Eco-labels: A load of nonsense

The Hindu Business Line , Friday, July 05, 2013
Correspondent : Manjula Lal
They are just barriers to trade. ‘Environment-conscious’ Western garment consumers are buying into a myth.

If extreme weather events like the Uttarakhand cloudburst are a result of West-induced climate change, is it morally right for consumers in the West to expect eco-labels for garments and textiles produced in Asia? Climate change is primarily the result of urbanisation and industrialisation. For that reason, expecting producers in countries such as India, Bangladesh and China to adopt environment-friendly practices smacks of the white woman’s burden in an age when globalisation has changed the rules, even the game, of trade across boundaries.

The desire for eco-labels may have originated as a call of conscience but has turned out to be misguided. In the last four decades, garment production has shifted to the developing world while consumption is overwhelmingly in the West. For instance, in 2000, about one-third of the worldwide sales of garments occurred in Western Europe and another third in North America.

With the end of import quotas in 2005 and the removal of tariff barriers, trade in textiles and clothing became freer. Countries such as India, keen on export-led growth, were able to earn significant foreign exchange from this sector. Countries like Norway which, in the 1970s, bought garments mostly from neighbouring countries, today import most of their needs from Asia at lower prices.

This growth has had an environmental cost — and the West is protesting too loudly about this, as if it has not benefited from cheaper imports. The textile industry is castigated as a major greenhouse gas emitter owing to its size and scope, and it is said apparels and textiles account for approximately 10 per cent of the total carbon impact.

As these facts became known, environment-conscious consumers were ready to pay for keeping the planet green for the next generation.

THE LABEL FETISH

Retailers in developed countries — and they are mostly giant chains — began labelling their products as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘ozone-friendly’ or ‘biodegradable’. Very often, they used the labels as an excuse for price mark-ups as there was no independent agency to verify these claims. To counter these ‘self-declared claims’, both public and private sectors initiated third-party labelling verifications.

Thus were created eco-labels such as Blue Angel (Germany, 1978) and Nordic Swan. If an exporter could earn that tag, his products would find favour in that country. In other words, those adopting green technologies would be rewarded with enhanced market access.

But the rationale for ‘voluntary’ eco-labels expected of Asian exporters seems to have reached its expiry date. For, if the process of growing and dyeing cotton harms the environment, the most eco-friendly and moral measure European consumers could adopt would be to reduce consumption — for instance, stop shopping for a new wardrobe every fashion season.

Is that possible? Even if it were, such parsimony would further impoverish export units in South Asia, which are money-spinners for their countries — and impoverishment leads to further pressure on natural resources such as firewood and water. Ironically, Life Cycle Assessment studies on clothing show that the use phase is the most energy-demanding phase (particularly due to the use of washing machines with heat dryers). So who’s harming the environment more: those who produce garments or those who use them?

Times — and perspectives — have changed since 1992, when the UN Conference on Environment and Development took up eco-labelling as a priority. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development again stressed the need for eco-labels. After Europe unified, labels such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), EU Flower and Oeko-Tex 100 were created.

TRADE BARRIERS

But another UN body, the United Nations Environment Programme, has expressed concern that eco-labels have emerged as new technical barriers to trade. It wants the world to develop less ‘trade-restrictive ways’ of conveying the message. Acknowledging this, the WTO preamble to the Agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT) reads: ‘The Agreement on TBT tries to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles, while also providing members with the right to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of human health and safety, or the environment.’

Indian textile producers based in Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Tirupur and Ludhiana are not averse to sporting a green tag, if it can boost exports. Some, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), say that the West should provide subsidised credit for greening their technologies. Some say they find the cost of eco-compliance too high. They also complain that eco-labelling schemes are based on developed countries’ own environmental priorities and technologies.

The West brushes aside accepted methods of production and manufacturing processes in producing countries, which may be in compliance with domestic laws. Further, producers face difficulty in acquiring adequate supplies of environment-friendly materials and technologies.

INCONSISTENT RULES

If manufacturers, exporters, processing units, dye houses, retailers and others in the supply chain can be accused of not getting their act together to adopt eco-friendly measures, the West has also not got its act together to harmonise eco-labels to facilitate compliance at the factory level.

To sell in the EU, Indian firms often comply with REACH — European environmental legislation. But there are also standards like ISO 14001, GOTS and Social Accountability (SA-8000), among others.

Germany’s Blue Angel certifies products whose entire processes and production methods are seen as environmentally sustainable, whereas WTO’s Agreement on TBT specifically disallows differentiating products based on intangible characteristics like production processes. Norway has now accepted that it cannot ask polluting industries in developing countries to be cleaner. It has instead adopted a policy of ‘green public procurement’: whatever the government buys for its soldiers or staff has to be eco-compliant.

It is also clear by now that European consumers are confused by these labels, defeating their very purpose. For instance, a survey found that the popular Oeko-Tex 100, given to products that do not use substances harmful to health, is mistaken as an eco-label. GOTS is specifically for organic products, not a general eco-label.

Why not abolish eco-labels, and stick instead to the widely used Fairtrade tag, given to identify products that meet certain environmental, labour and development standards. Primarily for food products, it is also used to certify cotton. That one label should be enough for buyers concerned about the environment.

The author is a global trade analyst.

 
SOURCE : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/ecolabels-a-load-of-nonsense/article4881502.ece?homepage=true
 


Back to pevious page



The NetworkAbout Us  |  Our Partners  |  Concepts   
Resources :  Databases  |  Publications  |  Media Guide  |  Suggested Links
Happenings :  News  |  Events  |  Opinion Polls  |  Case Studies
Contact :  Guest Book  |  FAQs |  Email Us