ECO-MARKETING AND ECO-LABELLING: DOES IT ENSURE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D.Grundey 169 ISSN 1648-4460 Besearching Customer Loyalty in Lithuania 3.3.4 Other eco-labels and organic food labels There is a jungle of labels out there: There are a large number of recycling labels (Figure 5), often without any developed organisation to handle the waste. There are organic food labels (Figure 6), social and ethical labels (Figure 7), all with some environmental interest. In this context they are probably most interesting as examples of the kind of overload, often "do-good-overload" that modem consumers have to deal with. Most stakeholders call for a simpler system, with a limited number of labels for consumers to relate to. We can find labels on cosmetics, which state that a particular product was not tested on animals. However, there is no standard label, il is usually picture of a rabbit. Cosmetics that were not tested on animals can also carry the letters 'BWC [they stand for Beauty Without Cruelty], or the words Not tested on animals or Animal friendly. Source: complied by the author. "Dolphin-Safe tuna" This label means, that during tuna fishing, no dolphins or whales are harmed or seriously wounded, and that high seas driftnets were not used. This label means, that the turtle mortality rate caused by shrimp fishing is being kept at the lowest possible level. More information: In Search of a Policy Formula for Marine Turtle Conservation in the South East Asian and Indian Ocean Region Turtle Safe Shrimp Campaign Figure 7. Examples of social and ethical labels, adopted world-wide This label is often mistaken for an ecolabel. In fact, it has no ecological value, but is placed on goods, to attract the customer with a green label. 3.3.5 Country-of-origin (COO) labelling in relation to ecological issues According to Italian companies, being informed of the origin of a machinery is always an asset. Equal consideration apply to retail consumers, but for industry, this information has a further considerable relevance to machineries' performances, general efficiency of industrial plants and safety on the workplace. The origin mark does not "protect" consumers, but it does "inform" on what they buy. Should a European company deem that it is worthy to produce in a third country, and trade products under its own label, both consumers and the market would benefit from a clearly visible origin marking, without substantial effects if the brand is known, as demonstrates the vast number of glamour trademarks associated with a "made in country X". The results of a survey carried out in Italy, France, Gemiany and United Kingdom provided solid confirmation to the assumption that consumers arc interested in origin marking. The statement "it provides more information and gives the opportunity to make conscious choices" was agreed by 78% in Italy, 85% in France, 86% in Germany, 84% in UK. The statement "it helps to fmd safe products", was agreed by 70% in Italy, 79% in France, 66% in Germany, 78%o in UK. The statement "it helps to detect products imported from countries that enforce no laws against child labour and for environmental protection" was agreed by 70% in Italy, 78% in France, 80% in Germany, 79% in UK, Disagreed with the statement "// does not provide cniy .special benefit" 47% in Italy, 73% in France, 71% in Germany, 61% in UK. The more direct question "are you interested in knowing the country of origin of products imported from non-European Union countries ?" was given a positive answer by 72% in Italy, 87% in France, 83% Germany, 81% in UK, Tcdde 5 provides a comparison of origin labelling regulations in other countries compared to tlic provisions in the U.S. Farm Dill. In 2002, the EU required member states to label all beef at the retail level, including ground beef, with information on the country of birili, place of fattening and slaughter. T\V\KSVO\l\tAriO\.S IN IW.SlNilS.'i & liC.ONOMtCS, 8, No 1 (16), 2009
D.Grundey 170 ISSN 1648-4460 Researching Customer Loyaity in Lithuania Canada, Mexico and Japan all have some version of COOL regulation though only Japan has rules as strict as those in the 2002 Farm Bill. One of the main arguments in favour of COOL, discussed above, has also been used to justify mandatory labelling of genetically modified (GM) food in Europe. That is, the consumer has a "right to know" what they are eating. The U.S. government has strongly opposed mandatory GM {genetically modified) labelling, and for good reason. In practice, GM labelling has not given EU consumers greater choice, because food processors in Europe have recombined ingredients away from GM food to avoid labelling. The same phenomenon has taken place in Japan. This pattem may well develop with COOL and therefore U.S. consumers will not be given a choice because imported labelled food will not be made readily available. Instead, the imported commodity will be processed, re-exported or sold into the restaurant or food service industry, to avoid COOL. Tabic 5. Comparison of Country-of-Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements for Food US Farm Japan Australia & Canada Mexieo The EU Bill New Zealand Retail yes yes no Varies - no yes COOL* for Ontario and fresh produce? Quebec only Comments Florida has About 10 Proposal Provincial Grapes, had popular under decision avocados and mandatory products consideration mangoes COOL since covered have specific 1980 rules Retail yes yes no Yes to pre Yes to pre yes COOL* for packagedpackaged fresh meats? meat; meat; A^oto A'oto imported imported meat meat processed in processed in Canada Mexico Comments Exception for Full Proposal "Processed" Label must processed traceability under is determined indicate products within consideration by a rule of country of domestic 51% value birth, beef industry added fattening and (including labour) slaughter Notes: COOL* - counlry-of-origin labelling. Source: compiled by the author from various USDA Foreign Agricultural Service attaché reports available at www.fas.usda.gov Numerous states have meanwhile got together in the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN), founded in 1994. The aim of this interest group, > with a current membership comprising 26 cco-labcl organisations — • worldwide, is to foster mutual feedback in regard to national cco-labclling activities, and to develop the cco-labcl programmes of the individual nations involved to maximally sophisticated efficacy. The GEN currently includes members from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, the Czech republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (Special Adminislrativc Region), Hungary, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden (SIS), Sweden (SSNC), Sweden (TCO), Thailand, the United Kingdom, the USA and Zimbabwe. TlL'XN.'il-OmATlON.S IN IiU.UNPS\- ó- LiCONOMlCS, Vol. 8. No 1 (16), 2009
Page 1 and 2: D.Grundey 152 ISSN 1648-4460. Resea
Page 3 and 4: D.Grundey 154 ISSN 1648 - 4460 Rese
Page 7 and 8: D.Grundey 158 ISSN 1648-4460. Resea
Page 9 and 10: D.Grundey 160 ISSN 1648-4460 Resear
Page 11 and 12: D.Grundey 162 ISSN 1648 - 4460 Bese
Page 17: D.Grundey 168 ISSN 1648-4460 Resear
Page 23 and 24: D.Grxindey 174 ISSN 1648-4460 Resea

ECO-MARKETING AND ECO-LABELLING: DOES IT ENSURE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?