Search
Search
Search
Sophie Benson
There are currently 456 ecolabels across 25 sectors in 199 countries. Knowing what each one means is an impossible task, and when you add their paid-for nature into the equation, they begin to seem less like a consumer aid and more like a collect-them-all operation used to polish brand reputations and stall real action.
The structure of most certification programmes upholds a long-standing barrier to real environment and social progress: self-governing and self-reporting. "Industry... prefers the voluntary nature of private agreements to the mandatory restrictions of governmental regulation... they can back out if the scheme fails to deliver their expected benefits, or if the effort required to gain certification is more than they are willing to invest," states a 2018 report by Changing Markets.
Mandatory, legally binding regulations can lead to legal and financial repercussions if the standards are not met. If a brand doesn't meet voluntary standards, it may lose that certification, but the likelihood of a loss is extremely low (and it will likely have countless others to flaunt regardless). Only a handful of certifications have explicit requirements that could result in the loss of certification, while brands are often heavily involved in creating them in the first place, devising targets and checklists which serve their existing business models.
Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) counts ASOS, Adidas, BASF, H&M, Puma, and Target among its contributors, Patagonia and H&M are in the advisory group for The Microfibre Consortium (TMC), Unilever and Proctor & Gamble are represented in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil's (RSPO) board of governors, and a number of supermarkets, suppliers, and fisheries are present within the boards of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Brands also tend to be quite generous in 'donating' internal research to certifying bodies. The Nike Materials Sustainability Index was donated to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and used as a basis for the heavily-criticised Higg Index, while the Responsible Down Standard (RDS), co-developed by The North Face, was given to the Textile Exchange. Additionally, it's not uncommon to see one certification on the board or panel of another: brands and certifications, interconnected, vouching for one another. It's hard to believe in the progress and impartiality of such an insular structure.
Alongside the insularity sits a lack of transparency. A 2022 New York Times investigation into organic Cotton described it as "an opaque certification system rife with opportunities for fraud." Perhaps one of the best-known sustainability certifications was found to be significantly flawed. "Consumers are assured of 'organic' material by brands, which rely on official stamps of approval from external organisations. Those in turn rely on reports from opaque local inspection agencies that base their conclusions on a single planned yearly inspection (in the case of the facilities) or a few random visits (for farms)," the article read.
Organic cotton isn't the only certification which has been undermined by fraudulent representations. ZDHC states that "98% of Suppliers who carried out wastewater testing in 2020 had no detections of restricted substances from the ZDHC MRSL parameters for wastewater and sludge." However, in 2017, Aditya Birla's Grasim Industries plant in Nagda, India, which produces ZDHC-certified Viscose was found by Changing Markets to be contaminating local rivers and groundwater, reducing soil quality, creating an intense smell, and affecting the health of local residents. Conditions were found to be "markedly worse" in 2018.
Fisheries with the MSC 'blue tick' have been found to kill tens of thousands of endangered sharks and turtles each year, use trawling methods which damage the seabed irreversibly, and dump dead and dying animals over the side of vessels, while the RSPO has been criticised for presiding over human rights violations and the clearance of vital habitats. A further report aptly entitled 'Who Watches The Watchmen?' listed, among other issues, fraudulent assessments which cover up standards violations, and flawed assessments which allow for the destruction of High Conservation Value areas. Without full transparency, we simply can't know how robust the mechanisms behind certifications really are.
Brands, especially in the fashion and beauty sectors, tend to rack up a wide-ranging collection of certifications to showcase their commitment to the environment. But sustainability can’t be acquired as a series of paid-for add-ons — it requires what the UN Environment Programme calls "a root-and-branch transformation." Nevertheless, the siloed, tallied nature of certifications favours the former perception, and "involves treating sustainability as a technical outcome that can be achieved through checklists of set targets," according to a 2022 paper on aquaculture sustainability certifications.
For instance, a fishery which supplies the brands Princes and John West was found to 'compartmentalise' — catching certified tuna using one method, then hauling in tuna and protected species using another method on the same day. Equally, it’s not difficult to find fashion brands who use certified organic cotton or recycled polyester who are often caught up in human rights or pollution scandals.
Despite evidence of incredibly patchy efforts at real change, it benefits brands to spend on certifications and play the part, because surveys frequently show that consumers are willing to pay more for certified goods. And it serves certifying bodies to allow as many brands as possible to buy a sustainable reputation, as it’s a major source of income – in MSC’s case, 76% of its annual income comes from logo licensing. "Currently, schemes are all too often focused on getting all industry players on board, or trying to lower their bar to meet the growing demand for certified products, which leads to a race to the bottom," says Changing Markets.
With no one to answer to, brands that tout sustainability certifications as a signifier of good practice will quickly, and publicly, lose consumer support. Schemes such as B Corp, where reporting is rigorous and frequent, will better stand up to scrutiny — but while the scheme purports to hold companies to account, it can’t do everything. Brands must instigate their own third-party accountability boards that are tasked with ensuring all sustainability claims are verifiable, trustworthy, and most importantly, for the greater good.
The process of becoming certified can be useful in terms of prompting brands to investigate and take stock of their supply chains and processes. But achieving certification should be treated as the first stepping stone towards broader, system-wide changes, as opposed to the finish line.
Consumers increasingly appreciate the complexities of sustainability. Communicating honestly about the limitations of certifications, the efforts which are needed, and any challenges which have been overcome will be appreciated much more than a pretence that perfection has been achieved.
