The Environmentalist 17, 125±133 (1997)

Eco-labelling: success or failure?

CAMILLA C. ERSKINE* AND LYNDHURST COLLINS
Department of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street,
Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK

Summary
Eco-labelling was identi®ed in Agenda 21 as a way of encouraging consumers to alter their
consumption patterns and to make wiser use of resources and energy in the drive for
sustainable development into the next century. A European-wide eco-labelling scheme
was introduced by the European Commission (EC) in 1992 as part of its ®fth and most
recent Environmental Action Plan, the focus of which is also sustainability. The EC eco-
labelling scheme aims to promote products with reduced environmental impacts
throughout their life cycle and to provide consumers with better information about the
environmental impact of products. This paper assesses whether eco-labelling is an
effective means of improving the environment, using the eco-labelling of paper products
as a case study. Paper products are examined because the development of their
ecolabelling criteria has been a particularly complex and contentious issue. Moreover,
although criteria have now been adopted for three groups of paper products, controversy
has dominated the criteria-setting process and debate continues about the relevance of
the selected criteria. It is concluded that while the concept of eco-labelling is good, the
practical application of the concept is not straightforward. Furthermore, at present, there
is little evidence of eco-labelling bene®tting the environment.

Introduction processes with reduced environmental impacts.

Similarly, Redclift (1995) argued that economic
Eco-labelling has been heralded as a means of
policy instruments (e.g. market-based tools) should
improving the environment. The European
encourage the sustainable use of resources
Commission (EC), for example, introduced eco-
through the internalization of external costs.
labelling as one of a new range of policy
Furthermore, he suggested that increased public
instruments in its ®fth Environmental Action Plan
participation combined with the communication
(EAP) which was designed to broaden the
of information about environmental problems is
framework of European environmental policy by
crucial in the pursuit of sustainability. In other
involving the general public. In this context eco-
words, there is a role for eco-labelling in achieving
labelling has been viewed as a good example of
sustainability.
`upbeat environmental activity' (Potter, 1994).
Eco-labelling was prompted in part by the
Eco-labelling is in part a market-based instrument
generally poor performance of industry in
and Hillary (1995) considered that the adoption of
providing enough information concerning the
such instruments is the most innovative devel-
environmental credentials of products. Several
opment in EC environmental policy because
studies show that most consumers distrust en-
market instruments attempt to internalize external
vironmental claims made by manufacturers and
costs by raising the awareness of consumers and
retailers and that they are confused by the wide
producers of the need to use natural resources in a
range of claims in the market-place (Cope and
responsible way and of the importance of min-
Winward, 1991; MacKenzie, 1991; Eden 1994; The
imizing and avoiding pollution and waste. Such
Ends Report, 1994b, c; Paper Europe 1995).
instruments should reward those products and
Widespread lack of con®dence in environmental
information has encouraged several authors to
make a plea for third-party labelling schemes
(Verlander, 1990; MacKenzie, 1991; Baker and
*Camilla C. Erskine, BSc, MPhil, is a research fellow and Miner, 1993; Friends of the Earth, 1993; Eden,
Dr Lyn Collins a senior lecturer in the Department of Geography 1994; Wood, 1994); such schemes already exist in a
at the University of Edinburgh. Camilla Erskine has moved to 37
Rowan Hse, The Beeches, Woodhead Drive, Cambridge CB4 number of developed countries, for example
IFY. Canada, Germany and Japan (United States

0251-1088 Ó 1997 Chapman & Hall 125

Erskine and Collins
Environmental Protection Agency, 1993; Collins,
1995). Regional and international schemes are
also emerging, for instance in Scandinavia and the
European Union (EU) and the International
Standardisation Organisation (ISO) is currently
developing international standards for eco-label-
ling (Tietje, 1995). Increasingly eco-labelling
schemes are being established in developing
countries as well (e.g. India's EcoMark) where
greater emphasis is now placed on market
incentives as a means of protecting the environ-
ment (Arvind and Muley, 1995). It is apposite at
this stage, therefore, to consider whether or not
eco-labelling is an e€ective means of improving
the environment and it is the aim of this paper to
examine the background of eco-labelling, the
conceptual and technical arguments for its intro-
duction and the range of diculties encountered
in the application of eco-labelling in the EU.
Background to eco-labelling
Integrating environmental protection with
sustainable development on a global scale was the
theme of the United Nations (UN) `Earth
Summit' conference in 1992. Agenda 21 is widely
regarded as one of the key achievements of this
conference since it sets out detailed guidelines for
future national and international action
concerning the impact of human activities on the
environment. Unsustainable patterns of produc-
tion and consumption are identi®ed as requiring
further attention because existing patterns are
considered a major cause of environmental
degradation, particularly in industrialized nations.
Agenda 21 recommends that national policies are
developed to reduce unsustainable consumption
and to promote ecient production processes.
Environmental labelling is one of the measures
proposed to achieve these goals because it is
thought to have the potential to harness both
consumer awareness about the environment and
the growing interest, within some sectors of
industry, in producing environmentally sound
products. Environmental labelling programmes
should help consumers to make informed choices
about the products that they buy and to inform
them of the environmental impact of those
products (Johnson, 1993; United Nations Confer-
ence on Environment and Development, 1993).
Eco-labelling, therefore, has an important role to
play in the education process for improving
environmental protection. Agenda 21 recommends
that criteria and methodologies are developed
which examine the entire life cycle of products
and processes and that the results of these
assessments should be converted into clear indica-
tors to inform consumers and decision makers.
Such environmental labelling programmes are
intended to be third party, government-run
schemes and to operate in cooperation with
industry and other relevant groups. This
126
re-emphasizes the `bottom up' approach of
Agenda 21 where all levels of society, not just
governments, are involved in decision making for
the environment.
`Towards Sustainability' the EC's ®fth EAP
aims to promote sustainable development, but it
recognizes that the pursuit of sustainability is of
necessity a long-term process. Three key areas are
identi®ed as the focus of practical measures for
achieving sustainable development between 1993
and 2000.
(i) Supplies of raw materials are limited; such
resources should thus be managed to maximize
their reuse and recycling.
(ii) The production and use of energy should be
rationalized.
(iii) Society's patterns of consumption and be-
haviour need to be changed (Commission of the
European Communities, 1993a).
A key feature of the ®fth EAP is the new approach
to the reduction of environmental degradation.
Traditionally, the EC, like most governments,
relied on legislation for the control of envi-
ronmental pollution, but the ®fth EAP recognizes
that additional measures such as market mecha-
nisms are required to tackle the source of
environmental problems, speci®cally human
activity in relation to the environment and the use
of natural resources. Consequently the EC advo-
cates a spirit of shared responsibility for the
environment, involving all sectors of society,
including governments, industry and individuals
(Scholl, 1994).
The EC eco-labelling scheme
Eco-labelling was introduced as an EC regulation
in 1992 and the scheme aims to both promote
products with reduced environmental impacts
during their entire life cycle and to provide better
information to the consumer on the environ-
mental impacts of products (European Economic
Communities, 1992). It also attempts to address
the three key areas identi®ed above, namely
resource management, energy production and use
and society's consumption and behaviour
patterns. The scheme is voluntary and indepen-
dently approved, with an award being made to
those products which incur the lowest environ-
mental impact within any particular product
group, for example paints. To date, criteria have
been adopted for 12 product groups (Table 1)
including various paper products, but only
approximately 30 eco-labels have been awarded in
total (Commission of the European Communities,
1994a; The Ends Report, 1996a, b, d, e, 1997; UK
Ecolabelling Board, 1996, 1997). Life cycle
assessment (LCA) is used as the methodology to
identify the stages at which a product has the
greatest impact on the environment. Once
these stages are identi®ed ecological criteria are
The Environmentalist
 Eco-labelling: success or failure

Table 1. Product groups and lead countries as at August
1996. After UK Ecolabelling Board (1996).
Product Group Lead country
Toilet paper Denmark
Kitchen roll Denmark
Textiles Denmark
Copying paper Denmark
Indoor paints and varnishes France
Laundry detergents Germany
Washing machines UK
Dishwashers UK
Soil improvers UK
Single-ended light bulbs UK
Double-ended light bulbs UK
established to take into account the main envi-
ronmental e€ects (e.g. acidi®cation and global
warming) resulting from the most environmentally
damaging phase(s). It is intended that the top
proportion (15±30%) of products in any product
group will qualify for an award on the date that
the criteria are published, although more may
qualify subsequently if they make the improve-
ments necessary to meet the criteria. Awards are
eligible for up to 3 years (Haigh, 1992), after which
the criteria may be revised upwards to increase the
environmental standards of the award (Fleming,
1992) and to encourage further environmental
improvement. The scheme is to be reviewed in
1997 but a draft proposal is to be produced by the
Environment Directorate (DGXI) by October
1996 and the revised regulation should be adopted
by the end of 1998 (The Ends Report, 1996b, d).
LCA techniques form a fundamental part of the
EC eco-labelling scheme; the matrix used to guide
this assessment process is shown in Table 2. The
parameters listed in the environmental ®eld are
those considered by the EC to re¯ect the greatest
threats to the quality of the environment and link
with the focus of the practical measures for
achieving sustainability outlined in the ®fth EAP,
as discussed in the Introduction. LCA is a meth-
odology that enables the quanti®cation of envi-
ronmental impacts incurred, from `cradle to
grave', of a product's life cycle. A key strength of
LCAs is that they can be used to identify ways of
reducing or eliminating environmental impacts
throughout the life cycle of a product (Charlton
and Howell, 1992). Arguably the greatest
challenge to LCA is its credibility, which requires
transparency in system boundary de®nition, the
availability of data, data quality and the methods
used. At present all these areas pose diculties
(Lenel, 1992; GuineÂe et al., 1993a; The Ends
Report, 1993, 1994d), but as far as the EC eco-
labelling scheme is concerned, the criticisms focus
on the lack of uniformity in the use of LCA
methods between di€erent product groups by
competent bodies and consultants, although
measures to overcome this fundamental ¯aw were
addressed by Environment Directorate early in
1996. Furthermore, Baumgartner and Rubik
(1993) noted that most LCAs are only partial
because they do not analyse the full range of
impacts associated with a product. LCAs have also
been criticized because of the diculty of weighting
di€erent environmental impacts (Curran, 1993).
Another major criticism is that an LCA will be
biased in favour of the interests of the panel of
experts making the decision about the signi®cance
of a range of impacts because social values tend to
dominate such assessments (GuineÂe et al., 1993b).
The selection of criteria and the weightings given
to them are of particular concern in the EC eco-
labelling scheme as illustrated by the waste
parameter for the eco-labelling of paper products,
whereby the use of recycled ®bre represents the
`removal of waste'. Many producers argue that
this weighting discriminates against the use of
virgin ®bre because products made from it will not
meet the waste target. The EC's explicit
promotion of recycled paper production has gen-
erated much debate within and beyond the paper
industry (Collins, 1996). There is also evidence to
suggest that national interests are in¯uencing

Table 2. Environmental impact assessment matrix used in the EC eco-labelling scheme Commission of the
European Communities (1993b).

Environmental ®eld Product life-cycle

Pre-production Production Distribution Use Disposal
(including packaging)
Waste relevance
Soil pollution and degradation
Water contamination
Air contamination
Noise
Consumption of energy
Consumption of natural resources
E€ects on ecosystems

127
Erskine and Collins
decisions (The Ends Report, 1996d). Furthermore,
within the di€erent product groups there has been
considerable controversy between the various
interest groups lobbying for di€erent criteria
(Welford, 1992). In addition, there is a subjective
element to the ®nal stage of LCAs in terms of the
interpretation of what the results mean. In the EC
eco-labelling scheme, for example, the ®nal scores
are the result of discussions between competent
bodies, industry, consumer organizations and
environmental groups and political interests are
widely believed to outweigh scienti®c ones in the
derivation of the ®nal score (The Ends Report,
1994a).
Eco-labelling of paper products
The LCA of paper products shows that the pulp-
and paper-making processes and the provision of
raw materials are the stages at which such pro-
ducts have the greatest impact on the environment
(Bethge, 1991). Bethge's (1991) report on the eco-
labelling of paper products emphasized that
deriving ecological criteria for this product group
will be dicult because of the complexity of these
impacts. In particular, forestry and aspects of the
pulp- and paper-making processes are expected to
be problematic because pulp and paper mills use a
range of technologies, each having di€erent
environmental impacts which will be dicult to
compare directly. Finally, Bethge (1991) predicted
that the use of waste paper as a raw material in
many paper products may complicate further the
criteria-setting process.
Ecological criteria for tissue products (kitchen
roll and toilet paper) were adopted by the EC in
November 1994 and those for copying paper were
agreed by the Regulatory Committee at the end of
May 1996, although the latter are not expected to
be published until autumn 1996 (Commission of
the European Communities 1994a, 1996; The Ends
Report, 1996e). As the delay between the pub-
Table 3. Ecological criteria for paper product groups After Commission of the European Communities (1994a,
1996), and The Ends Report (1996e).
Tissue products
a
Renewable resources (wood)
Non-renewable resources (energy)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Absorbable organic halogens (AOX)
Waste
a
All virgin wood will originate from regions where forest management is practiced.
b
A declaration or other supporting evidence of forest management ± in Europe the principles and measures aimed
at ensuring sustainable forest management should correspond to the 1993 Helsinki Declaration.
128
lication of Bethge's (1991) report and the adoption
of the criteria for paper products suggests,
considerable problems were encountered in the
criteria-setting process, with con¯icts emerging
both within industry and between the various
interest groups and countries represented on the
working group for paper products, some of which
are discussed below.
The ecological criteria for tissue products and
copying paper (Table 3) and the associated
scoring systems di€er in four fundamental ways.
Firstly, the scoring systems are di€erent: a load
points and hurdle system is used for tissue
products, whereby only those products with a
point score below a speci®ed value will qualify for
an award, provided that none of the hurdles has
been exceeded. A simpler hurdle system is adopted
for copying papers such that an eco-label will be
awarded to all products meeting all the criteria.
The original scoring system (tissue products) was
considered too complicated and it was eventually
agreed that the weighting of the load points was
arbitrary because the di€erent scores could not be
linked directly to distinguishable environmental
e€ects. It can be argued, therefore, that the scoring
system for tissue products is unjusti®able and
indefensible on scienti®c grounds.
Secondly, the number of criteria has been
reduced from seven (tissue products) to ®ve
(copying paper), but of the ®ve forestry cannot be
quanti®ed. Reducing the number of criteria was
thought to make the scheme more attractive to
paper manufacturers because many have compl-
ained that there are too many complex criteria and
that they involve expensive tests, both of which act
as a barrier to application.
Thirdly, waste is dealt with di€erently in the
two sets of criteria: waste is a separate parameter
for tissue products, with the use of waste paper as
a raw material representing the removal of waste
from the paper-making process, thus lowering the
load score for the waste criterion. For copying
Copying paper
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Absorbable organic halogens (AOX)
Sulphur emissions
Energy
Total energy consumption
Purchased energy
Forestry2 (for papers made from virgin ®bre)b
The Environmentalist

paper, however, recycling is accounted for
indirectly in the COD, AOX, sulphur emission
and energy parameters because it will be easier for
products made from waste paper to meet the eco-
labelling standards than for those made from
virgin ®bre. The promotion of recycling is one of
the aims (Table 4) of the eco-labelling of copying
paper.
Finally, the units of measurement are di€erent
for tissue products (t kg)1 parameter per t tissue)
and copying paper (kg GJ)1 per air dry t); it is
therefore dicult to compare easily the limits set
for the di€erent product groups.
Several of the criteria, in particular AOX,
sulphur dioxide and waste, have generated con-
troversy regarding their relevance and the levels at
which the load points and hurdles have been set.
Industry in particular has argued that political
interests have prevailed over scienti®c reasoning in
the criteria-setting process. Furthermore, non-EU
pulp and paper manufacturers have been critical
of their lack of in¯uence in the development of the
criteria for tissue products and they believe that
the existing criteria will discriminate against their
ability to export to the EU (Erskine and Collins,
1996). Industry, however, is not the only interest
group to be dissatis®ed; environmental Non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), for example,
are concerned about the inadequate provision for
forest management, while several member states
are not satis®ed with the criteria for copying
paper. Germany considers that the AOX and
COD hurdles are not tough enough whereas
Portugal thinks the COD hurdle is too strict and
France voted against the energy criterion, arguing
that the values are too high (The Ends Report,
1996e). Representatives of all interest groups
believe that the criteria are likely to act as a barrier
to trade for non-EU manufacturers because they
Table 4. Environmental aims of criteria Commission of the European Communities, (1994b, 1996).
Tissue products (1994)
Involving a lesser use of non-renewable resources
Involving a reduced release of pollutants
to air and water
Contributing to the recycling of previously
used paper, leading to reduced quantities of waste
Eco-labelling: success or failure
focus primarily on environmental problems that
exist in Europe but not necessarily further a®eld.
The environmental aims of the criteria for
copying paper appear, super®cially at least, to
go further than those for tissue products
(Table 4). In addition to the ®rst three similar
aims, they intend to promote products which
guarantee good forest management±if the prod-
uct is made from virgin ®bre±and to re¯ect
sound environmental management practices on
the production site. The latter measure was
almost certainly introduced in response to the
paper industry's rejection of eco-labelling
in preference for the EC's eco-management
and audit scheme (EMAS). Several industry
associations have lobbied strongly against the
eco-labelling scheme, urging their members to
support EMAS instead (Erskine and Collins,
1996). Further reading of the requirements for
compliance with these two aims, however, re-
veals that the standards are weak and that they
are dicult to substantiate, particularly in the
case of forest management. Moreover, Dudley
(1995) believed that the Helsinki Resolution for
forest management is poor because it is both
partial and confusing.
In summary it can be argued that while
measures have been taken to make the criteria for
copying paper more attractive to the paper
industry, they mean little for the environment. On
the other hand, if companies do not apply for the
eco-label (only two manufacturers have applied
for the award for tissue products) there is little
chance that the eco-label will do anything positive
for the environment. It would appear, therefore,
that the EC has decided to prioritize the pro-
motion of the scheme over the re®nement of eco-
logical criteria for product groups. Similar
adjustments have been made within other product
Copying paper (1994)
Reduction of discharges of certain toxic or
otherwise polluting substances into water
Reduction of environmental damage or risks
related to the use of energy (global warming,
acidi®cation, and depletion of non-renewable resources)
by reducing energy consumption
Commitment to the need to apply good
management principles in order to safeguard forests
Recycling of paper is indirectly promoted
through the di€erential impact of the criteria on virgin
and recycled paper production
Competent bodies shall take into account the
implementation of good environmental
management practices in recognizing schemes
when assessing applications and monitoring
compliance with criteria
129
Erskine and Collins
groups, for example textiles and detergents, to
increase the acceptability of the scheme to man-
ufacturers, but it remains to be seen whether
companies will be more receptive as a result.
Reactions to the eco-labelling scheme
Representatives of consumer and environmental
organizations operating at the UK, European and
international level took part in in-depth structured
interviews as part of the authors' research on eco-
labelling. Most respondents (87%) support the
general concept of eco-labelling as a means of
informing the consumer about the environmental
`friendliness' of products and several argue that
eco-labelling also has the ability to raise awareness
about the environment. Third party eco-labelling
schemes are favoured by the majority. The EC
scheme is supported by most respondents be-
cause it is (i) European in nature, (ii) independent,
(iii) consumer and environmental groups have
been involved in the consultation process, (iv) the
scheme attempts to establish a consistent set of
criteria and (v) eco-labelling tries to encourage
good environmental practice. Many more weak-
nesses than strengths were identi®ed and the most
common and insightful are as follows.
(i) The scheme is eÂlitist because it targets the top
15±30% of products, thus creating a market access
barrier; it is argued that this demonstrates a failure
to understand the market.
(ii) The scheme will not stop the use of
uncerti®ed claims; consequently consumers may
continue to mistrust environmental labels.
(iii) The absence of an eco-label is meaningless
and fails to send out a clear message because there
is no distinction between products which have
failed to meet the criteria for the award and those
that have not been submitted to the scheme.
(iv) Consultation with developing countries has
been poor. The eco-label, therefore, could act as
both a protectionist measure and a barrier to
trade; Tietje (1995) supported this argument from
a legal point of view.
(v) Awareness of the eco-label is low amongst
consumers and retailers.
(vi) Industry's lack of support for eco-
labelling has hindered the scheme's progress.
(vii) Government in¯uence on the scheme casts
some doubts on its credibility.
Over 80% of the respondents considered that the
eco-labelling scheme has the ability to improve
the environment, although a number argued that
the scheme itself needs to be improved before it
can have a positive impact. Eco-labelling is
perceived to have the potential to improve the
environment in four main ways. First, the use of
LCA techniques in the scheme is one way of
cutting through myths about the environment.
Second, the eco-label may push consumers to start
130
buying products on environmental grounds.
Third, eco-labelling will increase public awareness
of which products are environmentally `friendly'
and, fourth, the comparison of di€erent products
and processes can help to identify what is best for
the environment.
Several authors have considered the impli-
cations of eco-labelling but most suggested that it
falls short in its ability to improve the envi-
ronment (Wheeler, 1993; The Ethical Consumer,
1994; Mitchell, 1995; Tietje, 1995; R.J. Shimp,
unpublished). The Ethical Consumer (1994), for
example, argued that many important, well-
known and long-standing environmental issues
have not been addressed by the EC scheme and
that the failure to do so has undermined its
credibility with most environmental and consumer
organizations. Irreconcilable di€erences of interest
between industry and environmentalists are
thought to obstruct the progress of eco-labelling in
an environmentally bene®cial way and con¯ict
between the interest groups is further complicated
by divergent national stances on eco-labelling
(Mitchell, 1995). In Mitchell's (1995 p. 169) view,
giving consumer and environmental interests
greater in¯uence on the EC scheme will only serve
to increase the deadlock and hinder environmental
progress further. Eco-labelling schemes in general
cannot improve the environment because they
act as barriers to environmental innovation since
the criteria can only be based on the current
understanding of products, technologies and
environmental issues (R.J. Shimp, unpublished).
Moreover, such schemes fail to challenge
conventional wisdom regarding environmental
problems. Lastly, Wheeler (1993) contended that
it is a myth that eco-labels can contribute to an
improvement in environmental management, for
example a UK, 1991 House of Commons report
concluded that there is no quanti®able or objective
evidence about the impact of eco-labelling on the
environment. Furthermore, Wheeler (1993)
argued that it is completely inappropriate to use
market instruments such as eco-labelling to reduce
environmental deterioration; indeed, he was con-
vinced that the unregulated operation of the free
market is primarily responsible for resource
exploitation and environmental degradation in
developing countries. In contrast, however, Tietje
(1995) suggested that the removal of voluntary
eco-labelling schemes would be a negative move in
the protection of the global environment because
such schemes are important tools for environ-
mental management in both developed and
developing nations.
Discussion
To date, the EC eco-labelling scheme has not
worked well and has not fully achieved its dual
aims of promoting products with a reduced impact
on the environment and of providing consumers
The Environmentalist

with better information about the environmental
impact of products. Until these two aims can be
met there is little likelihood that the scheme will be
bene®cial for the environment. Why have the aims
not been met? Firstly, while considerable time and
e€ort has been invested in the development of
ecological criteria on the basis of LCAs, criteria
for only a limited number of product groups has
been agreed. In comparison, 4 years into the
German Blue Angel scheme, which started in
1978, 210 awards had been made for 14 product
groups (Umweltbundesamt, 1995). In addition,
there appears to have been no clear rationale for
the development of product groups in the EC
scheme; instead they seem to have evolved on a
random basis (Consultation Forum for the Euro-
pean Eco-label, unpublished). For the scheme to
promote products with a reduced impact on the
environment a much larger number of eco-labelled
products needs to be available in the market-place.
Initially, at least, eco-labelled products should be
those that consumers buy on a regular basis and
which have a signi®cant environmental impact
rather than those that are purchased infrequently,
such as, for example, washing machines (the ®rst
products to be eligible for the eco-label). Not only
should this raise consumer awareness of the
scheme but it should also encourage a better
environmental performance of eco-labelled
products.
Secondly, consumer awareness of the eco-
labelling scheme is still low despite an advertising
campaign in the UK in March 1996 and, until
awareness is raised, the eco-label will do little to
inform consumers about the environmental per-
formance of products because most of them are
unlikely to look for or recognize the signi®cance of
the eco-label. In addition, as far as existing eco-
labelled products are concerned, manufacturers
are only required to display the eco-label logo (a
¯ower with 12 `European' stars as petals) on the
product packaging. On its own the logo is mean-
ingless to most consumers and the label does not
provide any information about the environmental
impact of the eco-labelled product nor of how its
performance compares with like products. This
situation might, however, change in the future
because the Environment Directorate recently
outlined proposals for the forthcoming revision of
the scheme (Environment Watch: Western Europe,
1996). The proposals include a recommendation
that the scheme's second aim is reformulated to
focus on the provision of `guidance and infor-
mation to consumers on products which have the
potential to contribute to [reducing] certain spec-
i®ed environmental impacts' (cited in Environment
Watch: Western Europe, 1996). Moreover, the eco-
label needs to be more informative and to advise
consumers of the main criteria on which the award
is based. It is suggested that the label shows how
products score on the key environmental aspects
and proposes that eco-labelled products are
Eco-labelling: success or failure
ranked according to their environmental per-
formance so that consumers can judge the overall
contribution of several like products to environ-
mental degradation. If these proposals are
adopted the scheme is likely to have a greater
in¯uence on consumers' purchasing decisions
and the environment might bene®t as a result.
Thirdly, the eco-labelling of paper products
demonstrates that politics can hinder the
improvement of the environment. Political
arguments have dominated the development of the
criteria for paper products and many conclude
that political interests have over ruled scienti®c
reasoning in the decision-making process. Another
e€ect of disagreements about the criteria for paper
products and the scheme in general, particularly
between the paper industry ± both within and
beyond the EU ± and the Environment Direc-
torate, is that they have seriously reduced the
credibility of the scheme. Frequent reports in the
trade and environmental press, for example Pulp
and Paper International and The Ends Report,
respectively, of the on going disputes have
disseminated the problems associated with the
eco-labelling of paper products to a wider
audience. While other interest groups such as
environmental and consumer organizations are
more positive in general about the eco-labelling
scheme, there is no doubt that support for the
criteria adopted for paper products is weak
because they are perceived to be in¯uenced too
strongly by industry and to compromise envi-
ronmental interests. This example highlights a
problem which is inherent to the nature of the
scheme and to which there is no simple solution.
The derivation of environmental criteria following
consultation with all relevant interest groups is
highly commendable; indeed it is necessary if the
bottom up approach is to succeed, but the process
is fraught with diculties because di€erent
outcomes are desirable for industry, consumers
and the environment. Finding a balance between
these interests and creating a scheme that will
appeal to both industry and consumers and which
is capable of improving the environment is the
challenge of eco-labelling.
Conclusions
At present it is not possible to say whether eco-
labelling, through its in¯uence both on con-
sumption patterns and the use of resources and
energy, is capable of contributing positively to
sustainability. Conceptually, eco-labelling is
attractive and provides a good example of upbeat
environmental activity, in contrast to the negative
environmental messages which dominated the late
1980s and early 1990s. In practice, however, there
are clear diculties in making the scheme into a
workable and e€ective means of improving the
environment. The EC eco-labelling scheme needs
to overcome three major barriers before it has a
131
Erskine and Collins
bene®cial impact on the environment. Firstly,
progress to date has been extremely slow because
criteria for only 11 product groups have been
adopted and very few applications for the award
have been made in the ®rst 4 years of the scheme.
Secondly, the scheme lacks credibility amongst
many interest groups. In particular, industry's
lack of regard for the eco-label is seriously
restricting its impact in the market-place. Thirdly,
awareness of the scheme amongst consumers is
low and UK retailers have reported that there is
no demand for products with an EC eco-label.
While the message might seem gloomy regarding
the ability of eco-labelling to encourage sustain-
able consumption patterns and the judicious use
of resources and energy, it is possible that the
revision of existing eco-labelling schemes will
make them more e€ective. For example, if the EC
eco-labelling scheme, is modi®ed according to the
Environment Directorate's preliminary proposals,
it has the potential to be more informative, thus
raising and altering consumers' awareness and the
perception of environmental issues in relation to
products. This would be a ®rst step towards
improving the environment. Eco-labelling alone,
however, cannot be expected to change consum-
ers' behaviour and reduce environmental degra-
dation; to be e€ective it needs to be used in
conjunction with other voluntary measures and
environmental legislation, as prescribed by both
Agenda 21 and the EC's ®fth EAP.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the receipt of
an ESRC grant to fund this research (project no.
L320253123) as part of phase III of the Global
Environmental Change Programme. They also
wish to thank all the individuals who were inter-
viewed for their valuable contribution to this
research project; without their cooperation this
research would not have been possible.
References
Arvind, S.S. and Muley, E.V. (1995) Labelling ecofriendly
products in India±an emerging option for environmental
protection. The Environmentalist 15(2), 115±21.
Baker, J.A. and Miner, K.J. (1993) Corporate environ-
mentalism: cooperation or co-optation? J. Environ.
Health 56(9), 25±7.
Baumgartner, T. and Rubik, F. (1993) Evaluating techniques
for eco-balances and life cycle assessment. Eur. Environ.
3(3), 18±22.
Bethge, P.O. (1991) Eco-labelling of Paper Products: Possi-
bilities and Problems. Copenhagen: Ministry of the
Environment.
Charlton, C. and Howell, B. (1992) Life cycle assessment: a
tool for solving environmental problems? Eur. Environ.
2(2), 2±5.
Collins, L. (1995) Eco-labelling: creating a greener environ-
ment. Geography Review 8(3), 24±7.
132
Collins, L. (1996) Recycling and the environmental debate:
a question of social conscience or scienti®c reason.
J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 39(3), 333±55.
Commission of the European Communities (1993a) Towards
Sustainability: a European Union Programme of Policy
and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustain-
able Development. Luxembourg: Oce for Ocial
Publications of the Commission of the European
Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (1993b) Commis-
sion Information on Eco-labelling. Brussels: Commission
of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (1994a) Commis-
sion Decision of 14 November Establishing the Ecological
Criteria for the Award of the Community Eco-label to
Toilet Paper/Kitchen Roll. Brussels: Commission of the
European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (1994b) The
Commission Adopts Ecological Criteria for a Further
Three Product Groups Within the Framework of the
Community Voluntary Eco-award Scheme. Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (1996) Commis-
sion Decision of 1996 Establishing the Ecological Criteria
for the Award of the Community Eco-label to Copying
Paper. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities.
Cope, D. and Winward, J. (1991) Information failures in green
consumerism. Consumer Policy Rev. 1(2), 83±6.
Curran, M.A. (1993) Broad-based environmental life cycle
assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(3), 430±4.
Dudley, N. (1995) Forest networks. The Environmentalist
15(3), 182±7.
Eden, S. (1994) Business, trust and environmental informa-
tion: perceptions from consumers and retailers. Business
Strategy Environ. 3(4), 1±9.
Environment Watch: Western Europe (1996) Commission
suggests ``graduated'' EU ecolabel. Environ. Watch: W.
Europe 5, 21 June, 9±10.
Erskine, C.C. and Collins, L. (1996) Corporate response of
European paper companies to voluntary environmental
initiatives. Eco-Manage. Auditing 3(6), 126±38.
European Economic Communities (1992) Council Regulation
(EEC) No. 880/92 of 23 March 1992 on a Community
eco-label award scheme. O€. J. Eur. Commun. 35, 1±6.
Fleming, D. (1992) Eco-labelling. Eur. Environ. 2(1), 6±7.
Friends of the Earth (1993) Timber Certi®cation and Eco-
labelling. London: Friends of the Earth.
GuineÂe, J.B., Udo de Haes, H.A. and Huppes, G. (1993a)
Quantitative life cycle assessment of products (1. goal
de®nition and inventory). J. Cleaner Product. 1(1), 3±13.
GuineÂe, J.B., Udo de Haes, H.A. and Huppes, G. (1993b)
Quantitative life cycle assessment of products (2. clas-
si®cation, valuation and improvement analysis).
J. Cleaner Product. 1(2), 81±91.
Haigh, N. (1992) Manual of Environmental Policy: The EC and
Britain. London: Longman.
Hillary, R. (1995) Environmental reporting requirements
under the EU: eco-management and audit scheme
(EMAS). The Environmentalist 15(4), 293±9.
Johnson, S.P. (1993) The Earth Summit: The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development. London:
Graham & Trotman.
Lenel, U. (1992) Life cycle analysis explained. Materials
Environ. 8(11), 589±91.
The Environmentalist

MacKenzie, D. (1991) The rise of the green consumer. Con-
sumer Policy Rev. 1(2), 68±75.
Mitchell, D. (1995) Learning the hard way: the EC and the
eco-label. Eur. Environ. 5(6), 165±70.
Paper Europe (1995) 1995 group comes of age. Paper Europe
7(2), 18±19.
Potter, J.F. (1994) A more positive environmental outlook.
The Environmentalist 14(2), 81±3.
Redclift, M.R. (1995) Global environmental change: the
contribution of social science research policy in the UK.
The Environmentalist 15(4), 240±5.
Scholl, G. (1994) Product-oriented environmental policy in
Europe. Eur. Environ. 4(5), 8±13.
The Ends Report (1993) Critical review of LCA practice. The
Ends Report 219, 25.
The Ends Report (1994a) The elusive consensus on life-cycle
assessment. The Ends Report 231, 20±1.
The Ends Report (1994b) Public concern for the environment
rides the recession. The Ends Report 232, 18±20.
The Ends Report (1994c) Green issues making a mark with
mainstream consumers. The Ends Report 239, 23±4.
The Ends Report (1994d) Poor data quality undermines LCA
results. The Ends Report 239, 25±6.
The Ends Report (1996a) Paints and light bulbs±a tale of two
eco-labels. The Ends Report 252, 24±5.
The Ends Report (1996b) Eco-labelling review launched as
textile criteria agreed. The Ends Report 254, 27±8.
The Ends Report (1996c) Business interest growing in EC eco-
labelling scheme. The Ends Report 256, 27.
The Ends Report (1996d) Brussels seeks to o‚oad eco-
labelling scheme. The Ends Report 257, 25±6.
Eco-labelling: success or failure
The Ends Report (1996e) Eco-label accord on copying paper
despite industry objections. The Ends Report 257, 26±7.
The Ends Report (1997) Reckitt gets ®rst Eco-label for laundry
detergent. The Ends Report 268, 32.
The Ethical Consumer (1994) The EC Eco-label±marketing ploy
or award for excellence? The Ethical Consumer 32, 5±7.
Tietje, C. (1995) Voluntary eco-labelling programmes and
questions of state responsibility in the WTO/GATT
legal system. J. World Trade 29(5), 123±58.
UK Eco±labelling Board (1996) UKEB Newsletter No. 10.
London: UK Eco±labelling Board.
UK Eco-labelling Board (1997) UKEB Newsletter No. 11.
London: UK Eco-labelling Board.
Umweltbundesamt (1995) Information Sheet on the ``Environ-
mental label''. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment (1993) Earth Summit, Agenda 21, The United
Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York:
United Nations.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Status
Report on the Use of Environmental Labels Worldwide.
US Washington: United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
Verlander, N. (1990) Label it! Earth Matters 8, 8±9.
Welford, R. (1992) A guide to eco-labelling and the EC eco-
labelling scheme. Eur. Environ. 2(6), 13±15.
Wheeler, D. (1993) Eco-labels or eco-alibis? Chem. Indust. 5
April, 260.
Wood, K. (1994) The role of life cycle analysis in developing
environmental marketing and communications strategy,
Business Strategy & the Environment Conference
Proceedings.
133