria. After the

grower has made the changes, the technical team returns to the farm to prepare a detailed report

which is then passed on to a review board for approval or rejection. If approved, the product

receives the ECO-O.K. seal of approval, distinguishing the labeled product from other retail

products in the marketplace. Audits are conducted annually to ensure compliance.

Program Methodology

As mentioned above, anyone can suggest an agricultural product to the Rainforest Alliance as a

possible category. Once Rainforest Alliance evaluates the potential impact of the product, it

proceeds on whether to develop criteria. Criteria are determined by scientific and community

issues, and vary based on specific community needs. The certification criteria for the ECO-O.K.

project are unique compared to many of the other programs included in this report, in that they

measure social as well as environmental responsibility. The specific guidelines for each of these

criteria are extensive, involving many restrictions for each category. Although criteria have been

developed for bananas, coffee and oranges, the criteria for oranges are not yet available in English.
B-122 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Listed below are the basic principles to which any certified farm must comply. These standards are

used regardless of crop or country of production.

Conservation:

 No deforestation of new farms

 Protect wildlife and native plants

- no hunting

- special protection for threatened or endangered species

- Use native plants in buffer zones

 Conserve forest patches and take measures to improve them as wildlife habitat

 Protect streams and enact special protection for wetlands and riparian areas

 Mandatory canopy cover over coffee and cocoa

 No negative impacts on nearby parks and refuges

 Conserve watersheds

Community

 Fair and just treatment of workers

 Adherence to local labor laws and to ILO conventions

 The right to organize and join worker representative groups

 Fair and reasonable working hours within context of the local labor economy

 No racial discrimination

 Age restrictions on hazardous jobs

 Work should not interfere with education for children

 Safe and sanitary working conditions

 Dignified housing for workers living on the farm, including access to potable water

 Access to latrines, washrooms, and potable water

 Access to health care, including regular, mandatory, medical checkups for workers who

apply agrochemicals

 Complete analysis of working areas to prevent accidents

 First aid and fire suppressants readily available

 Security measures, including proper safety equipment and secure storage of agrochemicals

 Clean and orderly working environment

 Good neighbor policy toward nearby communities

 Respect for cultures and beliefs

 Always a fair price and a green premium where possible

Cultivation:

 Soil conservation

 Vegetative cover
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-123

 Compost and recycle organic wastes

 Planting on contours; vegetative erosion barriers

 Minimal use of fertilizers, only when warranted by soil analysis

 Crops planted only on suitable areas according to national land-use and soil analysis maps

 Water conservation and reutilization

 Pollution control, including processing plants and mills

 Comprehensive waste management to reduce, reuse and recycle

 Minimal and strictly managed use of pesticides

Other Information

The Rainforest Alliance has not experienced any trade issues. It states that trade issues tend to be

minimized because it is a voluntary, non-government, non-profit program.

As explained above, ECO-O.K. is a certification of sustainable operating practices. However, in

the European Union, the use of the word “eco” is legislatively restricted to mean “organic.” The

ECO-O.K. label is therefore not used, for instance, on Chiquita brand bananas in the EU even

though its farms are certified.

References

Holst, Eric. The Rainforest Alliance. Personal Communication with Abt Associates. Summer

1997.

Rainforest Alliance. Brochure. September 1997.

Rainforest Alliance. The ECO-O.K. Coffee Certification Project. March 1997.

Rainforest Alliance. ECO-O.K. Update Documents. May 1996.

Rainforest Alliance. Agricultural Certification Program, Better Bananas, General Production

Standards. August 1997.

Rodriguez, Sabrena. The Rainforest Alliance. Personal Communication with Abt Associates. Fall

1997.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-125

HVS ECO SERVICES' ECOTEL® CERTIFICATION

Introduction

The ECOTEL® Certification is a third-party seal of approval awarded by HVS Eco Services to

hotels and motels that "demonstrate a heightened level of environmental sensitivity." HVS Eco

Services, an environmental consulting firm serving the hospitality industry, created the ECOTEL®

Certification in November 1994 and has since awarded the certification to less than 5 percent of the

hotels that have applied.

The ECOTEL® Certification was developed in response to a heightened level of environmental

consciousness among travelers, as illustrated by the US Travel Data Center's studies, which show

that 87 percent of consumers claim to support environmentally-oriented travel companies. 

Demand for eco-tourism prompted both travelers and hoteliers to wonder what aspects and what

level of environmental performance were considered "good." The ECOTEL® Certification helps

establish a benchmark for environmental performance, as well as a way for hotels' own

environmental claims to be independently verified. 

According to HVS Eco Services, undergoing the ECOTEL® evaluation can help to highlight

potential environmental and conservation opportunities that can result in significant cost savings. 

In addition, some ECOTEL®s (certified hotels) are reporting increases in bookings for meetings

and room reservations since attaining the certification.

Program Summary

The ECOTEL® Certification consists of a five-globe rating system where each globe represents a

different category of environmental performance: solid waste management; energy management;

water conservation and preservation; employee education and community involvement; and

legislative compliance and native land preservation. Hotels can be evaluated in any of these

categories, although most choose all five. Hotels need only one globe to be considered an

"ECOTEL®". Physical facilities and operating procedures are evaluated according to HVS Eco

Services' criteria which were developed in consultation with such hospitality and environmental

organizations as The Rocky Mountain Institute, The Ecotourism Society, Certified Utility

Consultants, and Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration. HVS Eco Services reports

that its criteria are reviewed and updated quarterly as well as in response to periodic technological

innovations. Although the criteria are proprietary information, evaluated hotels are briefed on 

which specific certification requirements they failed to satisfy. Based on the evaluation, hotels can

be awarded an ECOTEL® Globe Award for each qualifying category. 

The ECOTEL® evaluation process begins with a preliminary telephone interview to determine

whether a hotel is a viable candidate for certification. The hotel might be asked to submit to HVS

Eco Services documentation regarding its environmental program, or to describe specific 
B-126 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

environmental projects. Once a basic level of environmental performance is determined, an on-site

inspection is then performed by HVS Eco Services personnel who inspect the physical plant and

conduct interviews with management, employees, and possibly the local community. Management

and employee perspectives help to give evaluators a realistic picture of the hotel operations, while

interviews with the local community are conducted as part of their evaluation for the "employee

education and community involvement" and the "legislative compliance and native land

preservation" globes. 

ECOTEL® evaluates hotels according to a three-tiered scoring system in which the first round

addresses the most basic standards of environmental performance, the second awards points for

more advanced levels, and the third gives points for outstanding environmental programs. Hotels

must earn all of the first-round points, but only 75 percent of the second-round points. Third-round

points are bonuses that count toward the second-round requirement. This variable scoring system

was created to allow for the individuality of different environmental programs, while ensuring a

minimum performance level. In addition, the scoring system is adapted for each hotel's size and

location. At the end of every evaluation, whether or not certification is granted, hotel management

is presented with a Justification Rating summarizing the results of the evaluation, as well as an

Environmental Action Plan describing methods to improve and ensure the longevity of the hotel's

environmental program.

Certified ECOTEL®s undergo scheduled inspections every two years, as well as surprise visits to

ensure continued environmental performance. ECOTEL® Certification can be revoked at any time

if there is substandard performance. 

The ECOTEL® Certification conveys a number of promotional benefits upon its recipients,

including a license to use the ECOTEL® logo in signage and marketing. HVS Eco Services

promotes its member hotels through regional and international events highlighting the ECOTEL®s,

feature stories in international travel magazines, and exhibitions at international conferences. 

ECOTEL®s are listed in a referral system, a number of international travel directories, and the

ECOTEL® Internet Directory. HVS Eco Services also provides information and ongoing

consulting to certified hotels on environmental products and services, environmental conferences,

and industry events. 

ECOTEL® evaluations are completely voluntary; hotels must request to be reviewed. The

ECOTEL® program was originally funded largely by HVS Eco Services' consulting practice. HVS

Eco Services now requires an evaluation fee starting at $1,000. Fees are based on the size of the

hotel and are negotiable to accommodate smaller hotels that might have difficulty affording the

evaluation. Once the evaluation is completed, HVS Eco Services' consulting practice can be

further contracted to provide expertise on improving a hotel's environmental performance. 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-127

Program Methodology

The ECOTEL® Certification program was a natural extension of HVS Eco Services' hotel

consulting practice into the environmental field. The ECOTEL® performance criteria were

determined through consultation with such hospitality and environmental organizations as the

Rocky Mountain Institute, the Ecotourism Society, Certified Utility Consultants, and Cornell

University's School of Hotel Administration. The criteria are proprietary information of HVS Eco

Services, and are therefore not disclosed to the public. However, a summary of the criteria is

available. The criteria cover such areas as the extraction and processing of raw materials,

manufacturing, transportation and distribution, product uses, reuse, maintenance, recycling, final

disposal, ingredient or materials restrictions, and the environmental performance of production

processes.

A numerical rating system, used to quantify the findings, is adapted for each hotel's size and

location. It consists of a primary, secondary, and tertiary qualifying round. Hotels must receive all

of the primary qualifying points in order to be considered for the secondary points, 75 percent of

which must be attained to achieve the ECOTEL® Globe Award. This 75 percent requirement

allows for flexibility within the prescribed standards by rewarding hotels for good environmental

performance despite differences among individual programs. The tertiary round awards bonus

points to those hotels with outstanding environmental programs. 

ECOTEL® evaluates hotels in any of the five performance categories listed below, per the hotel's

request; most request all five. A hotel must earn the Globe Award in at least one category to be

considered an "ECOTEL®." The categories are as follows:

 Solid Waste Management

 Energy Management

 Water Conservation and Preservation

 Employee Education and Community Involvement

 Legislative Compliance and Native Land Preservation

References

"Can You Believe the 'Eco' Label?." Successful Meetings February 1996. 

HVS Eco Services. ECOTEL® Information Portfolio. July 1997.

Jones, Beth Frankowski. "Going Green in the Hospitality Market." Interiors and Sources March

1996. 

Moffitt, Kimberly. Director of Marketing, HVS Eco Services. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997.
B-128 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Scoviak-Lerner, Mary. "Eco-Friendly Retreat In The Arizona Desert." Hotels March 1996.

Product Categories

Hotels
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-129

THE ENERGY GUIDE: HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY LABELING

Introduction

In December 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the primary

purpose of which is to "conserve energy by enabling consumers purchasing appliances to compare

the energy usage of competing models" (US Federal Trade Commission, The Appliance Labeling

Rule, 1997). EPCA requires that Energy Guide labels be placed on certain new home appliances

including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, water heaters, clothes washers, dishwashers,

furnaces, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, and heat pumps. These appliances are

covered under EPCA because their energy costs can vary greatly, depending on their construction

and design. EPCA also directed standards and labeling for humidifiers and dehumidifiers, clothes

dryers, direct heating equipment, kitchen ranges and ovens, and television sets. The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC), which shares responsibility for EPCA's implementation, did not include these

products in the labeling program, however, stating that there were insufficient differences in energy

efficiency among different models.

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) of 1987 amended EPCA by, among

other things, establishing minimum efficiency standards for all EPCA products. In 1988, National

Appliance Energy Conservation amendments added fluorescent lamp ballasts. The Energy Policy

Act of 1992 added general service fluorescent lamps and general service incandescent lamps,

including reflector lamps. It also expanded EPCA to address water efficiency issues by specifying

water flow labeling requirements for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals. In 1994 the

FTC extended the rule to include pool heaters and certain other water heater types.

Program Summary

Under EPCA, the FTC was given responsibility for establishing the format of the Energy Guide

labels, while the Department of Energy (DOE), then the Federal Energy Administration, was given

responsibility for promulgating standardized test procedures and minimum efficiency standards,

and conducting a consumer education program to complement the labeling program. 

The original label design was announced by the FTC in 1979; it required the disclosure of an

appliance's estimated annual operating cost as well as a comparison with similar models. For room

air conditioners and furnaces only, where variations in climate make a national average

meaningless, an energy rating figure was required on the labels. For all other appliances covered

by the law, it was required that labels disclose the cost of the average annual energy use for the

appliance in dollars and a comparison with similar models. The FTC has since revised the format

of these labels. Critics pointed out that expressing the energy use in dollars could be confusing

because the cost of energy changes over time. When energy prices changed by more than 15

percent from the previous baseline, the FTC required that new Energy Guide labels incorporate the 
B-130 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

new energy prices into their operating cost figures. This meant that two identical appliances on the

same storeroom floor could be labeled with two different operating costs, if energy prices changed

between manufacture dates. Comparisons among different models and brands were also thrown

off by this discrepancy, creating confusion among consumers.

On July 1, 1994, partly in response to this criticism, the FTC announced amendments to the

labeling requirements to make the label more "user-friendly." Among other things, the new

specifications require that primary energy use disclosures, previously given as estimated operating

cost, now be given in units of energy consumed per year. Estimated yearly operating cost is still

given in some cases, but it appears as a smaller figure toward the bottom of the label, allowing the

energy consumption figure to dominate as the primary figure on the label. Where given, the

operating cost is accompanied by the energy price used in its calculation, making explicit the fact

that the cost is simply a snapshot indicator and does not take in to account energy cost fluctuation

over time. Under this system, every appliance's primary energy use disclosure is a unique, fixed

figure. Although the labels vary somewhat for different types of appliances, they all contain

specific information on energy efficiency and costs. The current rule requires that, for covered

products other than fluorescent lamp ballasts, lamps, and plumbing fixtures, the text of the labels

include: 

1. the manufacturer, model number, type of appliance, features, and size, all listed at the top

of the label;

2. a number in the center of the label which is either the appliance's energy consumption per

year or the energy efficiency rating (for room and central air conditioners, heat pumps, and

furnaces). Energy consumption may be given in kilowatt-hours, therms, or gallons per

year, depending on the type of fuel consumed. Energy efficiency ratings are presented such

that the higher the number, the more efficient the appliance and the less it costs to operate;

3. the "range of comparability" published by the FTC, showing the energy consumption or

energy efficiency rating of the most and least efficient models of similar size and features,

placed at either end of a bar below the appliance's energy use figure. This figure is marked

with a triangle at the appropriate position along the bar to convey how the appliance

compares with similar models; and

4. for most products, a boxed number at the bottom giving the appliance's estimated yearly

operating dollar cost based on the national average fuel cost in effect at the time the range

of comparability specified for that product was published. This national fuel cost and any

other assumptions used to calculate the figure are stated below the box. For central air

conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces, annual operating cost information does not appear

on the label, but rather must be given separately on fact sheets available through the

manufacturer or in product directories compiled by industry trade associations. 

Products not included in the above descriptions must meet different labeling requirements. 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts and luminaries containing such ballasts must be labeled with an encircled

"E" indicating compliance with DOE minimum efficiency standards. Covered lamps must be

labeled with such figures as the electrical power consumed, its light output, and lamp life
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-131

expressed in hours. Manufacturers of showerheads, faucets, toilets, and urinals must disclose their

products' flow rate in terms of water used per flush, minute, or cycle.

Program Methodology

The primary purpose of EPCA is to "conserve energy by enabling consumers purchasing

appliances to compare the energy usage of competing models" (US Federal Trade Commission,

The Appliance Labeling Rule, 1997). To accomplish this goal most efficiently, the FTC included

only those appliances for which there was a significant potential for a reduction in energy use due

to altered consumer purchasing behavior. For this reason, only those appliances that showed

significant differences in energy efficiency among different models were included in the Energy

Guide program. 

As an information disclosure requirement, the Energy Guide program does not set product criteria

or evaluate individual products. The FTC does, however, establish the format of the labels. It also

requires that manufacturers of regulated appliances submit their energy consumption or energy

efficiency rating as determined through standardized DOE test procedures. This enables the FTC

to publish the annual range of comparabilities for each appliance. When the range of

comparability changes by more than 15 percent, the FTC requires that manufacturers print new

labels incorporating the new range. 

References

Federal Trade Commission. "FTC Updates Energy-usage Disclosures for Home Appliances: New

Labels to be Simpler, More Useful to Consumers, FTC Says." FTC News May 24, 1994.

Mills, James. Attorney, Federal Trade Commission. Personal communication with Abt

Associates, Summer 1997.

US Federal Trade Commission. "Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption

and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy

Act ('The Appliance Labeling Rule')." Code of Federal Regulations 16 CFR 305. January 1, 1997.

US Federal Trade Commission. "Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption

and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy

Act; Final Rule." Federal Register 59 FR 34014. July 1, 1994.

US Federal Trade Commission. "The US Appliance Labeling Rule." May 20, 1997.
B-132 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Product Categories

Refrigerators

Refrigerator-freezers

Freezers

Room air conditioners

Central air conditioners

Heat pumps

Water heaters

Furnaces

Dishwashers

Clothes washers

Fluorescent lamp ballasts

General service fluorescent lamps

General service incandescent reflector lamps

Medium base compact fluorescent lamps

Showerheads

Faucets

Toilets

Urinals

Pool heaters
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-133

US EPA ENERGY STAR PROGRAMS

Introduction

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ENERGY STAR program is an umbrella of

voluntary programs consisting of: the ENERGY STAR Labeling program, the ENERGY STAR

New Homes program, the ENERGY STAR Buildings program and the ENERGY STAR Small

Business program. All the programs are administered by EPA’s Atmospheric Pollution Prevention

Division; the Labeling program is jointly run by the EPA and the US Department of Energy

(DOE).

The overall goal of the various ENERGY STAR programs is to reduce air pollution from the

burning of fossil fuels (needed to generate the large quantities of electricity used in the United

States) by promoting the development and use of energy efficient products. ENERGY STAR

Partners (e.g., manufacturers, private sector industries, government, public and private

organizations) volunteer to join one or more of the ENERGY STAR programs and pledge to either

make or use energy efficient products. It is hoped that the cost savings realized by the use of

energy efficient products will encourage more companies and other organizations to join the

program, and therefore prompt more manufacturers to produce these types of products in larger

volume and at lower prices.

Each of the programs will be discussed briefly below with more emphasis on the ENERGY STAR

Labeling Program.

Recent Developments

The ENERGY STAR Labeling program is in the process of expanding to include televisions, video

cassette recorders (VCRs), and windows. EPA has decided to label consumer electronics because,

according to the US Energy Information Administration, consumer electronics and small electrical

appliances are expected to account for about 90 percent of the projected increase in carbon dioxide

emissions from residential and commercial buildings over the next 20 years. Manufacturers are

now signing agreements to label Televisions and VCRs, and it is expected that these labeled

products will be on the market in early 1998. The DOE has chosen to label windows, which in

many homes are a significant factor in heating and cooling losses and therefore energy

consumption.

Program Summaries

ENERGY STAR Labeling Program

As mentioned above, the ENERGY STAR Labeling program is funded and managed jointly by the

US EPA and the US Department of Energy (DOE). The program was created to provide customers

with an easy way to recognize energy efficient products by labeling these products with the 
B-134 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

ENERGY STAR logo. Manufacturers and retailers participating in the ENERGY STAR Labeling

program sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA and DOE agreeing to produce,

label, and sell products that meet the product specifications. EPA and DOE establish the criteria,

and the agencies then allow manufacturers and retailers to use the ENERGY STAR logo, a singleattribute seal of approval, on products and in advertising. As part of this program, EPA is

implementing a nationwide consumer education awareness campaign to educate users about these

products and the label.

Though there are plans to expand the labeling program in 1998, currently there are seven product

categories that are part of the labeling program. These include: office equipment, residential light

fixtures, exit signs, transformers, residential heating and cooling equipment, insulation, and major

household appliances. Some of these will be discussed briefly below.

ENERGY STAR Office Equipment Program:

The Office Equipment program was the first of the ENERGY STAR programs to label products. It

was launched in June 1992, and is designed to promote the development and use of energyefficient office equipment. Manufacturers of computers, monitors, printers, fax machines, and

copiers are eligible to join the program if they produce energy-efficient versions of these products. 

The basis of this program is that each participating company agrees to introduce computers,

monitors, printers, fax machines, or copiers, that switch to a low power state when left idle. For

example, ENERGY STAR computers drop their power draw to 30 watts or less, a 50 to 75 percent

reduction compared to normal power draw, by automatically turning to a “sleep” mode when not

in use. Similarly, ENERGY STAR monitors power down to 30 watts or less when not in use by

turning to a sleep mode. Printers power down to 15 to 45 watts when not in use. ENERGY STAR

fax machines have a power-management feature that can reduce energy costs by 50 percent. They

also have a sleep mode and double-sided faxing capabilities, thereby cutting down on paper costs. 

ENERGY STAR copiers automatically turn off after a period of inactivity.

An independent study by the US DOE Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories estimates that US

businesses could save almost $1 billion per year in energy costs, or $900 million, by the year 2000,

by converting to energy-efficient office equipment.

Almost all major manufacturers of these products have joined the program. Companies that

market qualifying products may use the EPA ENERGY STAR logo to identify those products. 

EPA emphasizes that the purpose of the ENERGY STAR logo is to promote energy efficiency

only, and that EPA does not endorse any particular product. For office equipment users, however,

joining the program and buying energy efficient products is voluntary. Executive Order 12873

(which addresses Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention), however, directs the

various agencies of the federal government, the largest purchaser of office equipment in the world,

to purchase ENERGY STAR computers, monitors, and printers, provided that they are available

commercially and meet performance standards.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-135

ENERGY STAR Residential Light Fixtures Program:

Established in June 1997, the ENERGY STAR Residential Light Fixtures Program is one of the

newest programs under the ENERGY STAR Labeling program. Partners agree to manufacture

energy-efficient lighting fixtures for installation in homes, especially in high-use sockets, such as

in kitchens, living rooms, and outdoor areas. ENERGY STAR lighting fixtures are ‘dedicated’

fixtures, which means that they are designed to operate only energy-efficient sockets. These

fixtures start immediately, (i.e. they don’t need to warm up), operate quietly, and may also have

dimming or switching features. Outdoor fixtures automatically turn off in daylight and some

fixtures have motion detector on-off features.

ENERGY STAR Exit Signs Program:

In June 1996, EPA launched the ENERGY STAR Exit Signs Program to develop energy-efficient

exit signs. Manufacturers involved in this program produce energy-efficient exit signs that meet

the EPA ENERGY STAR guidelines. Manufacturers can then use the ENERGY STAR logo on

their product. Manufacturers do their own testing to ensure that products meet the guidelines. 

ENERGY STAR exit signs operate on less than 5 watts of electricity per face. In addition, they

have been tested by the manufacturer and are found to have levels for visibility and luminance that

exceed those required by the National Fire Protection Agency’s Life Safety Code. It is estimated

that by the year 2000, these exit signs could save companies a cumulative 800 million kilowatts of

electricity, an estimated cost savings of $70 million each year.

ENERGY STAR Transformers Program:

This program is a partnership between the EPA and electric utility companies and transformer

manufacturers. The program was established in April 1995. By joining the program, utility

companies agree to buy cost-effective, high-efficiency transformers for their electricity distribution

systems. Manufacturers of transformers also agree to produce ENERGY STAR transformers and

agree to market them to electric utilities. Even though electric transformers are already about 98

percent efficient, it is estimated that ENERGY STAR transformers can easily reduce energy loss

levels by 10 to 40 percent. Additionally, an estimated 3.4 billion kilowatt hours of savings is

projected with the use of ENERGY STAR transformers.

ENERGY STAR Residential Heating and Cooling Program:

In this program, manufacturers agree to produce and market high-efficiency heating and cooling

equipment. The program was established in April 1995. ENERGY STAR-labeled products under

this program include furnaces, air conditioners, geothermal heat pumps, gas-fired heat pumps,
B-136 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

thermostats, and boilers. Further, EPA is working with the financial industry to encourage the

development of lower cost commercial loans to purchasers of ENERGY STAR heating and

cooling equipment.

ENERGY STAR Homes Program

The ENERGY STAR Homes Program was established in April 1995. It is a partnership between

EPA and home builders and developers. Builders and developers who join the program agree to

build energy-efficient homes. Guidelines for these homes are detailed in the ENERGY STAR

Homes MOU. Energy efficient lighting systems, heating, ventilation, and air condition systems, as

well as energy efficient insulation, are installed in ENERGY STAR homes.

ENERGY STAR Homes can be advertised as such in real estate listings and with real estate

brokers. Home buyers may also inquire about energy-efficiency upgrades in their existing homes. 

It is estimated that home buyers can cumulatively save an estimated $1.80 billion in utility bills by

purchasing ENERGY STAR Homes.

ENERGY STAR Buildings and Green Lights Program

The ENERGY STAR Buildings and Green Lights Program was established in 1991 and is the first

of the ENERGY STAR programs. It is aimed at encouraging the widespread use of energyefficient lighting. Partners agree to install energy-efficient lighting “where profitable as long as

lighting quality is maintained or improved.” Federal agencies that are partners in the program have

until the year 2005 to complete lighting upgrades in their buildings.

In April 1995, the Green Lights program was expanded in the ENERGY STAR Buildings Program

aimed at maximizing energy efficiency building-wide. In order to become a partner, commercial

building owners agree to upgrade their building to become more energy efficient. Partners are

encouraged to follow a five-step upgrade procedure: 1) installing energy efficient lighting; 2)

completing a general building tune-up; 3) performing load reductions; 4) undertaking fan system

upgrades; and 5) upgrading heating plant and cooling systems. The MOU in this program outlines

in detail each of the requirements under these stages as well as EPA’s and the partner’s

responsibilities.

Participants in the ENERGY STAR Green Lights and Buildings Program include corporations,

small businesses, universities, health care facilities, non-profit organizations, school districts, and

federal and state governments. Since the beginning of the Green Lights program in 1991,

participation has grown from 39 members to 2,400 in 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-137

ENERGY STAR Small Business Program

Launched in June 1996, the ENERGY STAR Small Business Program is a partnership between

EPA and small businesses. The program provides technical assistance and information to its

partners in order for them to find ways to earn energy-efficient simple pay backs of three years or

less. Small businesses or non-profit organizations can join the program if they have facilities of

100,000 square feet or less, and if they agree to upgrade these facilities to make them energyefficient. Additionally, partners agree to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products. EPA will

provide partners with workshops, seminars, a hotline, and a Web site on available energy-efficient

upgrades, as well as publicize success stories. It is estimated that typical small business can save

from 30 to 50 percent of their energy bills by conducting energy efficiency upgrades. As of August

1997, 100 small businesses had joined the program.

Program Methodology

As mentioned above, all of the ENERGY STAR programs aim at reducing air pollution through

the use or production of energy-efficient products. Product categories are therefore evaluated

according to their environmental impacts in terms of their energy use. Similarly, businesses are

assessed according to their energy-efficient building management.

The ENERGY STAR program reports that when choosing product categories and establishing

product standards for the ENERGY STAR Labeling program, previous literature about the product

category, independent testing and auditing, and information provided by participating producers are

used. Additionally, the program conducts generic/modeled environmental impact assessments

when choosing product categories.

References

Betsy Agle, ENERGY STAR Labeling Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. Personal

communication with Abt Associates, October, 1997.

Jeff Ryan, ENERGY STAR Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. Personal

communication with Abt Associates, November, 1997.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR Homepage,

http://www.epa.gov/energystar.html

US Department of Energy, ENERGY STAR Homepage, http://www.energystar.gov.

Business and the Environment (BATE), US “ENERGY STAR” Program Continues to Expand,

August 1997.
B-138 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Business and the Environment (BATE), US “ENERGY STAR” Program to Include TVs and VCRs,

June 1997.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, US EPA ENERGY STAR Program,

http://eande.lbl.gov/EPA/EUF/oeexesum.html.

Product Categories

ENERGY STAR Labeling Program

Computers

Monitors

Fax Machines

Photocopiers

Printers

Exit Signs

Residential Light Fixtures

Furnaces 

Air conditioners

Geothermal heat pumps

Gas-fired heat pumps

Thermostats

Boilers

Transformers
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-139

FUEL ECONOMY INFORMATION PROGRAM

In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which established

Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards as well as a testing, labeling, and

information program to assist consumers in purchasing new cars. One aspect of the information

program was the Gas Mileage Guide, a publication listing the fuel economy of cars manufactured

at a given time. Car dealers were required to have the Guide available for customers. 

The law also required a label to appear in the windows of new cars that lists the miles-per-gallon

(MPG) of the car for city and highway driving, the estimated annual fuel cost associated with its

operation, and the fuel economy of comparably-sized models. Such labeling began in 1974 with a

voluntary program administered by the EPA and the Federal Energy Administration (FEA), a

precursor of the Department of Energy. The EPCA made the program mandatory as of March

1976. Although EPA is responsible for testing cars and preparing the Gas Mileage Guide and the

MPG labels, responsibility for other aspects of the fuel economy program is shared with three other

federal agencies: Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the Federal Trade

Commission.

The labeling program had a number of problems initially with the measurement of vehicle mileage. 

A Congressional Committee hearing noted, "As the public quickly discerned, the EPA mileage

figures were not an accurate measure of on-road performance" (US House, 1980). According to

Elder Bontekoe of EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, the tests were not run according to "real

world" conditions and considerably overestimated the actual mileage automobiles could be

expected to achieve. In response, in 1985 a formula was worked out to adjust the mileage for

actual city and highway driving conditions. This new system has been found to be fairly reliable

(Bontekoe, 1993).

A few changes have been made to the format of the label since the program's inception. Initially

showing both highway and city ratings for MPG, 1979 EPA regulations removed the higher (and

less accurate) highway rating, and changed the wording to "Estimated MPG." Car makers were

still allowed to use both ratings in advertising, so there was a concern that consumers were "being

misled by nightly television advertisements and auto showroom displays featuring extravagant

gasoline mileage claims based on their government's own testing program" (US House, 1980). 

After changes were made in 1985 to improve the accuracy of the tests, labels again bear estimated

MPG ratings for city and highway use.

A study performed in 1976 found that 72 percent of new car buyers were aware of the Fuel

Economy Information Program and more than half had seen the mileage label on the car they

bought (while only 7 percent were aware of the Gas Mileage Guide). Also, buyers who were

aware of the label bought cars with higher mileage than did unaware buyers, with the mileage of

their new car more than 20 percent higher than their old vehicle. Unaware buyers achieved almost

no increase in mileage. On the other hand, 64 percent of buyers did not believe the MPG estimates 
B-140 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

(Abt, 1976). Two important considerations for interpreting this study are that the OPEC oil

embargo, in the winter of 1973-74, was fresh in car buyers' minds at that time, and that the program

was still quite new.

The effectiveness of the EPA gas mileage labeling program is largely dependent on public opinions

toward gasoline use and conservation. Due to the low price of gasoline in recent years, mileage

has become a less important consideration for many car buyers. "We perceive that the numbers are

well accepted and the program has a fair degree of recognition in the marketplace," said Mr.

Bontekoe. "A lot of people don't care, but they do seem to be paying attention."

References

Abt Associates, 1976. Impact of the FEA/EPA Fuel Economy Information Program, prepared for

the Federal Energy Administration by Vince Scardino, James Birch, and Kathy Vitale, June.

Bontekoe, Elder. US EPA, Office of Mobile Sources. Personal communication with Abt

Associates, April 1, 1993.

Tyree, C.D. US EPA Certification Policy and Support Branch, 1982. History and Description of

the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Program, NTIS# PB

84-212091, EPA# AA-CPSB-82-02.

US House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, 1980. Automotive Fuel

Economy: EPA's Performance, May 13, report no. 96-948.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-141

PESTICIDE LABELING UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND

RODENTICIDE ACT

Introduction

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), first enacted in 1947 and

subsequently amended, requires the registration of pesticides and pesticide producers with the US

Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides, as defined by FIFRA, are substances designed to

prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pests, or to regulate, defoliate, or desiccate plants.

Each of the 600-odd pesticide active ingredients in use today must pass a set of health and safety

standards in order to be approved for registration, or in the case of chemicals registered before

1984, a re-registration. (Tweedy et al., 1991). As part of registration or reregistration, the labeling

of each product is reviewed and approved by the Agency.

Program Summary

Under EPA’s Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI), EPA and several stakeholders are evaluating the

need for improvements to FIFRA labels for pesticides and household cleaners. See the write-up on

CLI in this section for details.

FIFRA requires labels to appear on the containers of every pesticide product sold in the US, and

imposes standards and restrictions regarding the wording and format (40 CFR §156.10). As

outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), a pesticide label must clearly and prominently

display the following information:

a) The name, brand, or trademark under which the product is sold;

b) The name and address of the producer, registrant, or person for whom produced;

c) The net contents (weight or measure);

d) The product registration number;

e) The producing establishment number;

f) An ingredient statement;

g) Warnings and precautionary statements;

h) The directions for use; and

i) The use classification(s) (restricted use).

All required label text must be set in 6-point type or larger, and must appear in English. The

Agency, however, may require additional text in other languages if it is considered necessary in

protecting the public health.

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at EPA reviews each pesticide label individually to ensure

appropriateness and accuracy. (Frane, 1993) The particular environmental or health effects of a 
B-142 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

pesticide may prompt EPA to require additional warnings or messages to be included on its label

(e.g., groundwater advisory statements, chronic hazard warnings).

The various components of the label are discussed in more detail below. Label requirements as

described below are taken from the 40 CFR §156.10. The regulations set only broad guidance on

label content. In practice, the Agency has wide latitude to require, or accept, statements that

deviate from the regulations, and many statements that are accepted reflect variations based on

product type and use.

A. Name, brand, or trademark: The name that appears on the label must be registered with the

EPA, and not be false or misleading.

B. Name and address of the producer, registrant, or person for whom produced: If the

registrant’s name that appears on the label is not the producer of the pesticide, it must be

qualified by appropriate wording such as “Packed for ***,” “Distributed by ***,” etc.

C. Net contents (weight or measure): The net weight or measure, exclusive of wrapping

materials, must be stated as an average content unless explicitly stated as a minimum

quantity.

D. Product registration number: The EPA registration number (often abbreviated to “EPA Reg.

No.”) assigned to the pesticide product at the time of registration must appear on the label.

E. Producing establishment number: The producing establishment number, preceded by the

phrase “EPA Est.,” must appear on the label or on the immediate container.

F. Ingredients statement: The ingredients statement is normally required on the front panel of

the label. If there is an outside container or wrapper through which the label cannot be

read, then the ingredient statement must also appear on that container or wrapper.

The label of each pesticide product must bear a statement that contains the name and percentage by

weight of each active ingredient, and the total percentage by weight of all inert ingredients. Each

ingredient may be referred to by its accepted common name, if there is one. If no common name

has been established, then the chemical name must be used. Trademarked names not accepted as

common names are not allowed.

Pesticide products that contain one or more chemical components that change significantly over

time must also include a statement that reads: “Not for sale after [date].”

G. Warning and precautionary statements:

Required warning and precautionary statements regarding toxicological hazards to humans fall into
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-143

 two groups: those required on the front panel and those that may appear elsewhere. The child

hazard warning and the appropriate human hazard signal word (see below) must appear on the

front panel of a pesticide label. The human hazard signal word also appears elsewhere on the

label. Other warnings and messages, including the first aid or statements of practical treatment

(except in cases of extremely toxic products), health and environmental precautionary statements,

and physical and chemical hazard statements, may appear elsewhere on the label.

1. Child hazard warning

Except for those products deemed safe for use on children or infants, or where the possibility of

contact with children is exceedingly small, all pesticide product labels must bear on the front panel

the warning “Keep Out of Reach of Children.”

2. Toxicity Categories

The text required on the front panel of the label is determined by the Toxicity Category of the

pesticide product. A pesticide is assigned a Toxicity Category based on its highest hazard potential

in any of the following indicators listed in Table 1:
B-144 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Table 1: Toxicity Category Definition

Hazard

Indicators

Toxicity Categories

I II III IV

Oral LD50 up to and including

50 mg/kg

from 50 thru 500

mg/kg

from 500 thru 5000

mg/kg

greater than 5000

mg/kg

Inhalation LC50 up to and including

0.05 mg/liter

from 0.05 thru 2

mg/liter

from .5 thru 2

mg/liter

greater than 2

mg/liter

Dermal LD50 up to and including

200 mg/kg

from 200 thru 2000

mg/kg

from 2000 thru

20,000 mg/kg

greater than 5,000

mg/kg

Eye Effects Corrosive

(irreversible

destruction of

ocular tissue) or

corneal

involvement or

irritation persisting

for more than 21

days

Corneal

involvement or

irritation clearing in

8-21 days

Corneal

involvement or

irritation clearing in

7 days or less

Minimal effects

clearing in less than

24 hours

Skin Effects Corrosive (tissue

destruction into the

dermis and/or

scarring)

Severe irritation at

72 hours (severe

erythema or edema)

Moderate irritation

at 72 hours

(moderate

erythema)

Mild or slight

irritation (no

irritation or slight

erythema)

NOTES: LD50 is the lethal dose at which 50 percent of the animals in lab testing die. LD50 is measured in mg

pesticide per kg bodyweight. LC50 is the lethal concentration at which 50 percent of the animals in lab testing

die. LC50 is measured in mg pesticide per liter of air.

SOURCE: Consumer’s Research, July 1992; 40 CFR §156.10

3. Human Hazard Signal Words

Pesticide labels must bear specific signal words, depending on the pesticide’s assigned Toxicity

Category.

A pesticide that meets the criteria of Toxicity Category I must bear the signal word “Danger” on

the front panel of its label. In addition, if the product was assigned to Toxicity Category I based on

its oral, inhalation, or dermal toxicity, the label must also bear the word “Poison” in red on a

background of distinctly contrasting color and the skull and crossbones symbol must appear in

close proximity to the word “Poison.”

A pesticide meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category II must bear the signal word “Warning” on

the front panel of its label.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-145

A pesticide meeting the criteria of Toxicity Category III or IV must bear the signal word

“Caution” on the front panel of its label.

4. First Aid (Statements of Practical Treatment)

For pesticides in Toxicity Category I, a first aid statement (or statement of practical treatment) is

normally required on the front panel, although in practice reasonable variations are permitted by

EPA. For other pesticides, first aid statements are not required on the front panel, but must appear

elsewhere on the label.

5. Other Required Warnings and Precautionary Statements

Other appropriate warnings and precautionary statements must appear on the label under the

general heading of “Precautionary Statements,” and under the subheadings of “Hazard to Humans

and Domestic Animals,” “Environmental Hazard,” and “Physical or Chemical Hazard.”

Typical precautionary statements indicating hazard to humans and domestic animals are listed in

Tables 2 through 8 below, and are arranged by Toxicity Category. Other statements are also used -

- there is considerable variability in hazard statements.

If a pesticide is found to be potentially hazardous to non-target organisms (excluding humans and

domestic animals), the text on its label must include precautionary statements describing the nature

of the hazards and the appropriate precautions to avoid problems. For example, for a pesticide

intended for outdoor use, which contains an agent with an acute oral LD50 of 100 or less, the label

must read, “This Pesticide is Toxic to Wildlife.” Other statements address toxicity to birds, fish,

and aquatic organisms.

Finally, for chemical or physical hazards, the required precautionary statements are listed below in

Table 9.

H. Directions for use

All pesticide labels must have printed on them detailed use instructions or references to

accompanying instruction leaflets.
B-146 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Table 2: Hazard to Humans and Domestic Animal Precautionary Statements

Toxicity

Category

Precautionary statement by Toxicity Category

Oral, inhalation, or dermal toxicity Skin and eye local effects

I Fatal (poisonous) if swallowed [inhaled or

absorbed through skin]. Do not breathe [vapor,

dust or spray mist]. Do not get in eyes, on skin,

or on clothing [Front panel statement of practical

treatment required].

Corrosive, causes eye and skin damage [or skin

irritation]. Do not get in eyes, or skin, or on

clothing. Wear goggles or face shield and

rubber gloves when handling. Harmful or fatal

if swallowed. [Appropriate first aid statement

required.]

II May be fatal if swallowed [inhaled or absorbed

thru the skin]. Do not breathe vapor [dust or

spray mist]. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on

clothing [Appropriate first aid statements

required.]

Causes eye [and skin] irritation. Do not get in

eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Harmful if

swallowed. [Appropriate first aid statement

required.]

III Harmful if swallowed [inhaled or absorbed thru

the skin]. Avoid breathing vapor [dust or spray

mist]. Avoid contact with skin [eyes or

clothing]. [Appropriate first aid statements

required.]

Avoid contact with skin, eyes, or clothing. In

case of contact immediately flush eyes or skin

with plenty of water. Get medical attention if

irritation persists.

IV [No precautionary statements required.] [No precautionary statements required.]

SOURCE: 40 CFR §156.10.

Table 3: Acute Oral Toxicity Study*

Toxicity

Category Signal Word Precautionary Statements and Personal Protective Equipment

I DANGER

Skull & Crossbones required

Fatal if swallowed. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after

handling and before eating, drinking, or using tobacco.

II WARNING May be fatal if swallowed. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after

handling and before eating, drinking or using tobacco.

III CAUTION Harmful if swallowed. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after

handling.

IV CAUTION No statements are required. However, if the registrant chooses to use

category III labeling that is acceptable.

*Products Containing 4% or more of methanol: Add the following to the precautionary statements: "Methanol may cause

blindness."
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-147

Table 4: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study

Toxicity

Category Signal Word Precautionary Statements and Personal Protective Equipment

I DANGER

Skull & Crossbones required

Fatal if absorbed through skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. 

Wear protective clothing and gloves (specify protective clothing and type of

gloves). Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before eating,

drinking, or using tobacco. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before

reuse.

II WARNING

May be fatal if absorbed through skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on

clothing. Wear protective clothing and gloves (specify protective clothing and

type of gloves). Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before

eating, drinking or using tobacco. Remove contaminated clothing and wash

clothing before reuse.

III CAUTION Harmful if absorbed through skin. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. 

Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.

IV CAUTION No statements are required. However, if the registrant chooses to use category

III labeling that is acceptable.

Table 5: Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study

Toxicity

Category Signal Word Precautionary Statements and Personal Protective Equipment

I DANGER

Skull & Crossbones required

Fatal if inhaled. Do not breathe (dust, vapor, or spray mist).* [Identify specific

respiratory protective device approved by the Mine Safety and Health

Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.]**

Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

II WARNING May be fatal if inhaled. Do not breathe (dust, vapor or spray mist).* Wear a

mask or pesticide respirator jointly approved by the Mine Safety and Health

Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

III CAUTION Harmful if inhaled. Avoid breathing (dust, vapor or spray mist).* Remove

contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

IV CAUTION No statements are required. However, if the registrant chooses to use category

III labeling that is acceptable.

* Choose the word which appropriately describes the product during use.

** Refer to Section to determine the specific respiratory protective device. This section can be used for both WPS and NonWPS products.
B-148 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Table 6: Primary Eye Irritation Study

Toxicity 

Category Signal Word Precautionary Statements and Personal Protective Equipment

I DANGER Corrosive.* Causes irreversible eye damage. Do not get in eyes or on clothing. Wear protective

eyewear (goggles, face shield, or safety glasses).** Wash thoroughly with soap and water after

handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

II WARNING Causes substantial but temporary eye injury. Do not get in eyes or on clothing. Wear protective

eyewear (goggles, face shield, or safety glasses).** Wash thoroughly with soap and water after

handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

III CAUTION Causes moderate eye irritation. Avoid contact with eyes or clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap

and water after handling.

IV CAUTION No statements are required. However, if the registrant chooses to use category III labeling that is

acceptable.

*The term "corrosive" is not required if only eye irritation (redness) was observed during the study and was still present at day

21.

**Use the term "safety glasses" in the precautionary labeling for residential use products.

Table 7: Primary Skin Irritation Study

Toxicity 

Category Signal Word Precautionary Statements and Personal Protective Equipment

I DANGER Corrosive. Causes skin burns. Do not get in eyes or on clothing. Wear protective clothing and

gloves (specify protective clothing and type of gloves)*. Wash thoroughly with soap and water

after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

II WARNING Causes skin irritation. Do not get on skin or on clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water

after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.

III CAUTION Avoid contact with skin or clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.

IV CAUTION No statements are required. However, if the registrant chooses to use category III labeling that is

acceptable.

*The need for rubber (homeowner products) or chemical-resistant gloves must be determined on an individual basis. Some

products cause blistering if confined under clothing.

Table 8: Dermal Sensitization Study

Study Results Precautionary Statement

Product is a sensitizer or is

positive for sensitization.

Prolonged or frequently repeated skin contact may cause allergic reactions in some

individuals.

Product is not a sensitive or is

negative for sensitization.

No labeling is required for this hazard.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-149

Table 9: Physical or Chemical Hazard Precautionary Statements

Flash Point Required Text

(A) PRESSURIZED CONTAINERS

Flash point at or below 20EF, if there is a flashback at any

valve opening.

Extremely flammable. Contents under pressure. Keep away

from fire, sparks, and heated surfaces. Do not puncture or

incinerate container. Exposure to temperatures above 130EF

may cause bursting.

Flash point above 20EF and not over 80EF or if the flame

extension is more than 18 in long at a distance of 6 in from

the flame.

Flammable. Contents under pressure. Keep away from heat,

sparks, and open flame. Do not puncture or incinerate

container. Exposure to temperatures above 130EF may cause

bursting.

All other pressurized containers. Contents under pressure. Do not use or store near heat or

open flame. Do not puncture or incinerate container. 

Exposure to temperatures above 130EF may cause bursting.

(B) NON-PRESSURIZED CONTAINERS

At or below 20EF Extremely flammable. Keep away from fire, sparks, and

heated surfaces.

Above 20EF and not over 80EF Flammable. Keep away from heat and open flame.

Above 80EF and not over 150EF Combustible. Do not use or store near heat or open flame.

SOURCE: 40 CFR §156.10

The directions must appear under the heading “Directions for use,” and include the following:

a) the statement of use classification (see section I, below);

b) the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent

with its labeling;”

c) the sites of application (e.g., crops, lawns, etc.), or objects to be treated;

d) the target pests;

e) the dosage rate;

f) the method of application;

g) the proper frequency and timing of application;

h) the reentry statement (if needed), which specifies the length of time that must pass before

people can reenter a treated area;

i) the disposal directions; and

j) any use limitations or restrictions required to prevent unreasonable adverse effects.

I. Use classification

Every registered pesticide has one or more EPA-designated uses. Each of these uses is evaluated

for hazard potential and may be classified for restricted use if necessary to protect human health or

the environment.
B-150 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

1. General Use Pesticides 

Unclassified products, with one exception, do not bear the term “General Use” as discussed in 40

CFR 15.160. The one exception involves products containing the active ingredient, chlorine gas. 

These products are the only products which bear the classification “General Use.” 

2. Restricted Use Classification

Products designated for restricted use only must include the words “Restricted Use Pesticide” on

the front panels of their labels. A statement describing the nature of the restrictions and the reason

for the restriction must appear directly below the above statement. For example, “Due to

oncogenicity,” “For retail sale and use only by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct

supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator’s certification.” For each

specific pesticide, other additional restriction statements may be required by EPA.

Enforcement

According to FIFRA Sec. 2(q) and 12 (Federal Environmental Laws, 1988), failure on the part of

the pesticide producer or registrant to comply with labeling requirements may be considered

“misbranding” of the pesticide. Sales or distribution of a misbranded pesticide constitutes an

unlawful act. The Environmental Protection Agency may then cancel the registration, or bring

criminal and/or civil charges against the registrant or producer of the pesticide.

References

Code of Federal Regulations, 40: PARTS 150 to 189. Revised as of July 1, 1992.

Committee on Scientific and Regulatory Issues Underlying Pesticide Use Patterns and Agricultural

Innovation, Board on Agriculture, and the National Research Council (US), 1987. Regulating

Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Consumers’ Research, 1992. How to Read Pesticide Labels, July, pp 34-36.

Federal Environmental Laws, 1988 Edition, 1988. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.

Frane, Jean, US EPA, OPP, 1993. Personal Communication with Abt Associates.

Hurst, Peter, Alastair Hay, and Nigel Dudley, 1991. The Pesticide Handbook, Journeyman Press,

London, Concord, MA.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-151

Tweedy, B.G. et al. eds., 1991. Pesticide Residues and Food Safety: A Harvest of Viewpoints,

American Chemical Society, Washington D.C. pp 324-332.

US EPA, undated. Simazine Re-registration Guidance Document.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-153

GREEN SEAL

Introduction

Green Seal is an independent, non-profit organization involved in environmental standard setting,

product labeling, and public education in the United States. Established in 1989, Green Seal issues

a third party, seal-of-approval to consumer products that “cause less harm to the environment than

other similar products” (Green Seal, 1997). The Green Seal is available to both US and foreign

companies. In addition, Green Seal also encourages companies and other large buyers to become

members of Green Seal’s “Environmental Partners Program” to develop environmentally sound

procurement policies, and to pledge to buy environmentally preferable products.

As of August 1997, product standards or criteria had been developed for 88 product categories. 

Fifteen of these are currently undergoing final revisions after the public comment period that is part

of Green Seal’s standards/criteria finalization process. To date, approximately 300 products have

been awarded the Green Seal. As of August 1997, Green Seal has certified products from several

foreign manufacturers including three Canadian companies (producing newsprint paper, sanitary

equipment, and engine oil), one Japanese company (producing a heat pump,) and one Korean

company (producing a bleach product).

Recent Developments

In 1993 Green Seal started distinguishing between two types of award criteria. These award

criteria are known as “product standards” or “product criteria,” depending upon the product

category. Product standards are award criteria for products that require more in-depth

environmental impact or life cycle analysis. Standards are established for products that Green Seal

considered to have greater environmental impacts and are, therefore, tested and assessed more

comprehensively. In contrast, product criteria were established as a response to market interest

(i.e., for product categories that manufacturers were interested in getting eco-certified). Product

criteria are developed as a way to quickly certify product categories that are less complex or that

are experiencing technological changes. Over time, however, the distinction between product

standards and product criteria has become less significant for Green Seal.

Program Summary

Green Seal standards and criteria are developed on a category-by-category basis. Anyone,

including industry, public interest groups, and the general public, may submit proposals for new

product categories. Green Seal, however, makes the final decision as to which categories are

chosen. Product categories are assessed based on a life cycle analysis. Once product categories are

chosen, product standards and criteria are developed. Draft standards and criteria are sent for

comment to relevant parties, such as manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and
B-154 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

consumer groups, and government officials, as well as to any member of the public who requests

them. The comment period lasts for about 45 to 60 days.

Once the public comment period is completed, staff of the Green Seal Board of Directors finalizes

the product standards and criteria and forwards them to the Environmental Standards Committee. 

The Environmental Standards Committee acts on behalf of Green Seal’s Board of Directors in

approving the final standards. Product criteria do not need the Board’s approval and are sent

directly for publication. Product standards and criteria are usually revised every three years to keep

up with technological advances in product categories and to encourage continual environmental

improvement.

Once the standards and criteria are published, manufacturers are encouraged to apply for the Green

Seal. As part of the certifications process, manufacturers must demonstrate that they are in

compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Manufacturers

pay a product evaluation fee and a monitoring fee, which is based on a fixed price plus the

additional estimated cost of laboratory tests and travel to the manufacturers’ facilities. If the

product meets Green Seal’s standards/criteria, the manufacturer is given a contract to use the Green

Seal label on its product(s), packaging, and in advertising, for as long as the product stays in

compliance with the standards. Green Seal re-evaluates its product standards every three years.

Program Methodology 

Green Seal’s acceptance of a product category for its label is based on a life-cycle assessment of

several products on the market. Green Seal makes assessments based on the environmental

impacts during various stages of the products’ life cycle. These include: raw material extraction,

manufacturing, transportation and distribution, product use, and disposal. Additionally, products

are assessed on their potential for reuse, their maintenance needs, potential for recycling,

ingredients, and environmental performance during the production process. Green Seal’s goals are

to set standards and criteria that reduce one or more of the following: toxic chemical pollution,

energy consumption, impacts on water resources, impacts on wildlife, natural resource

consumption, impacts on the atmosphere, and global warming. Products within a category must

also comply with minimum performance standards, i.e, they must perform at least as well as other

products in their category which are considered less environmentally preferable. 

In setting product standards, Green Seal collects information about the product category from

previous literature and studies done on the product category, as well as from its own independent

testing and studies. Additionally, Green Seal collects data from manufacturers and previous lifecycle assessments conducted by other ecolabeling programs. For example, Green Seal exchanged

information with Canada’s TerraChoice program and adopted several of its product standards.

Green Seal’s standard-setting procedure is a transparent one. The public is given the opportunity

to provide comments on the draft standards. The commentors’ suggestions are often based on the 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-155

feasibility of meeting the proposed environmental standards, given the available technologies for

the category. Once standards are finalized by the Environmental Standards Committee,

commentators may appeal the standards if they feel that their comments were not addressed

adequately. This is done through a body known as the Environmental Standards Council, made up

of technical experts and academic scientists. Once appeals are taken into consideration, Green Seal

publishes the final standards along with a document that lists all significant comments and Green

Seal’s responses.

Other Information

In addition to the labeling program, Green Seal has also established the “Environmental Partners

Program.” There are two aspects to the program. Environmental Partners (businesses, government

agencies, and other organizations,) may join the program by agreeing to the Environmental

Partners Pledge, thereby committing to buying environmentally preferable products and services as

part of their procurement policies. Additionally, pledged Partners have to establish a recycling

program in their offices. Alternatively, business, organizations, and government agencies may opt

to subscribe to the program and simply receive information materials from Green Seal about

environmentally preferable products. Green Seal provides all its Partners with monthly Choose

Green Reports, which recommend specific environmentally preferable brands of products, and lists

places these products can be purchased. As of August 1997, there are 461 organizations taking

part in the program; 163 of these organizations have made the Environmental Partners Pledge. 

Partner organizations include federal, state, and local government agencies, private companies, and

universities and colleges.

In addition to the Choose Green Reports, Green Seal has published the Office Green Buying Guide

and Greening Your Property. The Office Green Buying Guide provides guidelines for businesses

to set up environmentally preferable purchasing policies. Specifically, the Office Green Buying

Guide provides information on types of products offices can consider buying. For example, the

Guide encourages businesses to reassess the type of paper products they buy (e.g., buying papers

made with recycled materials and fibers other than wood-pulp), or it may encourage purchasing

energy-efficiency office equipment (e.g., Energy Star-labeled photocopiers, computers, and fax

machines). In Greening Your Property, Green Seal provides similar guidance, specifically for the

lodging (hotels and motels) industry, on developing their environmentally preferable purchasing

policies and ways to engage in the notion of eco-tourism. The guide aims to educate the industry

on ways to cost-effectively better their hotels’ and motels’ environments. In addition to Greening

Your Property, Green Seal regularly contributes to the lodging industry’s monthly magazine,

Lodging, with articles on specific brands and product names.

Both the Office Green Buying Guide and Greening Your Property provide information on

environmental considerations to keep in mind when purchasing products. Green Seal encourages

businesses to consider the following characteristics of the products before making purchases: the

products’ life-cycle costs (e.g., cost of purchase, use, and disposal,) instead of simply the up-front 
B-156 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

costs; durability; performance; energy and natural resources use; recyclability and recycled content;

toxicity; biodegradability; and packaging. Additionally, guidance to businesses on ways to

advertise to their employees, suppliers, and customers about their new environmental policies are

provided.

Green Seal is also actively involved in coordination with other labeling programs. Green Seal and

the Canadian TerraChoice program were the first two ecolabeling programs that urged for the

establishment of the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN). In fact, Green Seal chaired GEN

during the first three years GEN was established. Green Seal has encouraged information

exchange and harmonizing with other programs through GEN. Additionally, Green Seal

participates in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) activities.

References

Arthur Weissman, President and CEO, Green Seal. Personal Communication with Abt Associates,

1997. 

Mark Petruzzi, Director of Certification and Compliance, Green Seal. Personal communication

with Abt Associates, 1997

Green Seal, Green Seal of Approval and List of Standards, Green Seal Homepage,

http://www.greenseal.org

Green Seal, Rules Governing the Use of the Green Seal Certification Mark, Green Seal Homepage,

http://www.greenseal.org

Green Seal, Standards and Criteria, Green Seal Homepage, http://www.greenseal.org

Green Seal, About Green Seal, information page.

Green Seal, August 1997, 10 Ways to Save Energy, Green Seal’s Choose Green Report.

Green Market, What is Green Seal? http://www.igc.org/GreenMarket/FORUM/gs.html

Green Seal, Green Seal Environmental Partners Program.

American Hotel and Motel Association, July 1997, Lodging: Special Design and Renovation

Section.

Green Seal, Greening Your Property.

Green Seal, Hotel Projects, Green Seal Homepage, http://www.greenseal.org.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-157

Green Seal, 1996, Office Green Buying Guide: A Green Seal Guide.

Green Seal, 1996, Powdered Laundry Bleach, GC-11.

Product Categories (number of awarded products in parentheses)

Final Product Standards

Electric chillers (100 tons to 2,000 tons rated capacity)

Clothes dryers

Clothes washers

Combination ranges

Electric or gas cooktops

Dishwashers

Freezers (30 CF or less)

Ovens

Refrigerators (39 CF or less)

Combination refrigerator-freezers (39 CF or less)

Engine oil

Reusable utility bags

General purpose cleaners

Compact fluorescent lamps

E26 medium screw ballast adaptors

E26 medium screw fluorescent self-ballasted lamps

E26 medium screw lamp holder conversion kits

Interior and exterior architectural coatings

Bathroom tissue

Blanks

Bond paper

Bristol paper

Business forms

Coated printing paper

Copy paper

Cover paper

Drawing paper

Facial tissue

Gift wrapping paper

Labels

Ledger paper

Lightweight printing paper

Manifold and onion skin paper

Newsprint and printed products manufactured from newsprint

Other printing and writing paper

Paper napkins
B-158 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Paper towels

Tablet paper

Uncoated groundwood-free paper

Faucet aerators

Kitchen faucet

Lavatory faucet

Toilets

Electric storage heaters (20 to 120 gallons and 12 kW input)

Heat-pump heaters (max current rating of 24 amp. at 250 volts)

Gas storage heaters (20 to 100 gallons and 75,000 Btu/hr max input)

Oil-fired storage heaters (50 gallons or less and 105,000 Btu/hr max input)

Glazed exteriors doors

Skylights

Storm doors

Windows

Retrofittable window films 

Final Product Criteria

Residential central air-conditioning systems (cooling capacity of 65,000 Btu/hr or less)

Split ductless air-source heat pumps (cooling capacity of 65,000 Btu/hr or less)

Alternative-fueled vehicles (CNG or electric)

Fleet vehicle maintenance

Powdered laundry bleach

Discrete informational labels for plastic parts

Passive infrared sensors

Ultrasonic sensors

Dual technology sensors

Audio and/or microwave sensors

Anti-corrosive paints

Paper products used in the preparation of food (coffee filters, baking paper and parchment)

Office copiers

Showerheads

Garden hoses

Sprinkler hoses

Product Categories under revision after the public comment period (all of these will be product

standards once finalized)

Adhesives

Gap sealants

Weather proofing sealants

Tub and tile sealants
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-159

Through the wall air-conditioning units

Window air-conditioning units

Ceiling and close to ceiling luminaries

Exterior luminaries with photocell

Outdoor brackets and lanterns

Porch lights

Recessed downlights and wallwashers

Security lights

Task lights

Wall sconces and brackets

Toner cartridges for printing and reproduction equipment

6

See the Federal Register April 29, 1977, 42 FR 22018, and August 24, 1977, 42 FR 42780.

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-161

EPA'S OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCE (ODS) WARNING LABEL

Introduction

Section 611 of Title VI of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires "labeling of products

that contain or were manufactured with class I or II [ozone depleting] substances" by May 15,

1993. Class I substances are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-

trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), while class II substances are hydrochlorofluoro-carbons

(HCFCs). The text of the label reads: "WARNING: Contains (or "Manufactured with" if

applicable) [insert name of substance], a substance which harms public health and environment by

destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere."

Recent Developments

In an amendment promulgated on January 19, 1995, EPA added several exemptions in response to

comments that the former rule placed burdens "on specific parties whose activities contribute no

additional emissions of ozone-depleting substances." Examples include exemptions from the

labeling requirement "when controlled substances are destroyed,... [and] for spare parts that are

used in repair." The amendment also made some minor clarifying revisions on such issues as the

labeling of waste. These changes were intended to "provide additional flexibility to the regulated

community [while] in no way [compromising] the environmental goals and benefits of protecting

public health through the labeling regulation" (60 FR 4010).

Program Summary

In 1977, "the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission

required marketers and importers of self-pressurized medical and consumer products that use a

CFC propellant to label their products with a warning that such products may harm public health

and the environment by reducing ozone in the upper atmosphere."6 Soon afterward, CFC was

banned as an aerosol propellant for all but "essential applications," thus making the FDA/CPSC

warning label irrelevant on such consumer products.

The final rule implementing section 611 was promulgated by EPA on February 11, 1993. The rule

prohibits the sale of "any container containing class I and class II substances, product containing

class I substances and product manufactured with class I substances, unless it bears a warning

statement indicating that the product contains or is manufactured with ozone-depleting

substances." Before January 1, 2015, products containing or manufactured with class II substances

may require labeling should "the Administrator [determine] that safe alternatives are available." 

After January 1, 2015, all products containing or manufactured with class I or II substances must

be labeled (58 FR 8136).
B-162 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

"Products manufactured with class I substances can be temporarily exempted from the labeling

requirements if EPA determines that there are no substitute products or manufacturing processes

that (a) do not rely on the use of the class I substance, (b) reduce the overall risk to human health

and the environment, and (c) are currently or potentially unavailable. All products must be labeled

by 2015" (Labeling Subcommittee, "Meeting Summary").

"Products manufactured with" class I substances might include electronic parts washed in class I

solvents or packaging, books, or sporting goods that use class I adhesives. A container of class I

substances might be a can of CFC-12 intended for use in degreasing units or refrigeration

equipment. Such refrigeration or degreasing units would then be considered "products containing

class I substances."

Although a symbol featuring a globe within an octagon (a stop sign) was considered in the rule

proposal, the final rule requires only the text of the warning above. EPA believed that "this symbol

would substantially increase consumer understanding and recognition of the required warning and

thus heighten the effectiveness of the label" (57 FR 1992). The agency was also concerned,

however, that the cost of changing product labels "would outweigh the benefits of using the label"

(58 FR 8136).

Section 611 also required that the warning be "clearly legible and conspicuous;” EPA proposed

that it should appear on the "principle display panel," defined as the place on a product or package

"where the consumer is likely to look for product information." After receiving comments on the

proposal, EPA decided that, "In view of the broad diversity of products potentially affected by the

labeling requirements...manufacturers will need some latitude as to where to place the labels" (58

FR 8136). Therefore, the final regulation reverts to the language of the Clean Air Act requiring the

warning to be "clearly legible and conspicuous" wherever it is presented. Other labeling options

such as hang tags, stickers, and supplemental printed materials are also acceptable.

At the time of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the US was committed to a phaseout of

class I substances by the year 2000 (two years later for methyl chloroform), in accordance with the

1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In a November 1992

meeting in Copenhagen, the phaseout schedule for class I substances was accelerated to January

1996 (two years sooner for halons). Thus, the ODS warning label was in effect for fewer than

three years before the class I phaseout was completed. The 1993 rule states, "The recent decision

of the Protocol Parties to significantly accelerate the phaseout of the listed ozone-depleting

substances reduces the importance of the labeling program....[When the phaseout was scheduled

for the year 2000], the labeling requirements provided an incentive for manufacturers to move

away from their use of such substances before 2000 in order to avoid any negative marketplace

reaction. With the acceleration of the phaseout,...requiring products to be labeled is unlikely to

significantly add to the manufacturers' incentive to switch to alternative substances." As a result,

EPA streamlined the labeling requirements by rejecting a proposed pass-through requirement

whereby any manufacturer that incorporates a labeled component into its product would be

required to label its product. Instead, EPA defined "manufactured with," such that manufacturers
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-163

must label products only when "the manufacturer of the product itself used an ozone-depleting

substance in manufacturing that product....The incorporation of that [labeled] product into another,

however, [would] not necessitate a label" (58 FR 8136).

References

"Some 'Nonessential' Products Containing Ozone Depleters to be Banned, EPA Rules." BNA Daily

Environment Report January 9, 1992: A-12.

Labeling Subcommittee of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Council. Labeling

Products Containing or Manufactured with Class I or II Substances March 11, 1991. 

Meeting Summary. Washington, D.C. March 11, 1991.

Meeting Summary: Second Meeting. Washington, D.C. August 30, 1991.

US EPA. "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." Federal Register

57 FR 1992, January 16, 1991.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice Listing Ozone-depleting Substances." Federal Register

56 FR 2420, January 22, 1991.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Temporary Final Rule." Federal Register 56 FR 9518, 

March 6, 1991.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." Federal Register 57 FR

19167, May 4, 1992.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Final Rule." Federal Register 58 FR 4768, January 15, 1993.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Labeling." Federal Register 58 FR 8136, February 11, 1993.

"Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Labeling Supplemental Rulemaking." Federal Register 60

FR 4010, January 19, 1995.

US EPA: Stratospheric Protection Division. Section 611: Product Labeling. [online: web],

updated October 31, 1995, cited September 18, 1997. URL:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/labeling/labfact.html

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-165

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65

Introduction

California's Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement

Act of 1986, is a statute that waplaced on the ballot by citizen petition due to concern over

inadequate governmental public health regulations. The purpose of the law is to enhance

community right-to-know, protect drinking water supplies, and reduce toxic releases. Although the

law was opposed by industry and agriculture groups, as well as almost every major newspaper in

California, Proposition 65 was approved by the California electorate by nearly a two to one margin. 

Proposition 65 mandates that the Governor of California publish a list of chemicals that are known

to cause cancer, or been developmental or reproductive toxicity. In addition, warnings must be

provided by businesses that knowingly and intentionally expose individuals to these chemicals,

unless it is determined that the exposure poses no significant risk assuming a exposure at the level

in question for cancer causing chemicals. For chemicals causing reproductive toxicity, businesses

that knowingly and intentionally expose individuals to these chemicals must provide warnings,

unless it is determined that the exposure will have no observable effects assuming an exposure

level 1,000 times the level in question. The warning requirements become effective twelve months

after the date of listing of the chemical. Businesses are required to provide a “clear and

reasonable” warning, which can take the following forms: labeling a consumer product, posting

signs at the workplace/businessplace, or publishing notices in the newspaper. In addition,

discharge of these chemicals into drinking water supplies are prohibited twenty months after the

date of listing of the chemical, except in those cases where the discharger can demonstrate that the

discharge is insignificant. The governor's list currently includes over 580 chemicals, 420

carcinogens, and 160 reproductive toxins. The Act is not applicable to government agencies,

drinking water utilities, and businesses employing fewer than ten persons.

Recent Developments

Following the implementation of the Act, many industries have attempted to avoid or reduce the

requirements. The food, drug, and cosmetic industries lobbied to receive a temporary exemption

from the law on the grounds that they are already regulated by the US Food and Drug

Administration (FDA). In addition, some industry groups tried to avoid having to develop warning

labels by setting up a toll-free telephone number for product information which was ruled

unacceptable by the courts. By contrast, other industries (such as the tobacco industry) have

implemented Proposition 65 warning labels. These labels have added significantly to the scope of

hazard warnings on consumer products in California. 

Proposition 65 has had some measure of success in influencing the decisions of manufacturers,

wholesalers, and retailers, and reducing the risks of chemical exposure. While data are not 
B-166 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

currently available on actions taken by the regulated community to remove themselves from the

purview of Proposition 65, there is evidence that manufacturers have reformulated products to

eliminate or reduce exposures to listed chemicals to avoid having to provide warnings. 

Proposition 65's effectiveness as a market-based incentive for the reformulation of products has led

to the removal of certain solvents from correction fluids, as well as the removal of lead from

certain ceramic products and from foil wraps on wine bottles. In addition, Proposition 65 has been

cited as the reason for process modifications, chemical substitutions, and the use of pollution

control devices to eliminate or reduce emissions of listed chemicals that would have required

warnings. 

Program Summary

California EPA's OEHHA is designated as the lead agency for Proposition 65 implementation. 

OEHHA is “directed to implement the Act in a manner that is fair, predictable, and based on a firm

foundation of science.” OEHHA compiles the list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins, prepares

dose-response assessments on listed chemicals, promulgates regulations, and provides assistance to

the regulated community in complying with the law. In addition, the Science Advisory Board

(SAB), established by the Governor, reviews chemicals and recommends those to be added to the

list. The state’s SAB consists of two independent committees of scientists and health professionals

that serve as the state’s qualified experts; the Carcinogen Identification Committee and the

Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. The authority to enforce

Proposition 65 is vested in the Attorney General, local district attorneys, and certain city attorneys. 

Private citizens may also take action to enforce Proposition 65, following certain conditions (see

"Enforcement") (Health and Safety Code, Section 25249.7).

Proposition 65 uses an unusual means of enforcement that allows private citizens to initiate

proceedings against alleged violators and reap monetary benefits from successful actions. Sixty

days after notifying public authorities (i.e., the Attorney General, the appropriate district attorney,

or city attorney) of an alleged violation, any individual or group may sue the offending business if

the authorities are not "diligently prosecuting" the matter. If successful, the individual or group

bringing suit receives 25 percent of the penalty fines, which may amount to a maximum of

$2,500/day for each violation. The plaintiff filing suit must first show that the alleged violator

generated a knowing discharge or exposure. It is then the responsibility of the defendant to prove

that the exposures and discharges were within legal limits.

Examples of warnings that have been issued as a result of Proposition 65 include: labels on cigars,

pipe tobacco, and other tobacco products not covered by the federal cigarette labeling

requirements; point-of-purchase signs warning about risks of alcoholic beverage consumptions

during pregnancy; signs warning about the presence of environmental tobacco smoke; and

newspaper notices about routine or incidental emissions from facilities in the community.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-167

Program Methodology

OEHHA compiles and publishes the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or

developmental/reproductive toxicity, and updates it at least annually. A chemical is listed:

1) if, in the opinion of the "state's qualified experts," the chemical has been clearly shown to

cause cancer or reproductive toxicity;

2) if an "authoritative" body designated by the "state's qualified experts" has formally

identified the chemical as a carcinogen or a developmental/reproductive toxicant; or

3) if any state and/or federal agency has formally required the chemical to be labeled or

identified as a carcinogen or a developmental/reproductive toxicant.

The "state's qualified experts" have designated the following organizations as authoritative bodies: 

the US EPA, the FDA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the National Toxicology Program.

Additionally, there are two business requirements as part of the rule. First, twelve months after a

chemical is listed, businesses must not knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a

listed chemical without first providing a "clear and reasonable warning," unless the business can

demonstrate that the exposure:

• does not exceed 1/1000 of the "no observable effect level" (NOEL) for reproductive toxins;

• poses "no significant risk" of cancer. “No significant risk” is defined as the level that

results in a cancer risk of less than one excess case of cancer per 100,000 individuals

exposed over a 70-year lifetime for carcinogens. In other words, if you are exposed to the

chemical in question at this level every day for 70 years, your chances of getting cancer will

be no more than 1 case in 100,000 individuals so exposed.

The second business requirement stipulates that twenty months after the chemical is listed,

businesses must not knowingly discharge the chemical into the drinking water supply unless the

discharger can demonstrate that a “significant amount” of the listed chemical has not, did not, or

will not enter any drinking water source and that the discharger complies with all other applicable

laws, regulations, permits, requirements or orders. "Significant amount" refers to any detectable

amount, unless the resulting exposure meets the same criteria for exemptions from the warning

requirement.

References

Becker, Richard A., Using Sound Science and Common Sense to Improve Proposition 65

Implementation. 

California EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 1996. The
B-168 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Implementation of Proposition 65: A Progress Report. September 1996.

California EPA, OEHHA, 1996b. Proposition 65 in Plain English. December 1996. 

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Chapter 6.6. California Health and

Safety Code, Section 25249.5 et. seq.

Kizer, Kenneth W., et al., 1988. "Sound Science in the Implementation of Public Policy: A Case

Report on California's Proposition 65", The Journal of the American Medical Association, August

19, 260 (7): 951-955.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-169

SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS’ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Introduction

Scientific Certification Systems’s (SCS) Environmental Claims Certification Program was

developed in 1990 to independently verify the “accuracy of environmental claims on products.” 

Under this program, SCS conducts detailed investigations to determine whether a claim can be

verified. When the program was developed, environmental claims were largely unregulated and it

was difficult for consumers and retailers to know what claims to believe. SCS certifies claims in

the following areas:

• Recycled Fiber

• Biodegradable Product

• Certified Organic Ingredients

• No Smog Producing Ingredients (VOCs)

• Water Efficiency

Once a product has been certified by SCS, its packaging may display an “authorized certification

emblem” accompanied by an exact description of the verified claim. SCS emphasizes consumer

education by providing product shelf signs, information printed on the products, and special

educational material prepared by manufacturers and retailers. SCS will certify claims for consumer

products and packaging, as well as for materials used by product manufacturers. To date, more

than 150 manufacturers and retailers are participating in the SCS Environmental Claims

Certification Program, and SCS has evaluated claims for more than 2,000 consumer and business

products. Participants range from small entrepreneurs to Fortune 500 companies. The vast

majority of companies are based in the US

Recent Developments

SCS recently integrated its Environmental Claims Certification Program and its LCA and Certified

Eco-Profile programs. This allows SCS to help companies choose from several environmental

claims to find the best certification for a particular product. A company may choose a full lifecycle assessment, but also may choose to have a specific claim certified.

Program Summary

Five steps are taken during claims certification. In Step 1, SCS does an initial feasibility

assessment of the manufacturer’s product to determine the appropriate certification in one of the

five certification categories. The manufacturer and SCS sign a contract in Step 2. In Step 3, SCS

engineers or scientists verify the manufacturer’s claim by evaluating information released by the

manufacturer, reviewing results from independent testing facilities, and performing on-site 
B-170 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

inspections to verify the information. In Step 4, if a product’s claims are substantiated, SCS issues

a certificate and authorizes the use of the SCS Certification Emblem to the manufacturer. Ongoing

monitoring takes place in Step 5, during which quarterly reviews are conducted to maintain the

accuracy of data. Fees for certification vary greatly, ranging from $1,500-8,000. Among other

factors, fees depend on the number of sites that have to be visited, the complexity of the production

process, and the ease of obtaining information from the company being studied. SCS charges

companies for quarterly certification updates, but does not charge an annual fee or royalty. 

In addition to verification, SCS administers special claims screening programs for retailers and

other purchasing agents. These programs help purchasing agents to ensure that product

environmental claims that manufacturers may be using are credible and comply with all state and

federal green marketing guidelines.

Program Methodology

The categories for claim certification were chosen based on the types of environmental claims that

prevailed in the market. Criteria were developed with information gathered from stakeholders,

outside literature, independent studies, and SCS’s scientific advisory board. The criteria were

reviewed by industry and stakeholders. Criteria are readily available on Fact Sheets provided by

SCS. 

Other Information

In 1991, SCS announced joint efforts to establish an Environmental Claims Evaluation Program

for The Home Depot, a nationwide retailer. Under this program, SCS is working with The Home

Depot to verify the accuracy and significance of claims made for products that it stocks. In

addition to the Environmental Claims Evaluation Program, many of The Home Depot stores carry

products that have undergone actual certification.

References

Brown, Linda. Senior Associate, Program Development and Communications, Scientific

Certification Systems. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Brown, Sydney. Director, Communications, Scientific Certification Systems. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Montgomery Advertiser. “Quality Products Abound at Home Depot.” 23 January 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. [Online: Web]. Cited 26 November 1997. URL:

http://www.scs1.com/
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-171

Scientific Certification Systems. Biodegradability: Certification Program for Soaps, Detergents,

and Cleansers. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Certified Claims: Products, Packaging, and Materials Whose

Environmental Claims Have Been Certified by Scientific Certification Systems. July 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Certified ‘No VOCs’: Certification Standards for Paints and

Coatings. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Certified Recycled Content: SCS Environmental Claims

Certification Program. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Environmental Claims Certification Program [Online: Web]. 

Cited 26 November 1997. URL: http://www.scs1.com/claims.html

Scientific Certification Systems. Water Efficiency: Certifying Low Flow Rates for Showerheads. 

Summer 1997.

Weidman, Elaine. Associate Director, LCA and Environmental Claims, Scientific Certification

Systems. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Product Categories

Final Categories

Recycled Fiber

Biodegradable Product

Certified Organic Inputs

No Smog Producing Ingredients (VOCs)

Water Efficiency

Categories Under Development

Alternatives to Poison

Poison-free

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-173

SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS’ 

CERTIFIED ECO-PROFILE LABELING SYSTEM

Introduction

Scientific Certification Systems’s (SCS) Certified Eco-Profile Labeling System is a third-party,

neutral declaration of environmental performance of a product. It is designed to help “managers,

design engineers, purchasing agents, retail and industrial customers, and policy makers understand

the environmental performance of products and materials to make better informed decisions” by

conveying the findings of life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies. As part of the Eco-Profile, SCS

performs a cradle-to-grave assessment that covers all relevant impacts for each of a product’s lifecycle stages: raw material extraction, material processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, and

disposal. The results of the assessment are presented quantitatively on the “Certified Eco-Profile,”

which communicates an overall declaration of the environmental performance of a product or

industrial system. The Certified Eco-Profile has both internal and external applications. When

used as a product label, the eco-profile has often been referred to as the environmental equivalent

of a nutritional label. Based on the life-cycle assessment, special claims of achievement may also

be certified. These claims include “Certified Environmental State-of-the-Art,” “Certified

Environmental Improvements,” and “Certified Environmental Advantages.” At the present time,

the results from the Eco-Profile and an accompanying report are used primarily at the industrial

level to communicate environmental performance data and to provide a tool that can be used to

improve manufacturers’ processes from an environmental standpoint. SCS is currently engaged in

several assessment projects at both the domestic and international levels. SCS expects that in early

1998, many new products will carry the Eco-Profile on their labels. Several products that are

currently in the marketplace carry an older version of the Eco-Profile (see “Recent

Developments”).

Recent Developments

The Certified Eco-Profile Labeling System evolved from SCS’s Environmental Report Card,

which was introduced in 1993. The Report Card provided a quantified summary of the resources

used and emissions associated with a product system. The Certified Eco-Profile, in contrast, is

based on a more advanced form of LCA that goes a step further to link the quantified resources and

emissions of a product back to the specific environments where releases occur. Both the Report

Card and the Certified Eco-Profile have consumer and industrial applications (e.g., internal

company communications and industry-to-industry communications), but currently, demand for the

Certified Eco-Profile is primarily at the industrial level. The name was changed because “EcoProfile” is more consistent with the methodology. SCS believes that the name “Eco-Profile” is

easier than “Report Card” to translate, and is more compatible with international terminology.
B-174 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Program Summary

Through the Certified Eco-Profile Labeling System, SCS assesses an industrial product material. 

SCS is engaged in projects in several industries, chosen on the basis of industry interest and

demand. The products and services currently being assessed include: building materials, energy

production systems, textiles and apparel, forest products, steel products, glass, household

appliances, telecommunications equipment, paints, and plastics. 

The assessment process consists of several phases. SCS meets with the client to set the parameters

of the study, then conducts primary and secondary research, including collecting information and

data from the manufacturing process, vendors, and suppliers. SCS processes the data, identifying

and quantifying the system resources used and emissions which impact the environment. SCS then

develops a quantitative profile of these impacts.

The results are presented in a detailed report for the client that is accompanied by a “Certified EcoProfile Executive Summary and Data Sheet” (ES/DS), and a “Certified Eco-Profile.” The report

and ES/DS detail these findings for each unit process in the life-cycle. This includes a detailed

description of the study boundaries, an explanation of the production process, a summary of key

findings as illustrated on the Certified Eco-Profile, details of these findings for each unit process in

the product life cycle, an explanation of any significant environmental achievements, and an

illustration on how the production system studied compares to similar systems. The results

presented on the Certified Eco-Profile summarize the net resources depleted and the effective

emission loadings on the environment under a set of 15-20 core “environmental impact indicators”

that reflect the unique system being studied. The Certified Eco-Profile also indicates when there

are no measured indicator values above internationally recognized thresholds. The Certified EcoProfile could be affixed to a retail product or used internally by a company as an environmental

management tool. One of three claims of environmental achievement based on the assessment may

be certified:

Environmental State-of-the-Art: Earned by a product performing in the top 20th percentile in its

product category for all significant environmental indicators.

Environmental Improvements: Earned by products with demonstrated environmental performance

improvements over time.

Environmental Advantages: Indicates key advantages (and trade-offs) when comparing the product

evaluated to another product or material that can perform the same function.

As in all LCA studies, resource consumption and emissions data are collected for each “life-cycle”

stage studied. SCS employs a methodology known as life-cycle stressor-effects assessment

(LCSEA), which goes beyond traditional LCA practice by integrating environmental data in order

to characterize the actual environmental significance of the inventory data. This process was 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-175

selected because SCS felt that it provides a more scientifically accurate and objective measure of

environmental performance. The ES/DS, mentioned above, presents the streamlined life-cycle

stressor-effects assessment inventory data as well as the final LCSEA impact indicator values. It

shows the relative contribution of specific unit operations to the cumulative environmental

indicator values, and shows the relationship between the original inventory values and the final

indicator values. Of SCS’s current projects, a portion use LCSEA, but all future projects intended

for a consumer audience will use LCSEA.

SCS describes five features of the Certified Eco-Profile Labeling System as follows:

1. The system is a comprehensive and science-based system. Findings from the life-cycle are 

presented in an understandable and usable label format, both in numeric and graphic form. 

The findings are listed under global, regional and local environmental indicators that are

relevant to the system studied.

2. The system provides a level playing field for comparative assessment. The LCA

methodology provides a uniform foundation for product assessment, and helps to ensure

that fair comparisons can be made among products.

3. The system records the unique environmental “footprint” of each product. The eco-profiles

of similar products may differ greatly, depending on the source of its natural resources, the

manner in which such resources are extracted, differences in production technologies used,

emissions released, and the relative tolerance of the environment into which these

emissions are released.

4. The system documents current practices and environmental achievements, and gives

companies information that allows them to determine where improvements are most

needed.

5. The system is applicable to all markets and avoids trade barriers because it is a site-specific

declaration of actual environmental performance, and does not have restrictive criteria and

standards that could reflect local and national priorities. It is directly translatable in all

countries and markets.

The typical LCSEA study, including the production of a full life-cycle report, the Executive

Summary and Data Sheet, and the Certified Eco-Profile, costs between $15,000-$50,000. There

are no licensing or annual fees, and maintenance fees are minor. 

Program Methodology

SCS performs a life-cycle stressor-effects assessment (LCSEA), which is a form of LCA developed

for use in the evaluation of product’s environmental performance evaluation and labeling. It is a

cradle-to-grave assessment that covers all relevant impacts for each of a product’s life-cycle stages:

raw material extraction, material processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. The

LCSEA methodology has a number of key features. First, it maintains simplified data treatment:

inventory data are not aggregated in order to maintain data characteristics of time and space. 
B-176 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Second, it incorporates environmental data from the “providing” environments (i.e., the source of

material inputs) and the “receiving” environments; third, recognized threshold levels are used to

determine whether an emission is causing a measurable effect; and finally, it models the

environmental mechanism through defined stressor-effects (i.e., cause and effect) networks that

link specific system inputs, outputs or activities (i.e., the “stressors”) to model actual impacts on

the environment. The system presents results from the assessment in two broad categories of

environmental indicators: 

1. Net Resources Depleted includes the following indicators: water, wood fiber, fossil fuels,

non-fuel oil and gas, minerals, metals, direct land area, and marine resources.

2. Emission Loadings includes the following indicators: greenhouse gases, acidying

chemicals, ground level ozone, stratospheric ozone-depleting substances, hazardous air

pollutants, noise, eutrophication chemicals, total oxidizable organic carbon, total suspended

solids, hazardous water pollutants, and hazardous waste.

Eco-Profile studies are conducted when individual companies and industry groups come forward

with interest and demand. Information for each study is collected from sources including primary

data from participating companies and suppliers, published and unpublished data from LCA

studies, environmental impact assessment and risk assessment studies, government statistics, and

industry sources. Each project is peer reviewed and opportunities for input and review by key

stakeholders are provided. SCS conducts site-specific impact assessments, recognizing local,

national, and global conditions. The methodology for the Certified Eco-Profile goes beyond the

conventional Life-Cycle Inventory methodology (e.g., such as that put forth by the Society for

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)) to include data pertaining to actual

environmental effects. Examples of environmental characterization data collected include: 

local/regional exposure data; background concentration levels; exceedance of threshold levels by

GIS mapping for acidification and ground level ozone formation; composition and structure of

floral and fauna types; the size of the reserve base for a given resource; and recycling rates for a

given material and the number of times the material is recycled.

Other Information

SCS is involved with the development of ISO 14000 standards for Type III labeling, the category

of labeling that includes the Certified Eco-Profile. SCS is also working to harmonize with

emerging Type III labeling initiatives being conducted outside of the US, believing in the

importance of harmonizing with programs before they are developed. SCS has formed alliances

with institutions in Chile, Finland, Sweden, Japan, and Korea to offer LCA and Certified EcoProfile services worldwide. SCS is also collaborating with two Nordic organizations, the Swedish

Environmental Research Institute (IVL) and Soil and Water (the environmental division of Jaakko

Pöyry, Finland), to write an LCSEA practitioners’ manual for Type III labeling. The first version

(1.2) was released in April 1997, and international stakeholder input is being assembled. The new

version will be released in 1998.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-177

The Environmental Work Place Analysis is another LCA based program run by SCS. The program

assists companies to incorporate environmental considerations into the overall management

strategies. It was designed to educate employees at all levels about the environmental

consequences of their actions, and to help employees make good environmental decisions at work. 

At the same time, it has been used as a tool to document environmental savings and their

corresponding cost savings for corporations. Employees complete a questionnaire about jobrelated activities, and SCS calculates the amount of raw materials and energy used and the amount

of pollution and waste generated as a result of these activities. The information is summarized for

each employee on “Employee Eco-Profiles,” along with departmental or faculty eco-profiles.

References

Brown, Linda. Senior Associate, Program Development and Communications, Scientific

Certification Systems. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Brown, Sydney. Director, Communications, Scientific Certification Systems. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Montgomery Advertiser. “Quality Products Abound at Home Depot.” 23 January 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. [Online: Web]. Cited 26 November 1997. URL:

http://www.scs1.com/

Scientific Certification Systems. Certified Eco-Profile; Executive Summary and Data Sheet.

Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Environmental Performance of Products. [Online: Web]. Cited

26 November 1997. URL: http://www.scs1.com/impact.html

Scientific Certification Systems. Environmental Workplace Analysis. 1996.

Scientific Certification Systems. Life-Cycle Assessment and Certified Eco-Profile Projects. June

1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Life-Cycle Assessment Peer Review and Stakeholder Review

Procedures. 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Overview of LCSEA Methodology. 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Programs and Qualifications Profile; Supporting Informed

Decision Making for a More Sustainable Future. Fall 1997.
B-178 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Scientific Certification Systems. Response to EPA Type III Labeling Survey. July 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. The Evolution of a Technical Framework For Life-Cycle Impact

Assessment. 10 November 1997.

Weidman, Elaine. Associate Director, LCA and Environmental Claims, Scientific Certification

Systems. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Product Categories

All product categories
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-179

SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS’ 

FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Introduction

The Forest Conservation Program (FCP) was developed by Scientific Certification Systems (SCS)

in 1991 to “help the forest products industry, government policy makers, and the general public

bring order to the contentious public debate over management, harvesting, and the conservation of

the earth’s forests.” The goal of the Forest Conservation Program is to identify forest management

practices that most successfully sustain timber resources while maintaining the ecological viability

of the forest and benefiting the surrounding community. 

SCS sends independent inspection teams to evaluate company or state forest operations. Each

evaluation team consists of experts representing such disciplines as forestry, wildlife biology,

hydrology, sociology, natural resource economics, and sustainable resource management. The

evaluation team produces a detailed report with valuable feedback and recommendations for

individual operators who are interested in maximizing the longevity of their timber resources. 

High-scoring forests (80 or above on a 100-point index) are certified as “Well-Managed.” In this

way, SCS can provide an “independently verified basis for potential marketplace claims.” The

program can be applied in tropical, temperate, and boreal forests and plantations, and is open to

small and large land holders alike. SCS certification is also available through Chain-of-Custody

Certification to manufacturers who produce goods from certified well-managed timber, and to

retailers and distributors who merchandise these products. The FCP was accredited by the Forest

Stewardship Council in 1995.

As of September 1997, SCS had certified 15 forestry operations and 35 Chain-of-Custody

operations. Four additional forestry operations are pending certification. Applicants to the

certification programs vary greatly, and include forest managers that produce logs and lumber,

distributors, manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. SCS has certified forests and chain-ofcustody operations in North and South America, as well as in Sweden.

Recent Developments

SCS recently initiated a program to evaluate and certify public forestland management units. A

pilot project in Pennsylvania was initiated in early 1997 to evaluate about half of the state’s

forestland. Due to the success of this program, Pennsylvania has given SCS the authority to

evaluate the remaining state forestland. SCS considers state land evaluations to be an emerging

field.

SCS has also recently initiated the Consulting Forester and Small Woodlot Certification Program

(Small Woodlot Program) to recognize sustainable forest management on small woodlots. The

operational steps for evaluation are very similar to those of the FCP; however, the program is 
B-180 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

designed to reflect the scope and scale of small, nonindustrial woodlots, usually no larger than

2,000 acres. In this new program, the management practices of a forestry consultant are evaluated

on a sample of woodlots that are under the forester’s care. Each woodlot being considered for

certification must meet the Forest Stewardship Council’s Principals and Criteria.

Program Summary 

In the in-depth analysis of specific forestland area (management units), SCS establishes an

Evaluation Team composed of consultants with expertise in disciplines such as forestry, biologyecology, economics, wildlife, sustainable resource management, and decision sciences. The

summary of the Forest Conservation Program and Chain-of-Custody Certification are explained

separately below.

Forest Conservation Program

The process of forest evaluation and certification involves five main steps. In Step 1, SCS and the

client plan the evaluation of the forest operation management practices, including its scope and

geographic limitations. The selection of an Evaluation Team takes place in Step 2. Although the

final decision is made by SCS, the Team selection includes input from the client. Step 3 involves

determining the scope of the evaluation, as well as data collection and analysis. According to an

FCP fact sheet, the Team “conducts on-site inspections, collects and reviews landowner-supplied

records, reviews documents from government forestry agencies and other sources, and conducts

interviews with people in the surrounding community.”

The Team identifies relevant “importance-weighted” evaluation criteria in Step 4. These criteria

are organized into three categories: timber resource sustainability, forest ecosystem maintenance,

and financial and socio-economic considerations. Because of the diversity of each site, these

criteria and their relative weights differ from operation to operation. Finally, in Step 5, the Team

assesses the extent to which the site “meets the underlying objectives and goals associated with

each evaluation criterion,” and prepares a written report detailing the findings. This report is given

to the client for review and feedback to ensure that the client does not disagree with the accuracy of

the data, or the veracity of any observations and assumptions. The report is then submitted to peer

reviewers for comments on the general FCP methodology and the results of the specific evaluation. 

Performance is measured on a 0-100 point scale in each of the three main program elements, and

SCS provides scoring guidelines that describe a threshold and optimal performance. Forests that

rate above 80 in all three categories are designated as “Well-Managed Forests” by SCS. In

addition to scoring sites in the three categories, the evaluation can also make non-mandatory

suggestions to the applicant to improve the quality of management.

Certification is usually valid for three to six years, at which point a full re-evaluation occurs. The

period before re-evaluation depends on the length in years of the applicant’s management plan. 

SCS requires annual on-site audits to monitor the applicant’s compliance with stated goals, as well 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-181

as to establish an ongoing framework that allows SCS to track issues or concerns raised in the

initial evaluation.

The cost of forest certification varies greatly from site to site, and depends on the size of the

operation, the geographic location and distribution of the forest areas, and the ease of access. The

initial fee is between $.05-.40 per acre, and annual audits cost between $2,000-5,000.

Chain-of-custody Certification

Valid chain-of-custody procedures are an essential component to a forest certification program. 

Chain-of-custody procedures are intended to ensure that products bearing FCP labeling are

produced from certified sources and materials. Procedures vary greatly from one production

system to another, but SCS has developed basic requirements for the different possible scenarios. 

Procedures can include assuring that logs bear a tag identifying the forest of origin, segregating

certified lumber from other lumber at a secondary mill, and segregating the lumber during

transport. The procedures are implemented at key points where the product is transferred, such as

when it leaves the forest, arrives at a paper mill, or is delivered to the broker, wholesale dealer, or

retailer. The chain-of-custody program certifies that production systems have these procedures in

place.

Applicants submit a summary of their processing/sales operations outlining how their operational

procedures will incorporate chain-of-custody considerations. SCS reviews the summary to

determine whether or not to proceed with an on-site compliance audit. The purpose of the audit is

to ensure that the applicant’s staff follow the documented procedures, determine if the

documentation of activities is sufficient, and review the effectiveness of the system in meeting

chain-of-custody requirements. The audit is compiled into a report reviewed by the applicant to

ensure that the client does not disagree with the accuracy of the data. If the operations

successfully meet chain-of-custody requirements, SCS issues the applicant a certificate. SCS

requires annual on-site audits of the manufacturing and distribution process, and can conduct

random, short-notice inspections and request documentation related to the product’s chain-ofcustody.

The fee for a chain-of-custody certification is between $200-2,000 annually, depending on the size

and complexity of the operation.

Program Methodology

The framework and criteria for the FCP and Chain-of-custody Certification were developed

through a process of consultation with professionals and experts in the forestry field, and

information collected from the literature and independent studies. The FCP’s framework was peerreviewed in the development stages. Because the field of forestry management changes with
B-182 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

technical developments, the criteria and methodology are also peer-reviewed during each

evaluation. The criteria are published in the Program Description and Operations Manual.

Other Information

Because small and mid-sized timberland owners are becoming more common, the FCP has

developed an evaluation process that accommodates the realities of small owners. In particular, the

costs of the evaluation are reduced. The new Small Woodlot Program will also help small

businesses.

SCS is following the negotiations and debate over ISO forestry standards, but is not actively

participating in their development. Since ISO forestry standards are being developed to provide a

certification framework, and the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) provides performance

measurements, SCS foresees that ISO and the FSC could eventually work well together.

References

Brown, Sydney. Director of Communications, Scientific Certification Systems. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Forest Conservation Program: Quantitative Assessment Program Ranks Forest Management

Practices. Summer 1997.

Hammel, Debbie. Director of the Forest Conservation Program, Scientific Certification Systems. 

Personal communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of. News Release: Pennsylvania Chosen to Participate in

Landmark Study of Its Public Forestlands. 13 January 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. [Online: Web]. Cited 26 November 1997. URL:

http://www.scs1.com/

Scientific Certification Systems. Consulting Forester and Small Woodlot Certification Program. 

Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Forest Conservation Program. [Online: Web]. Cited 26

November 1997. URL: http://www.scs1.com/forests.html

Scientific Certification Systems. Forest Conservation Program: Certified Forests Status Report. 

January 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-183

Scientific Certification Systems. Forest Conservation Program: Manufacturers and Retailers

Certified for Chain-of-Custody. March 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Forest Conservation Program; Program Description and

Operations Manual. October 1995.

Product Categories

Wood products

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-185

SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS’ “NUTRICLEAN FOOD SAFETY 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM”

Introduction

The NutriClean Food Safety Management Program was launched by Scientific Certification

Systems (SCS) in 1984. NutriClean is the agricultural division of SCS. The program is based on

the “No Detected Residues”(NDR) certification for fresh produce. The NutriClean-Certified NDR

standard means that produce contains no pesticide residues above a laboratory detection limit of

0.05 parts per million. The program was launched not only to test pesticide residues in fresh

produce, but also to recognize growers whose crops meet these standards. NutriClean standards

are up to 1,000 times more stringent than those of the US Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The program has several components, one of which is Grower Certification. Produce from

fields that are NutriClean-certified carries a certification label on pallets and containers and may be

accompanied by a shelf label in retail stores. In addition to grower certification, SCS performs

testing services for growers, retailers, and importers. Foods grown organically that have no

detected residues qualify for NutriClean’s Organic Certification.

NutriClean is based on three key principles: 1) the certification is granted by an independent,

neutral, third-party with no vested interest in the product being certified; 2) all claims must be

scientifically verifiable; and 3) the certification process is complete with appropriate “checks and

balances” to ensure accuracy in the final result.

The NutriClean program has certified over 400 growers domestically and internationally. It works

with 15 major grocery store chains with more than 3,000 individual stores, and provides services to

more than 150 importers.

Recent Developments

NutriClean recently introduced a program to provide a variety of food safety management services

based on the principal known as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point). HACCP

procedures cover proper food handling, preparation, and storage techniques, and are designed to

control physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards. The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) and the Department of Agriculture have established HACCP requirements for seafood,

meat, and poultry. Produce standards are voluntary at this time. SCS assists grocery retailers, food

processors, suppliers, and growers in meeting these requirements. SCS offers food safety and

sanitation programs, employee education, and certification of well-planned and properly

implemented HACCP-based food safety management programs.
B-186 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Program Summary 

SCS’s NutriClean program has several components. Grower Certification involves testing produce

and certifying that it meets “clean” food standards; in other words, that the produce has “No

Detected Residues” (NDR). NutriClean certification requires that growers fully disclose the

pesticides that they use. SCS staff conduct on-site inspections and take field samples from the

produce, which are extensively analyzed by independent laboratories. SCS frequently splits

samples among different testing laboratories as a quality control measure. Tests are conducted for

each pesticide used by the grower, regardless of whether it is natural or synthetically derived. 

When a field is certified as having NDR, its produce is licensed to carry a NutriClean label. In

addition, certified products are published in NutriClean’s weekly Certified Product Status Bulletin,

which is available on a subscription basis to wholesale distributors, retailers, and food providers. 

Fees for grower certification vary greatly and depend on the number of fields and number of

pesticides, among other variables. 

Additional services for growers are intended to encourage the responsible reduction in pesticide

use and can assist growers in meeting NutriClean NDR standards. These services include:

employing microbiological assays to assist growers in developing microbiological quality

assurance programs, nutritional analyses to help growers maximize the nutritional value of crops,

analyzing the rate that pesticides decay on crops to help farmers fine-tune their pesticide

applications, documenting that crops comply with government regulations, and conducting soil and

water analyses to provide information about potential contamination.

NutriClean offers a variety of services to retailers. One of these services is testing nonNutriClean-Certified produce items for pesticide levels and pathogens to verify compliance with

FDA regulations. This testing service may be part of retailers’ own quality assurance program. 

This program is known as the “DOCK” program because NutriClean collects samples at the

loading docks of retail distribution centers. Collection is done either weekly or bi-weekly. The

number of samples collected is based on the volume of produce that the retailer purchases. 

NutriClean attempts to sample five percent of the incoming product. NutriClean also conducts

laboratory analyses of food microbiology, chemistry, additives, alteration, and nutrition, and can

conduct chain-of-custody sampling and verification. In general, these services help retailers

improve food quality and safety. Fees for DOCK testing vary depending on the quantity of

produce sampled.

NutriClean also tests a variety of food items for importers. In addition to produce, NutriClean tests

seafood, meat and poultry, processed foods, and spices for pesticide residues, harmful bacteria and

parasites. The main purpose of this service is to aid importers in complying with FDA pesticide

residue limits. Fees for importers are competitive with those of other organizations doing similar

work.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-187

Program Methodology

The “No Detected Residues”(NDR) certification is the same for all types of fresh produce. To be

certified, produce must have no detectable pesticide residue above 0.05 parts per million. The level

of 0.05 ppm is the standard limit of quantification that can be met by most labs. In developing the

program, information was gathered from independent studies, participating producers, and current

literature. The program has been peer reviewed. Operating costs are covered by the fees collected

for services.

Other Information

Although NutriClean certifies growers both within and outside of the US, it has not been involved

in any trade conflicts. 

References

Brown, Sydney. Director of Communications, Scientific Certification Systems. Personal

communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. [Online: Web]. Cited 26 November 1997. URL:

http://www.scs1.com/

Scientific Certification Systems. Certified and Organic Food. [Online: Web]. Cited 26 November

1997. URL: http://www.scs1.com/safety.html#haccp

Scientific Certification Systems. Compliance and Food Safety Services for Importers. Summer

1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Consulting Forester and Small Woodlot Certification Program. 

Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Food Safety Programs and Tips [Online: Web]. Cited 26

November 1997. URL: http://www.scs1.com/food.html

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean Dock Testing 1995 Annual Report. 1995.

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean Food Safety Management Program: For Store-Wide

Protection From Food-Borne Illness. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean Food Safety Services for Fresh Produce. Summer

1997.
B-188 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean: Quality Assurance Services. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean Services for Growers. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean Services for Exporters. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. NutriClean: Three Principals of Certification. Summer 1997.

Scientific Certification Systems. Scientific Certification Systems Verification Program for

Grocery Retailers. Summer 1997.

Sumner, Wilfred. Technical Director, NutriClean Division, Scientific Certification Systems. 

Personal communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

Product Categories

Produce

Seafood

Meat

Poultry

Spices
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-189

PRODUCT LABELING UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)

Introduction

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted by Congress in the fall of 1976 to identify

and control toxic chemical hazards to human health and the environment. “To prevent

unreasonable risks,” the Act gives EPA the authority to “select from a broad range of control

actions under TSCA, from requiring hazard-warning labels to outright bans on the manufacture or

use of especially hazardous chemicals.” (EPA, 1987)

Program Summary

EPA is authorized to require labeling both for existing chemicals appearing on the TSCA Inventory

and for new chemicals. For existing chemicals, 

Section 6(a)3 of TSCA allows the Administrator to apply:

a requirement that such substance or mixture or any article containing such substance or

mixture be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings and instructions

with respect to its use, distribution in commerce, or disposal or with respect to any

combination of such activities. The form and content of such warnings and instructions

shall be prescribed by the Administrator. (PL 94-469)

The law does not specify the form or content of the warnings, and EPA has not promulgated any

regulations establishing a single consistent method of labeling. To date, labels have been required

or proposed for chemicals and products on a case-by-case basis. To date, regulated chemicals and

products subject to TSCA Section 6 labeling include PCBs, asbestos, hexavalent chromium and

acrylamide grout.

Under TSCA Section 5(e), EPA requires labeling for some new chemicals that “may present an

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” using its authority “to prohibit or limit the

manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal” of such substances.

Generic labeling provisions listed in 40 CFR §721.72(b), (g), and (h) are applied to significant new

uses of specific chemicals on a case-by-case basis. Companies may be required to provide labeling

for containers distributed in commerce, for containers used in the workplace by employees, or

both. When labeling is required for containers distributed in commerce, labels must include:

a) The commonly recognized identity of the substance

b) A statement of health hazard(s) and precautionary measure(s), if any

c) A statement of environmental hazard(s) and precautionary measure(s), if any 

d) A statement of exposure and precautionary measure(s), if any, and 
B-190 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

e) The name and address of a source of additional information about hazard evaluation and

emergency procedures.

Additionally, labels for containers distributed in commerce must not conflict with the requirements

of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the regulations issued under it. Labeling

requirements imposed under TSCA Section 5 seldom affect consumers because the regulated

substances are mainly distributed between manufacturers and processors and are only rarely used in

consumer products. 

40 CFR §721.72 contains slightly different labeling requirements for workplace uses of new

chemicals. Companies may provide signs or other written material in lieu of container labels in the

workplace. There is no requirement to include the name and address of a contact for further

information for workplace labels. Portable containers used to transfer a new chemical from a

labeled container for an employee’s immediate use need not be labeled. Existing labels on

incoming containers must not be removed or defaced unless they are immediately relabeled with

the required information.

In addition to the specific labeling requirements applied under TSCA Section 5(e), TSCA Section

5(f) allows EPA to apply Section 6's labeling provisions to new chemicals as well as existing ones.

Examples of TSCA Labels

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were regulated under TSCA in 1978. The labeling section of

this rule required one of two labels to be used, a “Large PCB Mark” or a “Small PCB Mark.” The

large label states:

“Caution: Contains PCBs, a toxic environmental contaminant requiring special handling and

disposal in accordance with US EPA regulations 40 CFR 761. For disposal information

contact the nearest EPA office. In case of accident or spill, call toll free the US Coast Guard

National Response Center.” The small label states, “Caution: Contains PCBs. For proper

disposal contact US EPA.”

The labeling of asbestos was required in 1989 as part of regulatory actions that included a ban on

“almost all products” containing asbestos. Consumer products containing asbestos include clutch

parts and brake shoes for cars and trucks, pipeline wrap and vinyl asbestos floor tile. The labeling

aspect of the rule is intended “to facilitate compliance with and enforcement of the rule.” The

required label stated:

“Notice: This product contains asbestos. The EPA has banned the distribution in US

commerce of this product under section 6 of TSCA (15 USC. 2605) as of [date, ranging from

August 1990 to August 1995]. Distribution of this product in commerce after this date and

intentionally removing or tampering with this label are violations of Federal law.” (54 FR 29460)
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-191

Hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals used in HVAC and refrigeration systems

were regulated under TSCA in 1990. (55 FR 221) The warning label reads: 

“Warning: This product contains hexavalent chromium. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium

air emissions increases the risk of lung cancer. Federal law prohibits use of this substance in

comfort cooling towers, which are towers that are open water recirculation devices and that

are dedicated exclusively to, and are an integral part of, heating, ventilation and air

conditioning or refrigeration systems.”

EPA has proposed a ban on acrylamide and N-methylolacrylamide (NMA) grouts, which are used

to make repairs to leaking cement structures such as sewers and manholes, but also to dams and

basins, and to stop water flow in mines, reservoirs and hazardous waste sites. The ban would

prohibit all use of acrylamide grout and would allow NMA to be used only for sewer repair for

three years, subsequently banning it. EPA proposed labeling of containers of such grout 15 days

after the effective date of the rule. “EPA believes there is a strong need for labeling to ensure

compliance with the prohibitions on the manufacture, importation, distribution and use of

acrylamide and NMA grouts. Labeling is a necessary mechanism to direct users toward

compliance with the prohibitions on uses of acrylamide and NMA grouts.” (56 FR 49871) 

No wording for the label warning has been suggested.

40 CFR §721 subpart E defines significant new uses for many specific chemicals. Manufacturers,

importers, or processors of these chemicals are required to notify EPA when they intend to engage

in a significant new use of the listed substance. Failure to comply with labeling requirements

specified in subpart E constitutes a significant new use. For 2-Chloro-N-methyl-N-substituted

acetamide, the first chemical listed in 40 CFR §721 subpart E, companies are required to label only

containers distributed in commerce. The following specific hazard and precautionary statements

are required for 2-Chloro-N-methyl-N-substituted acetamide: “This substance may cause internal

organ effects,” “When using this substance avoid skin contact,” and, “When using this substance

use skin protection.”

40 CFR §721 subpart E prescribes more extensive labeling provisions for halogenated phenyl

alkane. For this substance, companies are subject to all of the §721.72 requirements for

workplace labeling and for the labeling of containers distributed in commerce. In addition, labels

must be legible, prominently displayed, and in English. The information they contain may also be

repeated in other languages. Specific hazard and precautionary statements required for halogenated

phenyl alkane include: “This substance may cause cancer,” “When using this substance use

respiratory protection,” “When using this substance use skin protection,” “This substance may be

toxic to aquatic organisms,” and, “Notice to users: do not release to water,” Each of these

statements must be followed by “See MSDS for details.” 40 CFR §721 subpart E’s requirements

do not apply once halogenated phenyl alkane has been incorporated into a resin.

 
B-192 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

References

Axelrad, Dan, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Exposure, Economics and Technology

Division, Regulatory Impact Branch, US EPA, 1993. Personal communication with Abt

Associates, February 26.

US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, 1987. The Layman’s Guide to the Toxic Substances Control

Act, EPA 560/1-87-011, June.

US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, 1989. “Asbestos; Manufacture, Importation, Processing and

Distribution in Commerce Prohibitions,” Federal Register, 54 FR 29460, July 12.

US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, 1990. Prohibition of Hexavalent Chromium Chemicals in

Comfort Cooling Towers,” Federal Register, 55 FR 221, January 3.

US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, 1991. “Proposed Ban on Acrylamide and NMethylolacrylamide Grouts,” Federal Register, 56 FR 49863, October 2.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-193

VERMONT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS PRODUCT SHELF LABELING PROGRAM

Introduction

The Vermont Household Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling Program was implemented in April

1991 by the Solid Waste Division of the State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources (the

Agency). The mandatory shelf labeling program was established by a 1990 state law that required

all retailers stocking household products containing hazardous constituents to identify those

products via a shelf label. The program’s purpose is to promote toxic use reduction and pollution

prevention by educating consumers about the dangers of hazardous household products and

encouraging them to consider alternatives. Additionally, through customer education, the program

hopes to send a signal to manufacturers to produce less hazardous products by prompting

consumers to avoid purchasing hazardous products. Approximately 3,500 Vermont stores (e.g.,

grocery stores, hardware stores, house and garden stores, and convenience stores) are subject to the

law. Since 1995, however, some changes to the extent of labeling required by retailers have been

made.

Retailers were initially concerned that the program would result in a negative consumer perception

of their stores because they sell hazardous products. Instead, consumers have been quite

supportive of the participating stores, and have expressed their appreciation for the additional

product information. Retailers also worried about possible loss of sales of the labeled products. 

The state responded by modifying the program to label products deemed less toxic or nontoxic

with an “exempt” label, so that retailers could offer officially-sanctioned alternatives to the labeled

products. To qualify for an exempt label, a petition must be submitted to the Secretary of the

Agency of Natural Resources, and it must be shown that the product is free of certain ingredients

listed in the Vermont Community Right-to-Know list of hazardous chemicals.

Products covered by the program include those listed as household hazardous products in the

Vermont state statute, and generally fall into the following four categories: cleaning products, auto

and machine maintenance products, hobby and repair products, and outside use products (e.g.,

fertilizers, pesticides, butane or lighter fluid, etc.). Personal care products and food items are

excluded.

Recent Developments

Since 1995, there have been changes made to the program aimed at streamlining its

implementation. The biggest change to the program is that retailers are no longer required to label

the shelf space below every hazardous product. Instead, the Agency provides retailers with 3"x 6",

vinyl coated, yellow and black cards known as “shelf-talker” cards. Retailers are required to place

this card in areas that display a significant quantity of hazardous products.
B-194 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Additionally, as mentioned above, products considered less toxic or nontoxic were originally

labeled as “exempt” from the program. Since 1995, however, it is no longer required that retailers

label these products as such, though they are welcome to do so if they wish.

Program Summary

Vermont's program was established with input from the broad-based Governor's Technical

Advisory Committee on Solid Waste and other interested parties. The Technical Advisory

Committee included representatives from retailers as well as environmental organizations. The

program was implemented and is maintained by the Solid Waste Division of the Agency of Natural

Resources. The Commissioner of Agriculture has adopted the shelf labeling programs as its

companion program for pesticides and commercial fertilizers.

Categories of products requiring shelf labeling are those listed in the Vermont state statute. Many

of the products on this list also require labeling under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The

Vermont program requires that the Agency provide information pamphlets and guides to retailers

detailing which products meet the statutory determination of hazardous products under the labeling

program. Additionally, the Agency is required to provide retailers information, brochures, and

posters about the program for display on their premises and for their customers to use. However,

since 1995, it is no longer mandatory that retailers label individual products (although the Agency

reports that some retailers still do).

The program currently uses yellow and black shelf talker cards contain the signal words “Poison,”

“Danger,” “Warning,” “Caution,” and “no warning label,” in descending order. These signal

words closely follow those on product labels required by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). On the card, an arrow points

from “Poison,” indicating the most hazardous types of products, down to “no warning label,”

indicating that products with no warning labels on them are the least hazardous. A message to

consumers that says, “Read label warning words...Choose less hazardous products” is also

presented on the shelf talker card. The card prompts consumers to read these labels before

purchasing hazardous products. Prior to 1995, every household hazardous product listed by the

Vermont statute had to be labeled as such. Now, however, retailers are only required to place these

shelf-talker cards on shelves (or other display areas) when over 20 percent of the shelf or display

area contains hazardous products.

Retailers are provided with information about household hazardous products and alternatives, as

well as logistical information on how to label shelves in information pamphlets and double-sided

information cards. Also, during the first nine months of the program’s implementation, a full-time

“retailer educator” was hired to assist retailers in implementing the program.

In addition to the shelf talker cards, the Agency has developed informational posters to be

displayed close to shelves where hazardous products are sold and brochures that contain 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-195

background information on products, potential hazards, safe disposal, and use of alternative

nontoxic products.

Program Methodology

As a mandatory program, the Vermont Household Hazardous Products Shelf Labeling Program

requires retailers to label the shelf space below hazardous product displays, when these products

occupy more than 20 percent of the display area. Products covered by the program include those

listed as household hazardous products in the Vermont state statute.

References

Miller, John, State of Vermont, Waste Prevention Section, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,

1997. Personal communication with Abt Associates.

Vermont, State of, 1992. The Vermont Household Hazardous Products Shelf Labeling Program -

Retailer Information Guide.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling: What retailers need to

know, information pamphlet.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1996, Report to the General Assembly on Streamlining

Household Hazardous Product Shelf Labeling.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Shelf-Talker Label.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1995, Household Hazardous Products...deserve your

attention, information brochure.

Product Categories

Auto Maintenance

Motor oil

Transmission fluid and additives

Engine lubricants

Antifreeze

Windshield wiper solution

Lead-acid batteries

Engine cleaners and solvents

Gas treatments

Gas line freeze-up products

Car waxes
B-196 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Hobby and Repair Products

Paint (brush, spray, and aerosol)

Lacquers and thinners

Alcohol (not for human consumption)

Cresol, naphtha

Mineral spirts

Turpentine

Wood preservatives

Glues and adhesives

Photographic chemicals

Outside Use Products

Fertilizers

Pesticides

Pool chemicals

Self-lighting charcoal

Charcoal lighter fluid

Butane lighters

Cleaning Products

Furniture polishes and stains

Floor waxes

Car waxes

Spray dust cleaners

Drain cleaners

Toilet bowl cleaners

Oven cleaners

Spot and stain removers (petroleum based)

All aerosols

Shoe polish
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-197

WATER ALLIANCES FOR VOLUNTARY EFFICIENCY (WAVE)

Introduction

The Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE) program was established by EPA's Office

of Water in December 1992, following the success of other EPA voluntary programs such as Green

Lights. WAVE's mission is to "encourage commercial businesses and institutions to reduce water

consumption while increasing efficiency, profitability, and competitiveness." WAVE encourages

water use efficiency by providing education on water conservation along with marketing support

and use of the WAVE logo. The program currently targets the lodging industry, whose widespread

public exposure provides an effective medium for educating the public on water conservation

issues. WAVE expects to expand its focus by early 1998 to include office buildings, schools, and

universities. 

Program Summary

WAVE is funded and administered by EPA's Office of Water and provides its membership services

free of charge. WAVE membership is divided into three categories: Partners, Supporters, and

Endorsers. Any US commercial business interested in water conservation is eligible to become a

WAVE Partner, although, as mentioned above, the program currently targets the lodging industry. 

Water service companies, equipment suppliers and manufacturers, government agencies, and utility

companies are eligible to become WAVE Supporters. Finally, environmental groups and trade

associations are eligible to become WAVE Endorsers.

WAVE Partners are primarily targeted to increase their water use efficiency. The WAVE

Partnership consists of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and the

participating lodging establishment. The MOU commits the business to water efficiency practices

in exchange for technical assistance, publicity, and use of the EPA and WAVE logo. There are

currently 750 hotels, owned by 33 companies, participating in WAVE. 

Specifically, the MOU requires that WAVE Partners appoint a WAVE Implementation Manager

for their hotel or chain. They must survey their current water use devices and practices, and

implement more efficient water use techniques. Partners, however, are not expected to undertake

activities that will have an unreasonable impact on profitability. In addition, Partners agree to

upgrade water devices to achieve 90 percent of projected water use reductions within five years of

enrollment, and to use water-efficient devices in any new construction projects. To assist with

these activities, WAVE provides member hotels with WAVE Saver, a software package that

allows Partners to track water use, evaluate efficiency options, and choose the most economical

alternatives for water use efficiency at their hotel. WAVE Saver allows hotels to enter their own

property data (e.g., the number of rooms, size of the facility, etc.) to calculate the unit cost of water

usage, then estimates annual water costs based on historical occupancy patterns. These data are

used to highlight water-efficiency options and analyze the benefits of water-efficient equipment 
B-198 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

upgrades. Program data and any progress toward water use efficiency must be reported to the

EPA. 

WAVE claims that instituting more efficient water use practices can reduce hotel water use by up

to 30 percent. To accomplish such reductions, WAVE often examines plumbing fixtures, cooling

systems, kitchens, laundries and landscaping. The WAVE Saver program allows hotels to

customize water conservation measures to the unique nature of each property, location, and

clientele. EPA also provides technical support through training, workshops, and a nationwide

member help-line. By giving hotels the ability to identify for themselves the best water-efficiency

options, WAVE encourages creativity and independent decision-making in water conservation.

In order to fulfill the educational component of the program's motivations, Partners must educate

both customers and employees about the benefits of water use efficiency. A designated WAVE

Partner liaison at EPA supplies WAVE outreach materials for this purpose. WAVE promotes

Partners through public service magazine advertisements commending Partners' commitment to

water conservation. WAVE gives Partners the right to use EPA and WAVE logos on stationary,

advertisements, and displays. While the MOU sets limitations on the use of these logos, however,

there is no formal mechanism for ensuring compliance with all of the conditions agreed to in the

MOU, 

Both hotel chains and individual franchises are eligible for WAVE Partnership, although, as

mentioned above, the program plans to expand its focus in the near future. Because the WAVE

Saver software is more suitable to larger hotels (more than 100 rooms), most of the current

membership consists of larger hotel chains; however, some small, individual hotels have become

WAVE Partners as well. 

WAVE Supporters consist of resource-conscious organizations that can help commercial

businesses become more efficient, such as water service companies, equipment suppliers or

manufacturers, government agencies, and water and wastewater utilities. Supporters promote

water efficiency especially within industry, help to publicize WAVE, recruit Partners, and work

with EPA to improve the market infrastructure for water-efficient equipment. EPA works with

Supporters by providing WAVE outreach and training materials and by establishing an

information-sharing network for Supporters. WAVE Supporters also receive the WAVE Saver

computer program to help them survey and upgrade their water use facilities, and may use the

WAVE logo in promotional materials. 

WAVE Endorsers are organizations like Green Seal and the American Hotel & Motel Association,

that simply support the WAVE concept and pledge to help EPA promote water conservation

practices. These organizations may also use the WAVE logo in promotional materials. 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-199

Program Methodology

The WAVE program bases the selection of its product categories on environmental impacts. 

Currently working with the hospitality industry, WAVE targets commercial businesses and

institutions whose widespread public exposure provides an effective medium for educating the

public on water conservation issues. WAVE membership is open to all interested hotels and

includes automatic program certification. Members must abide by the terms of the MOU signed by

WAVE and the member institution, which requires that members consider their recycling, reuse,

maintenance, and product use patterns. WAVE reviews information from other environmental

programs and member businesses, as well as relevant literature, in targeting business sectors and

setting the standards for its MOUs. 

References

Auer, Joy. "Cutting Back on Profit Leaks." Lodging May 1995.

EPA Office of Water. Introducing WAVE- Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency. September

1994.

Flowers, John. WAVE Program Director, US EPA. Personal communication with Abt Associates,

Summer 1997.

Martin, Valerie. WAVE Program, US EPA. Personal communication with Abt Associates,

Summer 1997.

Product Categories

Lodging establishments

Water-service companies

Water or wastewater utilities

Energy utilities

Equipment manufacturers or suppliers

Consulting firms

State governments

Municipalities

Hotel franchisers

Environmental groups

Trade associations

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-201

BUYING GUIDES

Greening the Government: A Guide to Implementing Executive Order 12873

Greening the Government was issued in the summer of 1997 to “familiarize Federal agencies with

Executive Order 12873 and help them understand its intent.” It includes guidance on the

prevention of waste, recycling of materials and acquisition of goods manufactured from collected

materials. Although the guide is not a buying guide per se, it does provide basic information for

government procurement of recycled products. 

The guide contains a summary of the Executive Order including: standards, specifications, and

designation of items; agency goals and reporting requirements; applicability and other

requirements; and awareness. The guide also describes the regulations or recommendations for

green standards in procurement. For example, it outlines the recommended recovered material

content for many items to be used in green procurement such as paper, carpet, etc. The guide

provides case studies of the actions that have been taken by various agencies to promote the

purchase of recycled content. Finally, the guide provides a listing of resources with product

information, including several buying guides listing environmentally preferable products. 

References

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Greening the Government: A Guide to

Implementing Executive Order 12873. Summer 1997.

The Green Pages

The Green Pages is a directory of 2,500 US suppliers of environmental products and services. 

Since 1993, it has ben published annually by the US Department of Commerce. In addition to

being distributed to foreign countries, it is supported by the United States-Asia Environmental

Partnership (US-AEP). US-AEP facilitates relationships between Asia and the environmental

resources of the US, using The Green Pages as one of its primary tools. 

All US companies are listed free of charge in The Green Pages if they are registered in the US

Department of Commerce Office of Export Trading Company Affairs’ Contact Facilitation

Database. This database contains any company that exports and registers itself in the database. 

Companies can also pay for advertising space in the directory, and the publishers of the directory

also actively recruit companies to advertise in the pages. There is no methodology in place for

ensuring that companies listed in the directory in fact abide by their claims regarding their products

and services. The US Department of Commerce states that it “is unable to verify the qualifications

and continued interest of any of the companies requesting to be included in this directory and

accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained therein.” In addition, the

department does not endorse any of the products and services listed or advertised in the directory.
B-202 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

References

US Department of Commerce. The Green Pages. US West Dex, Inc. 1997.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-203

US EPA NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

Introduction

The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards (NVOCES) for Architectural

Coatings regulates the content of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in architectural coatings sold

or distributed in the United States. Architectural coatings are defined as coatings that are

recommended for field application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to portable

buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. VOC emissions have the potential to cause or contribute to

ground-level ozone, elevating it to levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). Ground-level ozone is a major component of “smog” and is associated with a wide

variety of human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems. The

EPA determined that architectural coatings account for about nine percent of VOC emissions from

all consumer and commercial products. In many states, architectural coatings represent one of the

largest identifiable sources of unregulated VOC emissions. The NVOCES standards regulate VOC

content in architectural coatings in order to reduce overall VOC emissions and comply with 

NAAQS. 

The standards arose from and are part of the Clean Air Act, section 183 (e). In September 1998,

the EPA issued a final ruling on VOC standards for architectural coatings (CFR, September 11,

1998, Volume 63, Number 176), outlined below. Among other requirements, the ruling mandates

labeling specifications for architectural coatings produced after September 13, 1999.

Program Summary

For the purposes of this regulatory program, architectural coatings are divided into over 50 subcategories. Each sub-category has its own VOC content limit. The VOC content of an

architectural coating must be within this EPA set limit. Domestic manufacturers and importers of

foreign products for distribution in the US whose products do not meet the set standard may

comply with the ruling by paying an exceedance fee. A tonnage exemption allows manufacturers

who sell or distribute quantities of architectural coatings that do not comply with VOC content

limits to comply if they produce less than a specified amount per year. 

The labeling program is a combination of neutral labeling and negative labeling. It is neutral

because it mandates the reporting of product ingredients. It can also be considered negative

labeling because warning statements regarding ingredient impacts on home, health, and

environment are required for some coating categories.

The labeling component of the regulation specifies that all architectural coatings produced after

September 13, 1999, must indicate of the following information on the product label or lid of the

container:
B-204 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

A) The date of manufacture or a code indicating this date (this can also be displayed on the 

bottom of the container);

B) A statement of the manufacturer’s recommendation regarding thinning of the coating

(this does not apply to thinning with water); 

C) Either the VOC content of the coating, displayed in units of grams of VOC per liter of 

 coating; or the VOC content limit (as specified by the standards) with which the coating is 

required to comply and does comply, displayed in units of grams of VOC per liter of coating. 

(Any coating that does not comply with VOC content limits, such ones for which the 

exceedance fee or tonnage exemption provision is being used, must be labeled with its VOC 

content.)

Architectural coatings used for industrial maintenance must also be labeled with one of the

following phrases indicating that the coating is not intended for general consumer use:

A) “For industrial use only.”

B) “For professional use only.”

C) “Not for residential use,” or, “Not intended for residential use.”

D) “This coating is intended for use under the following conditions:” (Each of the following 

 conditions that applies to the coating must be included).

1) Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous and

nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to moisture condensation;

2) Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to 

chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or solutions;

3) Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 deg. C (250 deg.F); 

4) Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and 

repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleaners or scouring agents; or

5) Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural components.

For recycled coating, manufacturers and importers must include the following statement indicating

the post-consumer coating content on the label or lid of the container: “CONTAINS NOT LESS

THAN X PERCENT BY VOLUME POST-CONSUMER COATING,” where “X” is replaced by

the percent by volume of post-consumer architectural coating.

In addition to labeling, compliance is enforced through mandatory recordkeeping and reporting of

VOC content information. All manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings must report

the VOC content of their products. Manufacturers who produce recycled architectural coatings, or

who use the exceedance fee or the tonnage exemption provision to comply with the regulations,

must keep records on the VOC content of their products.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-205

Program Methodology

Mandatory labeling changes are used to target a problem (ground-level ozone), by focusing on one

of the major pollutants (VOCs) that contributes to the problem. The VOC content limits were

determined using information gathered during an initial EPA process of regulated negotiation

(which began in 1992 and concluded without consensus), along with other information.

Specifically, the EPA took into consideration data from a 1990 industry study on the volume, VOC

content, and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content of architectural coatings.

The EPA expects that the VOC content of architectural coatings limits will encourage the

reformulation of products with lower VOC content. Additionally, labeling requirements that

mandate indicating VOC content on the product label will provide consumers with a method of

readily identifying products with lower VOC content.

References 

US Federal Register: September 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 176).

Product Categories

Architectural Coatings

Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-207

PROGRAMS UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Brazilian Association For Standardization’s “ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental”

Introduction

The Brazilian Association for Standardization (ABNT) is in the experimental stage of an

environmental certification program called “ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental” (Environmental

Quality). The program was developed after research was conducted into the experiences of

environmental labeling programs worldwide. The results of the study formed the conceptual

framework of the Brazilian environmental label. ABNT reports that the program is structured

according to ISO draft Standard 14020, “Environmental Labels and Declarations - General

Principals,” and ISO draft Standard 14024, “Guiding Principles and Procedures for Type I

Environmental Labeling.” Initiated in 1993, the program is positive, voluntary, and based on

multiple criteria. ABNT is a private, non-profit organization, created in 1940 to develop national

government recognized standards. The mission of Qualidade Ambiental, the environmental

labeling program within ABNT, is to “promote the reduction of environmental burdens and

negative impacts related to products or services,” by increasing the awareness of manufacturers,

consumers, and public organizations regarding the “advantages of adopting products less harmful

to the environment.” Through its environmental certification program, ABNT hopes to: certify

products in the market that demonstrate environmental quality, promote the supply of such

products for consumer use, expand the program into other sectors, become well known in Brazil

and internationally, and reach financial sustainability. The program is currently working on

developing standards in two categories, leather and footwear products and forest products. The

program is not yet active, however, and no products have been certified.

Program Summary 

Three main groups are involved in the environmental certification process. The Certification

Commission is responsible for proposing program policies, and supervises the implementation of

these policies and the certification process. The Commission is appointed by the ABNT Governing

Board. The membership is meant to provide a balance of interests, where no single interest

dominates. It is composed of stakeholders such as representatives from government agencies,

industry organizations, scientific and technological institutions, environmental organizations, and

consumers. The Certification Commission creates a Technical Committee for Certification for

each product category. Representation on the Technical Committee is similar to the Certification

Commission, but has a more technical focus. The Committee is responsible for developing the

product criteria. Finally, the Certification Department of ABNT is responsible for the operational

procedures of product evaluation and certification. The Certification Department is made up of

ABNT staff. ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental currently has two product categories. The Technical

Committee for Leather and Footwear Products is analyzing the environmental aspects of the
B-208 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

leather and footwear products’ life cycle. The Technical Committee for Forest Products is

establishing criteria for wood products.

To select the initial product categories for possible standard development, ABNT worked with

stakeholders and identified ten product categories. The initial two product categories were chosen

when the two industries expressed interest in the environmental labeling program. The forestry

industry came to ABNT in 1996 with the idea of developing a product category for forest

certification. Forest certification is designed to cover planted and natural forests, and is based on

five principles: care for biodiversity; sustainablity of forest resources and their rational use in the

short and long term; care for water, soil, and air; environmental, economic, and social development

of areas with forest activity; and compliance with government legislation. 

To develop product criteria, the individual Technical Committee follows several steps. First the

Technical Committees conduct an inventory and develop an “environmental matrix.” The matrix

relates the productive processes of each material in the product to its environmental impacts on air,

water, soil, and noise, as well as with the use of energy and natural resources. The Technical

Committee then conducts an Environmental Impact Evaluation by identifying, characterizing, and

evaluating the environmental impact of these inputs and outputs. Each impact is classified as

being “substantial,” “reasonable,” “not substantial,” or “unknown.” Criteria are set by determining

the most relevant of these impacts, establishing “threshold values,” and using these values as the

basis for developing criteria. The criteria development process may also consider industrial

performance, trends in improvement, available technology, and economic feasibility. 

The draft criteria are submitted for public review, and the final criteria are established following a

“consensus process.” The ABNT Certification Commission makes the final decision to adopt the

criteria and certification procedures once they have been accepted by involved and interested

parties. The Technical Committee defines how long the criteria will be valid and when revisions

will be carried out. ABNT usually re-evaluates awards every three years. Although no revisions

have occurred to date, ABNT expects revisions to reflect changes in scientific knowledge, new

industrial practices, and consumer expectations.

Companies submit applications for product evaluation directly to ABNT. The Certification

Department carries out audits and tests to determine whether the company and its product comply

with the established criteria. The Technical Committees review the test results, inspections, and

audit reports, and makes a proposal to the Certification Commission when they believe a product

should be granted the Qualidade Ambiental label. 

Fees for the two product categories are determined by the Technical Committees. Funding of the

environmental certification program comes from two sources. Salaries of program staff are funded

by the National Council of Scientific and Technology Development. ABNT funds other program

expenses. 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-209

Program Methodology

ABNT reports that the program conforms to the draft standards for ISO draft Standards 14020 and

14024. The product categories are selected when industry groups come forward voluntarily. When

developing criteria, ABNT collects information from literature, other programs, independent

testing, and participating producers. The ABNT methodology is based on Life Cycle Analysis

(LCA), and considers the following elements: extracting and processing raw materials,

manufacturing, transportation and distribution, product uses, reuse, maintenance, recycling, final

disposal, ingredient or materials restrictions, and environmental performance of the production

process. Proposed criteria are not peer reviewed, but are stakeholder reviewed. ABNT conducts

an environmental evaluation, but not an impact assessment.

Other Information

ABNT staff are involved in the development of ISO draft standards. As the ISO standards develop

and change, those of ABNT Qualidade Ambiental are expected to accommodate these changes. 

ABNT has been a member of GEN since 1996, and ABNT’s Technical Director was on GEN’s

Executive Committee until October 1997. ABNT is beginning to conduct harmonization activities

with Spain’s AENOR program. 

Another mission of ABNT is to promote the adoption of non-environmental product standards in

Brazil. ABNT is accredited as a Registration Body to certify according to ISO 9000 standards. 

Standardization work is conducted by committees made up of representatives from various groups,

and the committees attempt to harmonize the various interests and develop standards through

consensus. Other product certification programs include: fire extinguisher maintenance, fire doors,

sprinklers, civil construction products, cement, liquefied petroleum gas containers, and hotel

classification.

References

Associação Brasileira de Normas Téchnicas. ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental. Summer 1997.

Associação Brasileira de Normas Téchnicas. General Information. Fall 1997.

Cabral, Frederico José Marques. ABNT - Qualidade Ambiental. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Fall 1997. 

Product Categories

Criteria Under Development

Leather and footwear products

Forest products
B-210 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Categories Under Consideration

Paper

Electrical house appliances

Cosmetics

CFC-free aerosols

Automobile batteries

Detergents

Lamp bulbs

Dyes

Varnishes

Small Spark-Ignited Engine Environmental Labeling Program

The US Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of developing an environmental

labeling program for hand-held combustion engines used in lawn and garden equipment. The

program will be part of national air emission regulations that limit the emissions of hydrocarbons

(HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that small spark-ignited engines may emit. EPA is currently

proposing Phase II levels of HC+NOx as part of the regulation, which will reduce emissions by

approximately 40 percent from the Phase I levels. Manufacturers representing over 90 percent of

the small, hand-held engine industry have agreed to participate in the development of a voluntary

environmental labeling program that will award labels to engines that emit a certain percentage

below Phase II levels. The EPA is soliciting comment on the development of this program, and

plans to release a proposal by early 1998.

References

McCabe, Betsy, US EPA. Personal communication with Abt Associates. Summer 1997.

MISSTAP News, Vol. 4, No. 6, June 1997.

Electric Utility

The Electric Utility program is a pilot program to provide environmental performance information

to consumers regarding various electricity providers. As the government deregulates the electric

industry, these labels will provide consumers with environmental information about competing

electric companies. The three groups involved in developing this program are: the Regulatory

Assistance Project (an NGO), the Federal Drug Administration (providing guidance based on its

experience with the nutrition label), and the Department of Energy. 

Pilot programs have been initiated in several states in which deregulation of the electric industry is

occurring. These pilot programs are examining how consumers would like the program to be 
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-211

organized and what kinds of environmental performance information they would like to use as they

choose their electricity provider. Depending on the information gathered by the pilot project, the

program could take the form of a multi attribute, positive, seal-of-approval, or a neutral report card,

such as the nutrition label, which discloses facts and lets consumers make judgments. Evidence

from pilot studies already completed suggests that the latter is preferred by consumers, though no

formal decision has been made to propose a particular type of positive or neutral label. 

Additionally, no decision has been made as to whether the program will be administered by an

NGO or the government.

References

Tiesel, Mario. Federal Drug Administration. Personal communication with Abt Associates. 

Summer 1997.

Indonesian Environmental Labeling

Introduction

Indonesian environmental labeling has been spurred by demand in the export market, where

environmental issues have become increasingly important. For example, with forest products,

Indonesia's second largest export industry, there has been a growing movement to buy sustainably

forested products, and the accompanying call for sustainable forestry certification programs. 

Indonesian environmental labeling, however, is still in the developmental stages. Thus far, it is

still unclear which of three possible groups-- the Ministry of Trade, the Indonesian Ecolabeling

Institute, and BAPEDAL-- will be given responsibility to implement a national labeling program. 

A proposal for the breakdown of responsibility among the groups has been tentatively accepted by

all three parties. Under this proposal, the Ministry of Trade would be responsible for the labeling

of export products, while the Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute would be responsible for forestry

products, and BAPEDAL would be in charge of labeling other export and domestic products. It is

clear that each group wishes to be given the primary responsibility for administering an

environmental labeling program. 

Ministry of Trade

The Ministry of Trade, concerned about potential losses in the Indonesian export market due to

international concern about the environment, has sought to develop a national environmental

labeling program. Thus far, it has concentrated its efforts on the textile and garment industry.
B-212 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute

Although the Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute has yet to be formally established, its precursor, the

Indonesian Ecolabling Working Group, was founded in 1994 with three objectives: first, to

establish a set of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management; second, to set up a

timber certification program; and third, to design an institutional arrangement for the formal

establishment of the Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute. The working group consists of

representatives of academic and nongovernmental organizations, and is chaired by the former

Minister of Environment. The working group has drafted criteria through consultation with the

public and with several national and international wood product and environmental organizations

including the Forestry Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance, ISO TC 207, and the

International Tropical Timber Organization. The draft criteria are directed at securing

sustainability of forest productivity as well as its ecological, social, and cultural functions. The

working group has also drafted plans for a certification system for sustainable natural forest

management. A pilot project is planned in the near future. The working group is also preparing

manuals and training materials to be used in the implementation of their certification program. 

BAPEDAL

A government agency, BAPEDAL, is responsible for national environmental protection and has

also undertaken the development of a national environmental labeling scheme. Although it is still

in the developmental stages, the program has established the following three goals: the

improvement of environmental quality through the introduction of environmentally preferable

products; community education on environmental issues; and encouraging manufacturers to apply

for their label and consumers to consider it in their purchasing decisions. The proposed

certification process examines the provision and utilization of raw materials, production processes,

and waste generation. Thus far, BAPEDAL has studied several foreign environmental labeling

programs, held seminars and workshops to disseminate information on environmental labeling, and

drafted criteria for several products including pulp and paper, textiles, and leather products. 

References

Bratasida, Liana. Director for Technical Development, BAPEDAL. Personal communication with

Abt Associates. Fall 1997.

Djalims, Upik. Indonesian Ecolabeling Working Group. Personal communication with Abt

Associates. Summer 1997. 

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.
Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report B-213

Germany’s Type III Eco-report Card

Germany is in the preliminary stages of developing an environmental “report card.” Research has

begun on the feasibility and practicality of Type III environmental labeling for Germany. The

initial research and development activities are a joint effort between the Federal Environment

Agency (Umweltbundesamt) and various manufacturers in Germany. This research includes

documentation of practiced labeling programs related to Type III labeling as discussed in the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC 207/SC3/WG1. Also, investigations are

underway to determine if it will be possible to incorporate existing private labeling programs with

a national Type III ecolabel. Additionally, as part of the program’s development, a questionnaire

and workshops with representatives of German industrial branches will be conducted to investigate

three characteristics of Type III labeling: target groups for the label and the influence of these

groups on the format of the label, organization of an administration that will supply third party

validation for the label, and development of Life Cycle Analysis methodology. 

References

Eva Schmincke, Biologist, Office for Ecological Studies, Germany. Personal communication with

Abt Associates Inc., July - October, 1997.

Hong Kong Ecolabeling Scheme

Hong Kong does not currently have an environmental labeling program. A study was conducted

(1994 - 1996) by the Institute of Environmental Studies at the Hong Kong University of Science

and Technology (HKUST), to determine the suitability of an ecolabeling program for Hong Kong. 

The study examined several well-established ecolabeling programs in Europe, the United States,

and Asia to see how their programs were established and to investigate their success. The research

team also conducted meetings with industry, consumer organizations, and government

representatives to obtain their opinions on establishing an ecolabeling program for Hong Kong.

The study concluded that environmental labeling programs may be established for two primary

reasons -- to 1) improve environmental quality and protection through market forces, and 2) assist

industries exporting to markets where environmental labeled products are available. It was

determined that because Hong Kong is a major exporter, there are several product categories that

may be suitable for a Hong Kong ecolabel. The report illustrated a number of such products

including: clothing, textiles, electronics, chemicals, plastic products, plastic packaging, metal

products, and industrial machinery.

The HKUST research team conducted discussion forums to determine industry’s, consumers’ and

government’s opinions on the potential establishment of an ecolabel for Hong Kong. Most of the

groups thought that Hong Kong should follow a “wait and see” option. That is, having been 
B-214 Appendix B: Summaries of Environmental Labeling Programs Covered in This Report

informed of other worldwide ecolabeling programs, Hong Kong should be an observer at

ecolabeling meetings (UNCTAD, GEN, OECD, ISO) before deciding to initiate its own program. 

Another option discussed was for the textile industries to cooperate with one or more of already

established, private, textile ecolabels in Europe, two of which have a branch office in Hong Kong. 

The third option discussed was a “franchise scheme” where Hong Kong industries could work with

agents, set up in important export countries, to assist them in obtaining that country’s ecolabel. A

fourth option is for Hong Kong to join China’s ecolabeling scheme, provided China’s label gains

worldwide recognition.

Costs for establishing an ecolabeling scheme for Hong Kong were determined. Meetings have

taken place between Hong Kong’s Industry Department and several industries for an exploration of

views. To date, the “wait and see” option is being pursued.

References

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19, Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June, 1996.
Select Bibliography on Environmental Labeling

Bibliography Bibliography-1

Select Bibliography on Environmental Labeling

Global Ecolabeling Network, GENews, March 1997, Issue No. 2.

Heinke, Gary W. et al., Final Report: Development of an Eco-label Certification Programme for

Hong Kong/ RC96-19. Hong Kong: Research Centre of the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, June 1996.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Case Study on Eco-Labelling

Schemes. Paris. 30 December 1997.

European Communities, Commission of the, Eco-label Revision; COM (96) 603 final;

SUMMARY. Date Unknown.

Lee, James Dr., et. al., Trade Related Environmental Measures: Sizing and Comparing Impacts. 

April 1996. Taken from World Wide Web site:

http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/GETSPAPI.HTM.

Polak, John and Bergholm, Kari, Eco-Labelling and Trade: A Cooperative Approach. January

1997.

United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), International Trade Division,

Trade and Environment Section. Eco-labelling and International Trade: Preliminary Information

from Seven Systems (Draft), Geneva, Switzerland, May 19. 1993.

Business and the Environment (BATE), volume 9, no. 6, June 1998.

Draft International ISO Standards, ISO/DIS 14020:1997 (E), 1997.

United States, Congress of the, Office of Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment:

Conflicts and Opportunities (Background Paper), OTA-BP-ITE-94. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, May 1992.

Dawkins, Kristin, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Eco-Labelling: Consumers’s Rightto-Know or Restrictive Business Practice? Minneapolis, Minnesota. January 1996.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Status Report on the Use of Environmental

Labels Worldwide (EPA Document #742-R-9-93-001). September 1993.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in

Environmental Labeling (EPA Document #742-R-93-003). September 1993.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental

Certification and Labeling Programs (EPA Document #742-R-94-001). April 1994.