Validating the Sustainability of Eco-Labeled Products Using a Triple-Bottom-Line Analysis

Abstract

Sustainability considerations are becoming an intrinsic part of product design and manufacturing. Today’s consumers rely on package labeling to relay useful information about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a given product. As such, eco-labeling has become an important influence on how consumers interpret the sustainability of products. Three categories of eco-labels are theorized: Type I labels are certified by a reputable third party; Type II are eco-labels that are self-declared, potentially lacking scientific merit; and Type III eco-labels indicate the public availability of product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data. Regardless of the type of eco-label used, it is uncertain if eco-labeling directly reflects improved product sustainability. This research focuses on exploring if eco-labeled products are veritably more sustainable. To do this, we perform a comparative study of eco-labeled and comparable conventional products using a triple-bottom-line sustainability assessment, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. Here we show that for a selected set of products, eco-labeling does, in fact, have a positive correlation with improved sustainability. On average, eco-labeled products have a 47.7 % reduced environmental impact, reduce product lifespan costs by 48.4 %, and are subject to positive social perception. However, Type II eco-labeling shows a slight negative correlation with product sustainability and economic cost. We found only one eco-labeled product (with Type II labeling) that had an increased environmental impact over the conventional alternative. In general, the results confirm that most eco-labels are indicative of improved product sustainability. However, there is evidence that suggests that eco-labeling, though accurate, can omit truths with intention to improve marketability.