A survey taken in
November 2003 found that many building owners, facility managers and others
involved with building design, operation and maintenance were confused about
the term Green when used in an environmental
context. According to the report, 81 per cent of those surveyed believed Green
is not clearly defined; 47 per cent indicated they did not understand what
Green is; and more than a third said they were never certain if a product was really Green or if they could trust
labels making this claim.
Fortunately,
programs such as the EcoLogoM Program and others have helped end
much of this confusion. This survey was taken just before the use of
environmentally preferable products – from cleaning chemicals and paper
products to hand soaps, and building materials – was front and centre, and on
nearly everyone’s radar screen. So it is hoped that these statistics would be
more favourable if the same survey were taken today.
However, many
facility managers and cleaning professionals may still be unsure what all the
Green terminologies really mean. For instance:
If a product is “environmentally
friendly,” does that mean it is also “environmentally preferable”? And, to
what “environment” is it friendly?
What does the term sustainable mean?
How can you trust that a product
is Green?
Because Green
cleaning products play such a major role in the cleaning industry today, this
is an opportune time to define these terms – especially for building service
contractors and other end users who will likely be working with the products
every day.
Friendly or
Preferable
When the Green
movement first started to grow roots in the early 1970s, consumers were
introduced to a number of new expressions. Some of these included all-natural, biodegradable, ecological and
recyclable.
Unfortunately,
misunderstanding about these terms emerged almost as soon as they were
introduced. This is because many products were self-declared safe for the
environment by their manufacturers, with little substantiation. The different
claims and terms confused consumers, and for many, this confusion led to doubt
and mistrust about Green products.
The term
“environmentally friendly” was first introduced about 25 years ago. It usually
refers to goods or services that are considered to inflict little harm on the
environment, and is often added to product advertising or packaging to promote
sales. However, who makes the decision to call a product environmentally
friendly? Does the term refer to certain ingredients or to all ingredients used
in the product? And does this include how the product is packaged, its
usefulness, its performance, and eventually how it is discarded or disposed of?
These questions
point out the complex issues that arise when a product claims to be
“environmentally friendly.” In its publication Complying with the Environmental Marketing Guides, the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission suggests that the term environmentally
friendly can be deceptive if it leads consumers to believe that the product
has environmental benefits that the manufacturer cannot substantiate. As a
result, it is appropriate to use this term only when it is accompanied by
language that elaborates on the claim, such as: “This cloth bag is reusable and
is made from 100 per cent recycled fibres.”
The term environmentally preferable, on the other
hand, is less subject to misunderstanding and is generally more conducive to
clear communication. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has defined environmentally preferable precisely, stating
it refers to “products and services that have a -lesser or reduced effect on
human health and the environment when compared to other products and services
that serve the same purpose.”
Sustainability
Unlike the terms
and expressions mentioned earlier, sustainability
became a buzzword in the 1980s. However, like other terms, various people,
governments and organizations often had different meanings for the term. In
1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development created by the United
Nations defined the word sustainable
to mean “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This means that in
a sustainable world, we would not use renewable resources – such as forests,
soils, waters, fish and game – faster than they would be replenished. We also
would not use non-renewable resources – such as fossil fuels, minerals, ores
and other products – faster than renewable substitutes would replace them.
In addition, we
would not release pollutants and contaminants into the earth’s atmosphere
faster than they could be processed and made harmless in the atmosphere. The
term sustainable also has come to be
understood as requiring the simultaneous achievement of environmental, social
and economic objectives. This is the “triple bottom line” agenda.
For many years,
people in North America had a hard time dealing with the concept of
sustainability. Many believed it meant sacrifice and hardship. Some governments
and manufacturers believed it translated into increased costs to produce goods
and services that could affect profits and jobs.
Today, we are
beginning to realize that a sustainable world would likely be a better,
healthier world for our children. New sustainable technologies are already
opening doors and creating new opportunities that were not envisioned just a
few years ago.
Trust and
Verification
As I discussed in
my most recent column, when a product is certified by the EcoLogo Program, it
may use the EcoLogo mark in packaging, advertising and marketing materials.
Because we (as well as some similar certifying organizations) are totally
independent, this validation protects the consumer – as well as the marketplace
– and helps build trust.
A significant part
of the certification process includes follow-up audits, which allow the
certifying organization to ensure the product is still being manufactured
according to the established criteria. This surveillance can include both
announced and unannounced visits by the certifying entity. The manufacturer is
aware of this and agrees to the procedure.
EcoLogo has
recently expanded this program to cover many more product categories,
manufacturers and industries. The expansion is not the result of an increase in
manufacturers failing to meet compliance. In fact, we have rarely had such
problems.
Instead, it is
being done to better protect the consumer, to help clarify what Green really
means, and to build trust. For the Green movement to expand and produce the
many benefits we believe it can and will provide, the consumer must be assured
that a Green-certified product is indeed safe, healthy and sustainable and has
minimal impact on the environment.
Scott McDougall is
President of the EcoLogo Program. He may be reached by e-mail at
.
