5 ways eco-labelling is falling short of its potential

Eco-labelling is something of a divisive topic. Many industry stakeholders argue that on-pack labelling is not likely to make a clear difference on preventing climate change, due to too few adopters. To fulfil their purpose, eco-labels must change, argues a new report now from the University of Hertfordshire and the Consortium for Labelling for the Environment (CLEAR). While it focuses on ten eco-labelling schemes in the UK, many of the problems seen, according to John Tzilivakis, one of the researchers, are relevant worldwide. A key problem is the lack of a standardised methods, techniques or even data sources between the 10 schemes reviewed. Because there is no standardised methodology, different labelling schemes presented different pictures. This multiplicity creates “perspective disparity”, according to Tzilivakis, meaning different schemes focus on different things and each one builds only part of the picture required to understand the sustainability of a given farm or product. A lot of work needs to be done to harmonise the various schemes, points out Sarah Haynes, head of sustainability at IGD. A standardised eco-label is needed “to make sure there’s a level playing field,” adds Nicola Organ, senior data impact analyst at EIT Food. A lack of standardisation opens up other key problems as well. According to Fabia Bromovsky, director of Global Farm Metric at the Sustainable Food Trust, lack of standardisation can also open up the doors for greenwashing. A standardised version would be better for consumers as well. Consumers don’t want too many different options when it comes to labelling, suggests the Soil Association’s Oona Buttafoco; they want the “default” option to be sustainable. Despite the complexity of eco-labelling, “we know well enough what’s really damaging, and we know well enough what’s helpful. We can work from there.” There were two types of eco-labelling schemes looked at by the study – farm assurance-based and product based. Of the product-based schemes assessed, many of them relied on modelled data, poorly accounting for site-specific impacts. They also often used second or third-hand modelled data rather than first-hand data, leading to concerns that the variability of different farms is not reflected as much as it would be in first-hand data. However, the farm-based schemes had issues as well. While they took more account of practices on the ground, many of them worked via data that was nevertheless based on practices rather than outcomes, meaning that success wasn’t always recorded. “You can’t help coming back to the importance of” primary data, points out Jimmy Woodrow, chief executive of Pasture for Life. Primary data rather than modelled data would ensure that strong performance on sustainability was linked back to those actually doing it, he said. This would “encourage a race to the top”, rather than underperformers being “dragged up to the average.” Such granularity could impact small family farms disproportionately, worries the Soil Association Certification’s head of regulatory and trade affairs Lee Holdstock. Biodiversity is a “major gap” in eco-labelling efforts, argues researcher Tzilivakis. Large manufacturers and retailers haven’t been thinking about biodiversity “in a holistic way” until very recently, suggests Biodiversify associate director Katie Fensome. It has therefore had “less time to mature as a sector strategy.” Biodiversity is “notoriously difficult” to measure, and to compare against other environmental impact metrics. This difficulty should not be given as a reason to overlook biodiversity, the report stresses. Alongside biodiversity, schemes also tend to overlook other key environmental factors such as air, soil and water quality, soil provision and water flow regulation. All of these, according to the report, are “critical with respect to agroecology.” It’s important to look “at the entire system as one,” explains The Soil Association Certification’s Holdstock, who warns against having “carbon tunnel vision” which could push other sustainability indicators to the side. Even drastically reducing emissions would not be enough to prevent us getting further into the “red zone” when it comes to the climate, suggests the Soil Association’s Buttafoco, due to the “crucial role that the biosphere and nature plays.” We must think about the environment holistically, she suggests, rather than focusing on climate first and other factors later. The report concluded that many of the eco-labels assessed are not yet fit for purpose. According to the report, they do not provide transparency to the environmental practices of the systems they assess, and they do not contribute towards the creation of a more sustainable food system. The “perspective disparity” due to the differences in methodologies mean that there is no clear goal for all the different eco-labelling schemes to work towards. Across the board, there is a need for more outcome-based metrics. If metrics are based on outcomes, the labelling will be more fit for purpose, if the purpose is understood to be improving the food system.

5 ways eco-labelling is falling short of its potential

Eco-labels are beset with problems, holding them back from transforming food production

Related Topics