Green Tick® Sustainability Certification of Goods and Services

  

Susan M Harris*

Principal Scientist, Green Tick Technologies Limited, PO Box 1238, Whangarei 0115, New Zealand, 2000-2005

Abstract

At present, consumers have few means by which they can clearly identify sustainably produced goods and services on supermarket shelves or in the storefront, and this is particularly the case for fresh foods. This paper describes the Green Tick. Sustainability Certification System, a certification system which links an independent “cradle-to-grave” sustainability assessment of products to a visually powerful brand – the Green Tick. . In this way ordinary consumers can be assured that goods and services that carry the Green Tick. have been independently and robustly certified as genuinely sustainable. The paper reports on two case studies from Australia and New Zealand, where Green Tick. Sustainability Certification has been trialed with household cleaning products and low-residue wool and lamb.

Keywords: Sustainability; Certification; Eco-label; Quality assurance; Life cycle assessment

* Author now at Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, Perth, Australia Tel.: + 61-8-9281-6232;
fax: + 61-8-9281-6294 E-mail address: susan.harris@maunsell.com


1. Introduction


At present, consumers have few means whereby they can clearly identify sustainably produced goods and services on their local supermarket shelves or in the storefront. In the local and international marketplace there exist a myriad of claims by manufacturers as to the “clean green”, “dolphin-friendly”, “eco”, “organic”, “natural”, or “kind to the environment” status of their products. Such claims do not necessarily mean that products are sustainably produced. This myriad of claims is very confusing to consumers, and there is considerable consumer scepticism as to the validity of most “clean green” product claims; except possibly for certain third-party organic certification systems [1].

There is no independent certification system for sustainability. This means that for the vast majority of conventionally manufactured consumer products, consumers cannot tell at the point of their buying choice whether the paper towels, breakfast cereal, canned food, fruit juice or toothpaste on their shopping list today have been genuinely sustainably sourced and manufactured, or whether the products (and their packaging) can be sustainably disposed of. Neither is this information available for most consumers making everyday clothing, computer, furniture, entertainment, energy, transport, or travel buying choices.

This paper describes in detail a system for the independent certification of genuinely “sustainable” and “natural” products and services, based on a “cradle to grave” life cycle assessment of products and services down the supply chain, and in accordance with the “plan, do, check, review” protocols of the relevant International Standards Organisation (‘ISO’) quality system standards.

2. Review of currently available independent environmental certification systems and eco-labels

 

A review of currently available independent (third-party) environmental certification systems and eco-labels was undertaken based on the following criteria:
  • The certification system should be applicable to conventionally produced consumer goods and services;
  • The certification system should be based on a life cycle assessment of product;
  • The certification system should have measurable objective standards; and,
  • The certification system should have potential global application across multiple product groupings.

Table 1 summarises the eco-labels reviewed.


Table 1

Name Standards Origin Profile
Blue Angel
Specific product criteria required, partial life cycle assessment, mandatory product return		 Germany 1977 Requires voluntary cooperation from manufacturers, applies to >90 product groups, valid for four years
Environmental Choice
Specific product content required, partial life cycle assessment
Canada 1988		 Requires independent assessment against measurable criteria, applies to >125 product groups, valid for two years
EU Eco-Label
Specific product content required, partial life cycle assessment		 Belgium 1993 Focused on common standards for the EU market – does not include food or medicine, applies to >23 product groups, valid for three years
Green Seal Very similar to Environmental Choice USA 1992
USA version of Environmental Choice, applies to >32 product groups
ISO 14000 Environmental management systems – processes only Switzerland 1996 ISO quality organisation – no measurable standards set, requires a defined ‘plan, do, check, review’ cycle in place against stated targets, valid for three years
Nordic Swan Very similar to Environmental Choice Sweden 1989 Nordic version of Environmental Choice, applies to >50 product groups

Source: [2], Organisation web sites August 2005

 

The conclusions of the review were that:
(1) There are currently two types of independent environmental certification systems for conventionally produced consumer products and services:

(a) The “Blue Angel Group” (Environmental Choice, EU Eco-Label, Green Seal and Nordic Swan) – certification systems focused on definitions of product content with elements of product life cycle assessment included to various degrees [2-4]; and,

(b) The “ISO 14001 Group” – a process-orientated system that certifies that an organisation has a satisfactory environmental management system (‘EMS’) in place, not that it is achieving any particular independent environmental performance standard in its products.


(2) Although “sustainability” is mentioned generally in the explanatory material provided by certification agencies, the term itself is not defined in a manner that lay consumers can readily relate to the certification process followed.

(3) The certification agencies reviewed do not provide sustainability certification in itself.

(4) None of the certification systems reviewed provide an environmental certification based on a full life cycle assessment. Notably product content is not traced back to its primary source, the sustainability of product sources themselves is not examined, and the sustainability of manufacturing sites (whether on-shore or off-shore) is not reviewed.

3. Design criteria for an independent sustainability certification system

Consumer surveys focusing on consumer responses to environmental claims made in product labelling point to the following design criteria for a credible sustainability certification system [5-7]:

  • Independence – the certifying agency must be completely independent from the organisation being certified;
  • Integrity – the certifying agency must be truthful, accurate, and consistent in all its dealings;
  • Transparency – the certification process must be transparent, with all relevant information made readily available to consumers in a form they can easily access and understand;
  • Meaningful and Verifiable Standards – standards set must clearly relate to the products being certified, and should be objective and verifiable by some defined measure;
  • Safety, Health, and Environment - consumers are concerned about the health and safety aspects of product manufacture as well as environmental effects;
  • Instant Recognition of Eco-Label – the consumer should be able to instantly recognise the eco-label and its meaning on a product;
  • Certification of the certifier – the certifying agency should itself be independently accredited by a third party to ensure that the certifier maintains acceptable quality standards.

Scientific researchers into environmental certification systems and the ISO have identified further technical criteria that a sustainability eco-label should satisfy [1, 8-14]:

  • Definition of sustainability – the definition of sustainability used should be clearly stated and easily related to the product being certified;
  • Full life cycle assessment down the entire supply chain – the products should be certified for sustainability throughout their entire life cycle from raw material source to point of manufacture to disposal;
  • Compatibility with ISO International Standards – where possible, certification should incorporate and be compatible with the relevant ISO standards, following the classical ISO ‘plan, do, check and review’ cycle;
  • Global scope – provide standards that have global scope and can be applied equally across all industry sectors;
  • Single set of standards –specify a single set of standards that apply;
  • Customisation – have flexibility to customise the standards used to meet relevant quality assurance criteria in different industrial sectors;
  • Continuous improvement – maintain a commitment to high quality and provide flexibility to accommodate continuous improvement.

4. The Green Tick. sustainability certification system

The Green Tick. sustainability certification system was designed to provide the lay consumer with an instantly identifiable eco-label that would signal that the product had been independently certified as sustainable. A “long-tailed” green tick inside a circle was chosen as the preferred eco-label, because in most Western markets the image of a green tick inside a circle encapsulates the concept of a product being “ticked off” as “environmentally-OK” inside an official stamp of approval -traditionally seals of approval were circular with a banner label at their base.

Key consumer concerns were considered to be safety and sustainability. The definition of sustainability used was that, as a minimum, operations occur in a way that does not lead to the permanent degradation of the environment. This concept of sustainability includes the consideration of: permanent, irreversible effects; the cumulative effects of a number of different elements working together over space and time; severe temporary effects; and the full life cycle of a product down the supply chain. Health and safety aspects included the consideration of staff, supplier, and customer health and safety.

More specifically, eight safety performance standards and 12 sustainability standards, or key performance indicators (‘KPI’) were specified, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Key Performance
Indicator		 Purpose Standard
1.1 Safety - Accident Record Minimise on-site incidents No major harm accidents, incidents injuries recorded in previous 12 months.

1.2 Safety - Staff Health and Safety 		Protect staff health and safety No substantiated staff complaints about working conditions in past 12 months.
1.3 Safety – Supplier Health and Safety Protect supplier health and safety
No substantiated supplier issues with on-site working conditions in past 12 months.
1.4 Safety – Customer Health and Safety Protect customer health and safety No substantiated customer complaints about health and safety issues (including and product quality) in past 12 months.
1.5 Safety Management System Health and Safety Management System (H&S) Occupational safety and health-compliant management system in place.
1.6 Safety - Minimising Risk Monitoring risk areas and minimising risk Annual reviews of potential risk areas and mitigation taken.
1.7 Safety – Performance Records Performance monitoring Less than five minor non-conformances per 100 workers to H&S management system reported in past 12 months.
1.8 Safety – Legal Compliance Legal compliance and enforcement i) 100% legal compliance with all legal requirements;
ii) No successful enforcement actions by government H&S agencies in past 12 months.
2.1 Environmental- Product Origin Identify product origin All product origin identified by country of origin.
2.2 Environmental– Product Quality High product quality Product meets all quality standards of industry or government food authority.
2.3 Environmental – Product Labeling Accurate product labelling Labelling meets all required legal standards.
2.4 Environmental – Resource Use Maximise resource use i) Programme in place to maximise efficiency resource use efficiency with defined performance targets;
ii) Resources used at lowest practical for site/s with current technology per sales unit;
iii) Programme in place to identify and use recycled materials where appropriate;
iv) Where resource use is extractive, relevant industry or government sustainability standards met.
2.5 Environmental – Chemical Use Minimise chemical use Chemical residues comply with industry or government standard.
2.6 Environmental – Energy Use Minimise energy use i) Programme in place to minimise energy use with defined performance targets;
ii) Energy resources used at lowest practical for site/s with current technology per sales unit.
2.7 Environmental – Nuisance Effects Minimise adverse effects on neighbours, eg. noise, dust, spray drift No substantiated complaints from neighbours about nuisances in past 12 months.
2.8 Environmental - Contaminant Discharges Minimise contaminant discharges i) Programme in place to minimise contaminant discharges with defined performance targets;
ii) Contaminant discharges at lowest practical for site/s with current technology per sales unit.
2.9 Environmental – Waste Management Waste minimisation, dispose of wastes correctly i) Waste minimization and recycling programme in place with defined performance targets;
ii) Wastes reduced, re-used, recycled, or properly disposed of to authorised facilities.
2.10 Environmental – Management System Environmental Management System (EMS) Environmental management programme in place with defined performance targets consistent with industry or government standards.
2.11 Environmental – Management Performance Performance monitoring Less than five minor non-conformances per 100 workers with EMS reported in past 12 months.
2.12 Environmental – Legal Compliance Legal compliance and enforcement i) 100% legal compliance with any environmental consents and applicable plan rules;
ii) No successful enforcement actions by government environmental agencies in
past 12 months.
Source [16]

It should be noted that the Green Tick. KPI are used to measure the sustainability performance of the organisation, site, or product in terms of outcomes of operations; and that relevant ISO Standards are used as a guide for the assessment of management systems at the organisation and site, and as they pertain to products. Green Tick. certification is aimed at making an independent sustainability assessment of an organisation, site or product. It does not constitute an audit or certification of management systems in respect of ISO standards, nor is it a product performance test.

Green Tick. certification consists of five certification options, see Figure 1:


(a)“Green Tick. Sustainable” – the standard sustainability brand;

(b)“Green Tick. Natural” – where products are certified as sustainable and as genuinely natural, containing no artificial content;

(c)“Green Tick. Organic” – where products are certified as sustainable and organic in accordance with International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM.) requirements;

(d)“Green Tick. GE-Free” – where products are certified as sustainable with no genetically modified content; and,

(e)“Green Tick. Fair Trader” – where products are certified as sustainable and produced in compliance with United Nations criteria on fair trading practices.

Figure 1


Green Tick. is a Type I environmental label [9]. It is an eco-label that requires compliance with a defined set of environmental parameters, includes a full life cycle assessment of goods and services, and requires an applicant’s goods and services to be independently reviewed by a suitably qualified auditing agency. There is no government involvement in setting assessment criteria based on production practices [1], and the Green Tick. eco-label can be applied globally to practically every product supply chain in every industrial sector.


Three types of certification are available:
(1) Corporate certification – where a corporation wishes to show that its entire organisation is genuinely focused on sustainability.

(2) Site certification – this certification examines whether the applicant’s manufacturing site/s operate in a sustainable manner.

(3) Product certification – this certification examines the full life cycle of an applicant’s product/s to determine whether they are sustainably sourced and manufactured, and whether they can be sustainably disposed.

The certification procedure for all three types of certification follows the environmental audit principals and procedures set out in ISO 19011:2002 [15]. Where an objective technical standard is not available, best practical option (BPO), or best available technology (BAT), are used as default criteria. Additional criteria, such as taste testing, can be included as appropriate for customised certifications. It is not considered compulsory to certify the retail outlet. Results of certification projects are published on the Green Tick. website, with free downloads of all information, apart from that which is commercially sensitive. Annual spot checks of certified products or services are undertaken with a minimum of 24 hours notice to the certified manufacturer. Certification of the Green Tick. certifying organisation by an accreditation agency is programmed for completion by end 2006, with three-yearly reviews planned thereafter.

5. Case studies

5.1. Case Study 1 – Household Cleaners, New Zealand
Ecostore Company Limited (‘Ecostore’) is a New Zealand-based manufacturer and supplier of “eco-friendly” products, with an emphasis on the use of plant-based product ingredients. Ecostore is a manufacturer of its own ‘Ecostore’-branded range of certified organic products, and sells a total of some 200 household and personal care products in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and on-line at www.ecostore.co.nz. Ecostore is currently working on extending its network of retail outlets into the rest of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

In December 2004 Ecostore applied for corporate sustainability certification of its organisation, site sustainability certification of its two largest manufacturing sites, and product sustainability certification of 22 of its household and personal care products. Certification was completed in April 2005. The products certified were listed in the “Chemicals” and “Cosmetics” section of the Green Tick. Register of certified products, and the Ecostore Certification Report made available as a free download on the Green Tick. web site [16]. Green Tick. Certification was part of a wider promotional campaign by Ecostore, and this has had immediate commercial results, with Ecostore registering record sales month-after-month since May 2005 [17]. Promotion of Green Tick.-certified Ecostore products is continuing in international markets. Marketing and sales data is being collected, with the first six months of data to be formally reported in October 2005 [18].

5.2. Case Study 2 – Agricultural Products, Queensland, Australia
Currently the Australian Government and industry is funding extensive research into methods for including sustainability into the supply chains of all of Australia’s primary production industries [19] and http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm? ObjectID=595F2527-986C-4259-96B1B593E7977B15. There are 15 pilot projects underway in this activity area.

One of these pilot projects, On-farm EMS and Environmental Labelling in the pastoral industries, is being completed by staff of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (‘DPI&F’), in Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. The project has resulted in the development of an on-farm EMS for use by pastoral farmers [20], and the identification of the need for an auditable third-party eco-label that could be harmonised with standards used in Australia’s export markets, and operate along the entire supply chain.

In August 2004, a business unit within DPI&F and Green Tick. agreed to trial the “Green Tick. Natural” eco-label with a small group of rangeland pastoral farmers in south-western Queensland. The three farms involved run an average of 5,000 merino sheep and 700 cattle each across several thousand hectares of low relief rangelands, approximately 700 kilometres west of Brisbane. These farmers had already proceeded to the first review stage of their pastoral EMS, and it was considered that they were likely to achieve the performance standards required by the Green Tick. KPI. It was initially decided to use lamb meat and merino wool product in the trial, and to attempt to certify these products as genuinely sustainable and natural (containing no artificial content), according to the requirements of the “Green Tick. Natural” eco-label.

Staff of DPI&F’s Charleville office assisted the farmers to collate the records needed to demonstrate compliance with the Green Tick. KPI. All of the lambs to be certified were pre-sold six months prior to becoming available. Independent tests of lamb meat for artificial content resulted in a zero return for the lambs tested (a sample of nine lambs, three lambs each from the three trial mobs were tested). A registered agricultural auditor was employed to independently review the farmers’ documentation, production practices, and test results against the Green Tick. KPI, and to recommend whether the farms’ Damara lambs could be certified as “Green Tick. Natural”. All three farms passed the audit.

DPI&F displayed the certified Damara Lamb at the “Taste of Queensland” pavilion at the Royal Queensland Show on the 16th of August 2005, and on the 18th of August 2005 the certified lambs went on sale in three retail outlets in Brisbane. They were strongly branded as high quality “Damara Lambs” with the “Green Tick. Natural” certification. The lamb products certified were listed in the “Food” section of the Green Tick. Register of certified products, and a summary of the Damara Lamb Certification Trial was made available on the Green Tick. web site. Due to operational constraints, it was decided to conduct the wool trial following the completion of the lamb meat trial. Marketing and sales data is being collected, and the commercial results of the Damara Lamb Trial will be formally reported in October 2005 [18].

6. Conclusions


The following conclusions can be drawn:
  1. 1. There is a myriad of unsupported claims as to the “environmentally-friendly” status of various goods and services in world markets.
  2. Consumer surveys show growing consumer support for “environmentally-friendly” products and practices, but considerable consumer scepticism regarding the validity of most “clean green” product claims, except possibly for independently certified organic products.
  3. Currently available third party eco-labels are limited in their application to conventionally produced goods and services, and do not offer sustainability certification based on a full life cycle assessment of a product or service.
  4. The Green Tick. eco-label is designed to address this gap by providing independent sustainability certification in a form which is scientifically robust, and easily understood by the consumer.
  5. Initial market reaction to the “Green Tick. Sustainable” and “Green Tick. Natural” eco-labels on a number of household, personal care, and food products has been very positive and commercially beneficial to Green Tick.-certified producers.

Acknowledgements

The five-year research project aimed at designing a sustainable eco-label was funded by Pacific Coasts Corporation Limited, and by private investors in its latter stages. My grateful thanks go to these parties. The invaluable input and feedback provided by Dr Lester Pahl and his team at DPI&F, Charleville, Queensland, is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Pahl, L. EcoRange: Market-Orientated Environmental Certification for Rangeland Pastoral Industries. 1. Project Overview, 2003; Publication No. 02, Project No. DAQ-276A, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, Australian Capital Territories, Australia, March 2003.
[2] USEPA. Germany’s Blue Angel. USEPA Publications, 24 July 2002.
[3] AEA Technology Limited. Revision of EU Ecolabel Criteria for Computers, Oxon, August 2001.
[4] Environmental Choice New Zealand. Certification Specifications, Auckland, 2005.
[5] Growth and Innovation Advisory Board. Research on Growth and Innovation, Research Summary. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, Government of New Zealand, Wellington, 2004.
[6] The Cooperative Bank. The Ethical Consumerism Report 2003. Manchester, 2003.
[7] Lockeretz, W. and Merrigan, K.A. Selling to the Eco-Conscious Food Shopper. Nutrition Today, Volume 40, Number 1, January/February 2005:45-49.
[8] ISO 14020: 2000. Environmental Labels and Declarations – General Principles. Geneva, 2000.
[9] ISO 14024:2001. Environmental Labels and Declarations - Type I Environmental Labeling - Principles and Procedures. Geneva, 2001.
[10] ISO 14031:1999. Environmental Management – Environmental Performance Evaluation
–Guidelines. Geneva, 1999.
[11] ISO 14040:1997. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva, 1997.
[12] ISO 14041:1998. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. Geneva, 1998.
[13] ISO 14042:2000. Environmental Management –Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Geneva, 2000.
[14] ISO 14043:2000. Environmental Management –Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Interpretation. Geneva, 2000.
[15] ISO 19011:2002. Guidelines for Quality and/or Environmental Management System Auditing. Geneva, 2002.
[16] Green Tick Certification Limited. Ecostore Certification Report. Whangarei, 2005.
[17] Malcolm Rands, Ecostore Company Limited, pers comm.
[18] Harris, S. M. Does Sustainability Sell? Market Responses to Sustainability Certification. Proceedings of the International Sustainability Conference, Basel, 2005. In preparation.
[19] Pahl, L. EcoRange: Market-Orientated Environmental Certification for Rangeland Pastoral Industries. 2. Review of On-Farm Standards, 2003; Publication No. 02, Project No. DAQ-276A, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, Australian Capital Territories, Australia, March 2003.
[20] Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland. Pastoral EMS Workbook. State of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2004.

Author’s Vitae

Susan M Harris (Mrs)
Bachelor of Science (Honours) Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1983.Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, 1989.
Member, Crown Company Directors, The Treasury, Government of New Zealand, 1999.Currently Principal Environmental Scientist, Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, 629 NewcastleStreet, Leederville WA 6902, Australia.

Illustrations

Figure 1: Green Tick. Certification Eco-Labels

Tables


Table 1
Independent Environmental Certification Systems and Eco-Labels
Name Standards Origin Profile

Table 2
Green Tick. Sustainability Certification Key Performance Indicators





Greentick® Latest News
Greentick® ...Beginnings...
Greentick® at Harvard
Australian Farmers Trial Greentick®
Science Papers EU
Australian Lamb Gains World's First ...