Eco certification too complicated?

Here's a good post on Treehugger about the need for better regulation of eco-labelling.

The market research group BBMG asked people to determine recognition of 13 of the estimated 400+ green labels already out there. Two thousand adult consumers were polled. Recognition was strongest for government sponsored, single attribute labels and weaker for non-government marks. BBMG conclude that too-numerous labels might confuse consumers.

This just backs up the need for governments to take more of a lead in monitoring and regulating green and eco credentials. Whilst those organisations that currently provide these certifications are doing a fantastic job, there is still need for some cohesion, particularly on a global scale.

Some green labels tackle just a single attribute: like USDA Organic, and Energy Star. These are among the most widely recognised and trusted in the USA, being government sponsored. But obviously these labels have little relevance outside of USA's borders.

Australia's energy and water ratings system are good examples of a straight-forward, easy, standard system that most people understand and recognise. Why can't a similar industry-wide approach be applied to GM, fairtrade, sustainable sources, cruelty free or organics? With these issues, it currently comes down to consumer's trust of the company doing the certification, such as the RPSCA label on cruelty free eggs. The inherent trust given to a federal government should be a major reason for them undertaking that responsibility.

It's also worrying to see FSC (Forest Stewardship Council Certification) only achieved 6% awareness response. Particularly when a large amount of rainforest or other old-growth timber is shipped around the globe, far from its original source, FSC is an important way for people to guarantee their wood products are from sustainable plantations.

First published on GreensBlog