The overall objective of this project is to analyse how companies perceive
the costs and benefits from environmental labelling. The project only
covers two labels: - the Nordic ‘Swan’ and the European ‘Flower’.
The majority of the companies have to high or some extent achieved their
objectives regarding the labels. Moreover, most companies believe that
environmental labelling improves image.
One third of the companies state that the benefits from labelling exceed the
costs they have encountered. However, more than half of the companies
do not feel that they have gained important advantages from environmental
labelling, e.g. from additional sales and earnings.
With regards to the costs, environmental labelling does not necessitate
high investments in new technology, recruitments, education etc. In other
words, the cost barriers are in general small and most companies are able
to defray the costs of environmental labelling.
In conclusion, most companies have at least to some extent achieved their
goals, whereas the economic impacts from environmental labelling have so
far been limited. This does not necessarily imply that environmental
labelling is without importance. On the contrary, environmental labels hold
a number of potentials that make them attractive to companies. However,
the prospects of environmental labelling depend on the values, attitudes
and behaviour of all relevant stakeholders. Based on the results from the
project, we have listed a number of recommendations for the companies,
the customers and the administrators, which might stimulate the future
development of environmentally labelled goods and services:
* Companies. Even though companies in general do not experience
substantial advantages from environmental labelling, the labels might
have a number of indirect effects, which might increase the companies’
competitiveness in the long run. For instance, environmental labelling
might improve the companies’ image and serve as a door opener for
Side 5
Miljømærker og effekter
new markets. Furthermore, the costs of environmental labelling are very
limited. However, companies also have to realise that environmental
labelling is not a panacea, which automatically generates a number of
positive impacts.
* Customers. It is often concluded that customers care about the
environment and are willing to pay a price premium for environmentalfriendly
goods and services. However, this is not always the case. The
results indicate that the customers’ actual purchasing behaviour is not
necessarily in accordance with ‘green’ purchasing policies. For
instance, a number of companies have experienced that the public
procurement practises are inconsistent with formal policies. Realising
that the public sector is the driver of environmental labelling much has
to be done in order to improve the public procurement: - e.g. through
education, campaigns and political action.
* Administrators. In general, companies are not pleased with the fee
structure of the labelling schemes. They think it would be fairer to
impose the fees on the companies who do not produce eco-labelled
products. Moreover, when eco-labels in general do not increase profit of
products and services, the fees inevitable become an impediment to the
future growth of environmental labelling. In general, there is a need to
align the fee structure as well as the administrative procedures to the
actual costs and advantages of environmental labelling
