New products receive EcoLogo certification every month, and I thought it might be instructive to look at the last several months to see if there have been any trends. Turns out there have. While I knew green cleaning was a hot topic, I had no idea how hot. Roughly one third of recently certified products fall under the EcoLogo category of hard-surface cleaners. And that doesn’t even include the handful of other products like detergent and hand cleaner that support the green cleaning trend.How does a hard-surface cleaner meet the EcoLogo standard? Here are some of the criteria:

• No glycol ethers or their acetates
• No alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants (APEOS) (Note: environmentalists are trying to pass a bill in Connecticut that would phase out these suspected hormone disruptors in all products)
• No toxic metals, including but not limited to arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, silver and mercury
• No more than 1% by weight of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as used (after dilution if applicable), or more than 12% by weight if sold in concentrated form

Among the other categories of recently certified EcoLogo products are green power, personal care products (like shampoo) and toilet tissue.

Eleven influential environmental groups in Canada - including the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada and Sierra Club Canada - recently put together a roadmap for change called Tomorrow Today: How Canada can make a world of difference. The document reports on seven key issues, and I highly recommend giving it a read through. The information included is generally not surprising or new, but the authors lay out detailed recommendations for what the Canadian government should do in the short term to lessen the country’s environmental impact.

Among the topics discussed in the report is a whole section on “human health and toxic chemicals”. Canadian law today does not ban certain hazardous chemicals including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and phthalates. Once again, environmental standards are far ahead of legal mandates, but if the groups behind the report have their way, Canada is on a path to bringing environmental standards like EcoLogo and the law closer together. As stated recently, EcoLogo bans PDBEs in products like office machines and phthalates in a number of floor care products. The new Tomorrow Today report recommends that the Canadian government immediately ban or phase out these chemicals in all or nearly all products. It would be a welcome move.

Meanwhile in the US, federal law is also far behind what environmental groups recommend. PBDEs, for example, are still allowed, though legislators are starting to ban them at the state level. In 2007 Washington became the first state to ban PDBEs and other states appear to be following suit.

Phthalates have been a hot-button issue lately because of a study published in Pediatrics showing elevated phthalate levels in babies’ urine. This is a concern because phthalates, which are man-made chemicals, may alter reproductive development. (Yet another example of the convergence of environmental and health issues)

Not surprisingly a lot of the focus on phthalates has been on baby care products applied directly to babies’ skin – lotions, shampoos, powders, etc. However, that’s not the only place phthalates are found. I scanned some of the EcoLogo category criteria documents and discovered that phthalates are used in some floor care products – floor finishers, sealers, restorers, etc. It seems likely that this would have less of an effect on health given that floor care products aren’t generally absorbed through the skin. However, given a choice, I’d go for a floor care product without phthalates. Check out the EcoLogo-certified list.

One other note, phthalates are also used in some electronics, including, according to Wikipedia, the iPod.

This post is Part Four in a series of posts based on discussions with John Polak, chair of the Global Ecolabelling Network. Click for Part One, Part Two or Part Three.

Government interest in the environment and green procurement stems from more than just a desire to save the planet. John Polak brought up the good point that the convergence of environmental and health concerns is driving changes in government policies. In a relatively new development, governments have begun to look at the environment and health from a chemical perspective. A lot of chemicals that are bad for the environment tend to be bad for people too, and politically, “Save the people!” can be a more compelling call to arms than “Save the planet!”

For example, nothing galvanizes consumers/voters more than a health risk discovered in a mass-produced product. Think of the recent lead scare around toys manufactured in China. According to John, that debacle simply exacerbated the issue of not having appropriate safeguards in place to minimize the risks of exposure to hazardous materials. It wasn’t an environmental issue to start, but it certainly has environmental implications.

John also pointed out, along those lines, that the best way to get traction on chemical issues is to focus on the very young. Apparently in Norway new mothers leave the hospital with their new babies and ecolabel gift bags. Maybe there’s a role for healthcare and health insurance providers in promoting the green movement. Should there be EcoLogo-certified products in your doctor’s office? Should government-based health initiatives and organizations more closely link themselves to ecolabelling efforts?

A recent report on Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Communications (PDF link) has some interesting findings. When asked to select the three most important activities for a socially responsible company to engage in, survey respondents for the report listed “ensuring that products meet accepted environmental/social standards” at number two. Only “fair treatment of employees” came in higher.

Meeting environmental standards is certainly important, but which ones? And where do they come from? Are they reliable? Do they cover the most important environmental attributes?

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that greater regulation or at least transparency is needed in the setting and promotion of environmental standards.

Information on the report via Buyer Analytics and Environmental Leader. Click thumbnail right for larger picture.

This post is third in a series based on discussions with John Polak, chair of the Global Ecolabelling Network. Part One is available here, and Part Two is available here.

The ecolabel trend is growing because companies are increasingly looking for environmental credentials, but as John Polak pointed out to me, ecolabels really serve two functions. On the one hand they’re marketing tools, and clearly effective at that. On the other hand they’re market-based policy tools.

As national and international organizations have realized, ecolabels can affect market change by swaying global purchasing behaviors. For example, if a government mandates that all government-funded purchases meet certain environmental standards, an auditable ecolabel is a good way to ensure compliance. Government purchasing in turn impacts private-sector business purchasing, and the two continue to feed off each other.

Interestingly, most of our government-based ecolabels in the US are not based on true eco-certification programs. Energy Star, for example, is probably the most well-known ecolabel here, but it’s a registration program, not a certification program like EcoLogo and others accredited by GEN. Companies register their products as meeting Energy Star criteria, but the claims are many times unproven.

As GEN continues to meet and talk with organizations like the WTO, ecolabels and certification programs are likely to play an increasingly important role in global commerce. Even if you’re not a fan of globalization, there are certainly benefits when the positive policy tools of one country or multinational organization have the power to impact behavior worldwide.

Canon is creating its own green label, “Generation Green”. On the one hand, Canon should be applauded for its environmental efforts: making printers with biodegradable and recyclable parts, decreasing product packaging and cutting down on the use of toxic materials. On the other hand, why are companies increasingly introducing their own, non-regulated green labels into the market?

There are several problems with manufacturer-generated ecolabels. First, manufacturers do not have to set specific criteria and stick to them. They can decide on a case by case basis whether a product should be labeled green, giving consumers no indication of the range that an ecolabel might encompass. Second, there is no independent auditing. That’s like getting to grade your own SAT exam. Third, a company-specific ecolabel doesn’t give consumers an effective way to compare products since no company other than its creator is going to use the label.

Interestingly, Canon has several EcoLogo-certified products, which, in conjunction with the Generation Green label , does provide credibility for the company’s environmental claims.

Continuing where Part One of this series left off, let’s look at the next major stage of activities planned for the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN). According to Board Chairman John Polak, there are a couple of key priorities.

First, GEN needs to recapture the high ground on ecolabelling. While GEN has by and large managed to debunk the global trade concerns that were at the forefront in the 1990s (mainly that ecolabelling would act as a barrier to trade), the mindset of ecolabels as over-abundant and unreliable hasn’t entirely gone away. This is because everything is being lumped into the ecolabel category. To combat misconceptions, John says that GEN is looking at launching a media campaign. The idea is to help increase awareness of what constitutes a real ecolabel – something (like EcoLogo) that would pass the screening test of the Six Sins of Greenwashing.

Second, GEN needs to address the scope of ecolabelling. Ecolabelling has become popular because companies are looking for environmental credentials. But while today’s ecolabels address design standards, process standards and performance standards, nobody yet provides credentials for how a business operates as a whole. This is a complex issue and one around which I have trouble even imagining all the pieces. Does creating a standard for how a business operates include regulations for individual employee behavior? Does it include regulations for profit spending? How about continued rates of improvement in environmental practices? And how are different factors weighted? The issue is one I’m happy to leave to the experts at GEN.

GEN’s near-term priorities are defined by the environment (no pun intended) that exists today. Not only is there renewed interest in environmentalism as a whole; there’s also renewed interest specifically in ecolabelling among organizations like the UN and the WTO. The time is right for taking ecolabelling to the next level, and GEN could and should have a large role in that transition.

In a sign that ecolabelling has hit the big time, a new organization called Big Room has launched a consumer-accessible database of green labels at Ecolabelling.org. The goal is to help steer folks through the maze of environmental marketing claims and help them learn to distinguish between what’s green and what’s greenwashing.

Of course, creating a database of green labels is easier said than done, and the Big Room folks we spoke to have already said they plan to continue refining their data collection methods and potentially add a screening mechanism in the future. At the moment, the database includes a range of labels, from those like EcoLogo that have built up credibility over decades, to ones with little or no credible authority. One way Ecolabelling.org tries to help distinguish between the two is by including a data field on whether ecolabelling programs have been independently verified or not.

As we searched through the Ecolabelling.org database, it got us thinking again about the important elements of an effective green labeling program.

• Multi-attribute evaluation (a way to avoid the sin of the hidden trade-off) so that all aspects in the life cycle of a product are considered with regard to environmental impact
• Genuine certification of products via third-party testing and regular auditing
• Recognition by an independent ecolabelling authority like the Global Ecolabelling Network

An average consumer is going to have difficulty assessing a green label for these criteria, but that is exactly what a group like Big Room with Ecolabelling.org could do.

Until this year, there were different EcoLogo standards for photocopiers, fax machines and laser printers. The criteria for these standards, first instituted in 1998, are now being combined into one updated standard along with requirements for multifunctional devices and mailing machines. The standard will go into effect at the end of March.

So what does it take to make a green office machine? And how has EcoLogo’s criteria changed in ten years? You can read the full documentation on the standard here, but I thought I’d highlight a few items specifically that are new in 2008.

First, there are new chemical requirements. For example, the new EcoLogo standard mandates compliance with the RoHS directive with regard to restrictions on certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. It also includes criteria for the plastic casing parts on any office machine. To win EcoLogo certification, casings must not be manufactured with the following flame retardants:

• Poly-brominated biphenyls (PBBs)
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
• Chloroparaffin flame retardents with chain length 10 to 17 carbon atoms, and chlorine content greater than 50% by weight

These substances are all environmentally toxic, and sales of products manufactured with these chemicals have been banned in some countries and states.

Second, there are new requirements on product recycling and re-use. Interestingly, this has a lot less to do with what’s in a product and much more to do with the behavior of manufacturing companies at the end of a product’s life. For example, there are EcoLogo guidelines in the office machine standard not only for waste diversion, but also for collection of office machines at the end of their use for proper processing. If a local collection program is not in place already, the manufacturer must offer one.

Green offices are a new frontier, and green office machines are a great way to start making a difference.