Although ecolabels have been around since at least the 1970s, they’re back in the spotlight. Just a couple of weeks into 2020 Quorn Food announced they were going to start putting carbon footprint labels on their 30 top-selling products. And interest in sustainability has never been higher.

So what are they?

Well, the technical definition is that an ecolabel is used to identify products that are certified as being more beneficial for the environment. But increasingly this definition has widened, so that fair trade, MSC (Marine Stewardship Council certified) and animal welfare labels are sometimes termed ecolabels too. In other words, social responsibility and sustainability more generally now also feature on ecolabels beyond those concerned only with the environmental impact of food.

Ecolabels can be useful in much the same way as nutrition and health food labels are, that is, they provide information to consumers about the food they buy and can encourage manufacturers to change their production practices. The idea is that an ecolabel acts as a stamp of approval for whatever food it’s used on, signifying that its eco credentials are legit. As people become more interested in the way their food is produced and more aware of the environmental impacts, it’s probably safe to bet that more and more food companies will start using this type of label. Recent years have seen notable engagement with sustainability labelling by food companies, with 2008–12 producing an average annual growth rate of 50% for 16 of the main sustainability schemes covering the ten most labelled agro-food products.

Which would be great if it encourages manufacturers and retailers to think more about the sustainability of their food supply chains. Although popular narratives around food labels usually focus on the role of labels in guiding consumers towards the healthier ‘choice’, it’s actually the fact that they leave nowhere for manufacturers to hide that can be more impactful. Put it this way, if all a customer sees is a wall of red traffic lights on their cereal bar, it’s likely that the manufacturer will be want to reformulate. Plus, we often overstimate the role of the individual when it comes to food choice. We don’t make choices in a vacuum but are heavily influenced by the wider food, commercial and social environment. Companies and governments also need to act to ensure that healthier and more sustainable ‘choices’ are easy and affordable ones.

But do ecolabels actually work?

It’s important to note that unlike food labels, most ecolabels are voluntary schemes, so claims aren’t always strictly regulated. In fact, the Global Ecolabelling Network (what do you mean you haven’t heard of these guys? ) listed some 463 different schemes in 2019. That’s a hell of a lot of different labels.

This means they run the risk of confusing consumers, with the multitude of different labelling schemes out there leading to low brand recognition. Moreover, ecolabels are often criticised as examples of corporate ‘green-washing’. Basically they can be a way of making it appear as though your company is green and sustainable and all manner of other lovely responsible things, which is great for PR, but maybe not so much for the planet if your core business model remains less sustainable.

That said, many certified schemes do require participating companies to meet quite extensive criteria. EU organic certification for instance, requires a yearly inspection and a set of checks to make sure you comply with the rules on organic production. Converting to organic status can take up to 3 years.

As for how useful ecolabels are for consumers, the evidence base is pretty mixed. A large European survey of almost 4,500 people found only low levels of use for four different sustainability labels (Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, Carbon Footprint, and Animal Welfare). However, a recent systematic review of 30 studies found that consumers actually preferred sustainability labels when in direct comparison to nutrition ones i.e. when given a choice between a 5-a-day logo and an organic label. But as many of the studies reviewed (19 to be precise) used choice experiment study designs, it’s hard to say for certain whether they’d have been equally popular in a real-life shopping environment. It’s likely that a desire to be seen to be making the socially acceptable green choice means that people are more likely to choose sustainability labels in a test environment than they would when in the supermarket spending their own hard-earned cash. In other words, there’s probably a big old intention-behaviour gap going on here. Several show studies also suggest consumers can struggle to interpret ecolabels or simply ignore them in favour of information on price or taste.

Nonetheless, the fact that all the studies included in the review were published in the last 5 years suggests that consumer sentiment is at the very least starting to shift towards looking favourably on the sustainability credentials of food.

Why thinking about the bigger picture is important when it comes to labelling

It’s important to remember that food choice is seriously complicated. Everything from how much time you have, to price, to personal preference impacts on what you actually end up buying. If we are to encourage the increased use of ecolabels by food companies, then we need to be sure that claims are being accurately communicated and that more sustainable products don’t come with an accompany price premium that puts them out of reach of many.

Organic products for example, are often more expensive that their conventional counterparts. A 2016 UK survey found that organic shoppers paid 89% more than those buying non-organic foods, with 1 kg of carrots for example costing an average of £1.40 compared to 46p for the non-organic equivalent. The danger here is that this makes more sustainable foods too expensive for low income groups, further widening existing health and dietary inequalities.

Not only that, but there seems to be something of a ‘health halo’ when it comes to sustainability labelling. An overlap in consumer perceptions of ‘good for health’ and ‘good for the planet’ suggest we must take care to prevent consumers drawing unmerited health inferences from environmental labels. Highly processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat can all still be labelled as organic or sustainable.

Practicalities also need to be considered to make sure consumers are correctly able to interpret sustainability labelling information. Carbon footprints for example, are tricky to communicate without really great label design, because frankly most of us wouldn’t be able to say whether 0.30 kg of carbon emissions is a good or bad thing without a bit of help. Any footprint figures communicated really need to be conveyed relative to other foods, for example using compass or traffic light designs to demonstrate where a product’s carbon emissions sit compared to others.

So in summary, a lot of potential, but much to be determined. Watch this space I guess!

*Yes, it me! And yes, citing myself does make me feel totally badass in case you were wondering.