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.

John Polak is the Chair of the Board of Directors for the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) and the founder of TerraChoice. I had the good fortune to speak with him recently and during our conversation I collected enough of his knowledge and insight to last a dozen posts at least. Consider it the John Polak series, and this is part one.

To sum up GEN as quickly as possible, the organization was started in 1994 under the auspices of the International Standards Organization (ISO) and today has 28 members on its roster. It was originally formed as a cooperative venture to facilitate consistency among Type 1 ecolabels and to bring qualified ecolabelling groups around the world together to share information and analysis. In the 1990s it moved into a defensive posture to ward off attacks from organizations afraid that GEN would become a barrier to trade. Today it is in a position of strength as more and more countries recognize the benefits of ecolabelling and realize how it can positively impact trade as well as the environment.

At the last GEN annual meeting, much of the focus was on GENICES, a mutual recognition program among ecolabelling organizations around the world. In its pilot stage now, GENICES involved a peer review process so that products certified by one country’s organization can be more easily recognized under another country’s ecolabelling program. Organizations that participate essentially put in place an umbrella agreement. If, for example, a Canadian company wants certification of a product in Taiwan, the Taiwanese can look to see if they have a similar product standard in place and, if so, automatically certify the Canadian product based on prior review of the Canadian standard.

GENICES is part of a broader GEN agenda that includes addressing the confusion surrounding ecolabels today, the appropriate scope of ecolabeling, and the growing overlap with international policy work. In the coming months I will address these issues as best as possible based on my initial conversation with John and hopefully future ones as well. These “John Polak series” posts won’t be consecutive, but I will intersperse them often with other posts on EcoLogo products and standards development work.

One final note, EcoLogo is accredited by GEN as a Type 1 ecolabelling program. It is the only GEN-accredited EcoLogo program in North America today.

In the 1970s the US banned the use of pollutants known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Yet a recent study suggests that Americans may still be suffering the negative effects of PCBs from wood floor finishes in older homes and public buildings. The news can’t help but make me wonder what hazardous chemicals we’re being exposed to now that haven’t been outlawed yet.

The reason for environmental standards programs is that science is ahead of the law. The criteria for EcoLogo standards are far more stringent than legal requirements. Sometimes laws are weaker because of economic interests, sometimes it’s because lawmakers aren’t as quickly informed about hazardous chemicals as leading scientists, and sometimes it’s simply because the lawmaking process can be slow and bureaucratic. (Remember the famous civics-class film, “How a Bill Becomes a Law”)

Here’s an example. The Sierra Club (unsuccessfully) lobbied the EPA last year to ban industrial and household detergents containing nonylphenol ethoxylates. Many detergent manufacturers have already come up with alternatives, but there is no federal law. On the other hand, EcoLogo’s standard for laundry detergent mandates that products must not be formulated or manufactured with alkylphenol ethoxylates, which includes nonylphenol ethoxylates. The standard was first published in 1997.

Eleven years and counting for federal law to match an EcoLogo standard.

Without being a scientist myself, it can be difficult to wade through the criteria that make up an EcoLogo standard. However, by carefully reading through the relevant documentation I can get a general sense of how a standard works, the compromises that are necessarily made, and the ultimate benefits of implementation.

For example, there is currently a draft standard under review for corrosion inhibitors in closed water systems. Corrosion inhibitors are pretty self-explanatory. They prevent corrosion to maintain the efficiency and prolong the life of a water system. (Closed systems are generally used for heating water or pumping out air conditioning in apartments and offices.)

In reading through the draft standard it becomes pretty clear that most existing corrosion inhibitors leave a lot to be desired from an environmental standpoint. Given the realities of the solutions available today – the large majority of which are fairly toxic to aquatic life – how does a program like EcoLogo decide what constitutes a reasonable and achievable standard?

The answer is EcoLogo chooses the best of what is available and uses that as a starting point. Some corrosion inhibitors produce less organic nitrogen and ammonia. They are favored in the EcoLogo draft standard. On the other hand, nearly all corrosion inhibitors include boron, which makes it impractical to disallow use of the chemical in EcoLogo’s standard criteria. (Maybe in a future review?)

Got any of your own thoughts on corrosion inhibitors? (Don’t be shy. You know you were just talking about this at the dinner table last week…) One of the nice things about the EcoLogo program is that it is entirely transparent and draft standards are open to public comment. Tell us your thoughts here, or better yet, send comments to the contact information listed in the published draft standard.

There’s an interesting post over on The Greenwash Brigade about the impact of the LEED rating system on creating green buildings. The author argues that it’s possible to be LEED-certified without really having environmentally-sound construction. The way the LEED system is set up, builders get points for each green element they include, but a low VOC carpet is given the same worth in the point system as a green roof. Are the two features equivalent?

The Greenwash Brigade makes the very good point that LEED can’t be measured just by outliers that learn how to “game” the system, but by the overall impact of the program on encouraging green building. The bottom line is that LEED ultimately continues to raise construction standards. However, in creating new environmental standards, there are still lessons to be learned from the way LEED was implemented.

In contrast, EcoLogo is designed so that across multiple criteria, products that meet the EcoLogo standard are in roughly the top 20% of environmentally-friendly products in any given category. This amounts to a weighted system, where no weak attribute can lead to a green label if certification is not warranted.

The weighted system is important. The topic of creating environmental standards around multiple attributes rather than a single element comes up often. However, the issue of how different attributes are weighted is much more subtle and often overlooked. It’s something we need to introduce into the broader environmental debate.

The EcoLogo program was set up according to the International Organization for Standardization – ISO 14024.