Feature

Greener Than Thou

Companies who want to make environmental claims about their products will soon be able to back up those claims with nationally recognised certification.

By Cathryn Crane, NZSM

It seems that everything these days is environmentally friendly, biodegradable or phosphate-free in some way or other. Environmental issues have become a selling point, and many companies are leaping to label their products accordingly. The problem to date is that there are no recognised standards which the consumer can trust in this area.

That is all set to change within the next few months. Over the last year, a range of organisations and government departments have been working on a scheme to establish "green" standards. The standards, to be run under the title Environmental Choice New Zealand, are being administered by TELARC New Zealand. The latter is a national accreditation authority dealing in laboratory testing and quality assurance.

The first set of standards is expected to be issued next month. The first labelled products are likely to hit the shelves a few months later. The Environmental Choice Management Committee (ECMAC) has been adapting Canadian standards for use in New Zealand.

"The Canadians have been labelling environmentally-friendlier products since 1988 and have criteria for 14 product categories which New Zealand can draw upon," says TELARC Director Dr Jack Garside. "We see no point in reinventing the wheel."

The first product categories to qualify for the endorsement include batteries, household detergents, engine oil, recycled paper, recycled plastic products and paints.

"The whole scheme is based on encouraging improvement," says Fiona Mackenzie, TELARC's marketing manager. The criteria will be updated regularly to take into account new technology and applications.

`Cradle To Grave'

The Canadian standards were compared with a number of other schemes operating around the world and were chosen as the most suitable for New Zealand. Scandinavian standards had different priorities related to differing conditions, such as the heavy use of heating technology in cold northern winters. The Blue Angel scheme run in West Germany focuses on single aspects of a product, rather than on all the issues involved. Battery production, for example, may consider energy efficiency issues without dealing with the problems of disposal.

ECMAC was looking for a scheme which had a similar structure to the proposed New Zealand one and which used a "cradle-to-grave" approach. The standards now being adapted look at the broad range of environmental issues associated with product design, development and manufacture. This could include everything from the type of materials used in a product to any associated pollutants.

"What is environmentally friendly? Nothing really," asserts Mackenzie. "There is no such thing as a pure product. There's a certain moral obligation [for] an environmentally friendly label to take account of the whole process."

She stresses that the labelling scheme will serve to identify environmentally friendlier products, rather than making a definitive statement about the goods.

Credibility Concerns

Manufacturers are well aware of the marketing power of such a labelling scheme. Some have already had problems with informal labels. One major advertising campaign for a "biodegradable and phosphate-free" dishwashing detergent came a cropper when it was pointed out that all hand detergents in New Zealand are biodegradable and phosphate-free.

Debates over bleached and unbleached toilet paper have revealed that the potentially-worrying chlorine bleach process is not used for either. Consumers who pay a premium for apparently green products have gained a certain degree of wariness over such claims.

Mackenzie admits that there have been credibility problems. She hopes that the labelling scheme will go some way towards ensuring that the consumer will be protected from the more extravagant or misleading claims.

"Some companies fear a backlash from environmentalists if they get their greening wrong," says Mackenzie. "At the end of the day, for firms in direct contact with the environment there is really no choice. Those that ignore the trend risk an even bigger bashing than those who try and then have to try again."

The problems of the advertising ethics involved have already been addressed by the Advertising Standards Authority. The group has issued a Code for Environmental Claims, with the aim of keeping such advertising honest.

Like ECMAC, the ASA is taking care that generalised claims such as "environmentally friendly" take into account the complete life cycle of the products involved. Mackenzie has been worried by some of the loopholes in the Fair Trading Act which have been exploited.

"How do you call something biodegradable when there's no standard to measure it by?" she asks. "It could [biodegrade] in two weeks or 2,000 years."

Range of Interests

Not surprisingly, the Consumers' Institute has a representative on the ECMAC board, as do a number of environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. The group also has university and DSIR members as well as people from the Manufacturers Federation and Retail and Wholesale Merchants.

The scheme will be paid for by those companies participating in it. Mackenzie sees the likely result being the release of a two-year license for such a label after the products have been surveyed and audited. In a recent survey, some 86% of consumers stated that they would go to some effort to buy greener products and 70% were prepared to pay a bit more for such items.

"What we're hoping for is a snowball effect", says Mackenzie, with more and more manufacturers recognising the benefits of being seen to be green. W

Cathryn Crane is a freelance journalist with an interest in environmental issues.