2 The Government's role
4) Information provided to consumers can help
to raise awareness of environmental issues and encourage environmentally
informed choices by consumers. These choices influence manufacturers
and they may examine their products and supply chains in order
to make their products or services more sustainable. Certification
schemes, when used effectively, can help the development of more
sustainable products and services.
5) Customers expect retailers to make certain
choices on their behalf, a process known as 'choice-editing':
"overall customers believe that 75% of the responsibility
for addressing social and environmental issues lies with the retailer
and 25% with them".[2]
In some cases retailers will undertake choice-editing on a unilateral
basis, to build an environmentally positive brand image; the SDC
gave B&Q, which chooses to stock only Forest Stewardship Council
certified timber, as an example.[3]
Marks & Spencer have made choice-editing a key part of its
'Plan A' approach by refusing to stock non-free range eggs or
non-fairtrade coffee, a choice that could be extended into environmental
areas:
Let us be clear, retailers reduce choice every single
day of their lives. We put 35,000 products on our shelves every
year. We reject another 50,000 that we could have done because
it is the wrong price, the wrong fashion, it is never going to
sell. […] All we are doing here is saying, 'for an emerging
set of issues, environmental and social, we will face some tough
choices for our customers' […] we believe you have got to
give that leadership […] if you have beliefs as a retailer
you edit out the bad choices.[4]
6) Ironically, however, those retailers building
a unique brand positioning on high environmental standards across
their ranges will not necessarily have any commercial interest
in a more universal scheme. Nor will those whose choice-editing
is clearly directed towards value for money or price be likely
to welcome such a scheme. Compulsion may therefore have to be
considered as an option if environmental consumer choice does
not align with commercial interests.
7) Tesco told us that where possible they prefer
to empower and inform consumer choice through labelling, rather
than restricting the options available.[5]
Choice-editing, identified consumer preferences and actual consumer
choices can clearly interact to encourage growth in environmentally
high-performance products and markets. It can also raise standards;
the National Farmers' Union told us that once the Farm Assurance
scheme had been adopted by major supermarkets, it became the "entry
ticket in terms of supply', with a farmer not approved by the
scheme standing "very little change of seeing his product
sold into the major supermarkets".[6]
The Government is involved in choice-editing. It recently agreed
a voluntary initiative with major retailers to phase out the sale
of non-energy-efficient light bulbs.[7]
Joan Ruddock told us that this voluntary arrangement would achieve
change faster than the planned EU legislation on the topic.[8]
But choice editing can be a difficult process to manage; it is
not always sustainable and can result in higher costs. Marks &
Spencer use 10% fairtrade cotton, a purchase that amounts to a
third of the entire world supply.[9]
Defra told us that regulating low performance and inefficient
products out of the market could pre-empt legislative processes
already underway in the European Union or could be in conflict
with international regimes on barriers to trade.[10]
Choice-editing inevitably takes some choices away from consumers
and can remove from them the responsibility for making choices
based on environmental considerations or even raising awareness
of environmental issues. Environmental labelling and certification
schemes offer an opportunity for consumers to make environmentally
sound choices every day and so drive the process of choice-editing
themselves, encouraging retailers to stock more of the products
that carry better ratings and de-list the worst performers.
8) Environmental labels vary widely in their
design, quality and purpose. Labelling is evolving rapidly; the
knowledge and understanding of the market that underpin it continue
to develop. As a result uncertainty, confusion, and a lack of
coordination between manufacturers and parts of the supply chain
can easily arise. The Government's role should be to regulate
and provide active stewardship: supporting the development and
take up of appropriate, useful labels and certification schemes;
assisting consumers to make environmentally positive purchases;
and encouraging manufacturers to make improvements to their products
and supply chains. The issue of carbon labelling is important,
distinct and merits special attention; we deal with this separately
(see paragraph 52). We have identified three main priorities for
government action:
(1) reducing consumer confusion by promoting
the simplification, unification and verification of environmental
labelling, preferably into a single sector-based universal scheme
incorporating different key elements as in emerging food labelling
schemes;
(2) working with manufacturers and retailers
to support the adoption of robust, auditable certification schemes
to underpin the simple presentation of information to consumers;
and
(3) encouraging manufacturers to make improvements
to their products and supply chains.
9) By a sector-based universal labelling scheme
we mean that across all products and services the label would
appear similar but that the key criteria for each sector would
be different and the information displayed on the label might
vary from sector to sector. Another important issue here is that
the supply chain behind any product or service would have to be
assessed in examining the key criteria; there is no point in assessing
a product as having a particular green credential if one of its
key components fails to meet the test.
10) The Government needs to
put more resources into promoting better environmental labelling.
The Government should encourage the development of a sector-based
universal scheme comparable to those emerging in food labelling
that can incorporate a wealth of information in a simple and instantly
understandable label for consumers. The
Food Standards Agency's 'traffic light' scheme is admirable in
its simplicity and its ability to graphically convey high or low
performance more or less instantaneously without the need to understand
complex methodologies. In contrast the scheme preferred by some
manufacturers, based on Guideline Daily Amounts, is relatively
confusing giving information and some comparability but making
rapid choices more difficult. This underlines the potential importance
of having a statutory body - perhaps the Environment Agency -
ready to develop a system that delivers in terms of informed consumer
choice, should the manufacturers and retailers themselves fail
to do so. The Government
should be prepared to enforce such a labelling scheme by statute
although we accept that the ideal would be for manufacturers and
retailers themselves to introduce a clear and robust scheme without
the need for government enforcement.
11) We have heard concerns about the proliferation
of environmental labels. David North, Community and Government
Director at Tesco, told us that a proliferation of labels was
an inevitable risk "where you have choice driving change
in the market place".[11]
Many witnesses resisted calls for rationalisation. The Government
argued that:
Although the number of labelling schemes can seem
confusing, some have become well known by consumers, who are able
to differentiate between them in the same way as between the many
different brands and retailers […] even where separate labelling
schemes cover similar territory, a degree of choice can help business.
The first-rate schemes obviously help to encourage better environmental
standards, and stimulate other organisations to create better
schemes.[12]
12) Given the thought and investment in methodology,
presentation and public understanding by the Food Standards Agency
in their 'traffic light' scheme, there is a strong argument for
adapting it to environmental labelling and perhaps in future to
ethical labelling around areas such as animal welfare and fair
trade. For example, Sainsbury's 'petal' food label is similar
but more compact and arguably even clearer and simpler and could
also be considered. A proliferation of different systems for health,
environment and ethical choice could add to the confusion of consumers
whereas complementary ones would mean each system would gain from
a consumer understanding of the others. A different colour scheme
would obviously be desirable but green would still be the obvious
indicator of a good rating. The different categories of salt,
fat, calories and so on could be replaced by embedded carbon,
water use, impact on biodiversity, energy consumption in use and
other categories based on agreed certification or international
standards in each case. The
Government should make sure that environmental labels are backed
up by an appropriate set of standards and criteria, covering issues
like independent monitoring and verification of claims, so that
consumers can have confidence in them. The Government must also
ensure that the labels will also make a difference to the producers
who use them.
2 Ev 10 Back
3
Q 96 Back
4
Q 47 Back
5
Q 152 Back
6
Q 5 (Mr Tapper) Back
7
See, for instance, Defra news release 27 September 2007 Energy
guzzling light bulbs phase out to start next year Back
8
Q 317 Back
9
Q 49 Back
10
Q 315 (footnote) Back
11
Q 146 Back
12
Ev 114 Back
| 
