快猫短视频

When picking goods off supermarket shelves or rummaging the racks in clothing stores, do you check for a logo showing that the product was not made at the expense of the environment? And if so, do you believe it?

In an imperfect world 鈥� and one in which we also check the price tag 鈥� we know there are shades of greenness. But most of us think green is good: if not perfect, then at least a cut above the rest. And although we know that our purchase won鈥檛 save the world, we hope it will help lift industry standards.

We may be deluding ourselves, according to a stern new analysis by the Changing Markets Foundation in Utrecht, the Netherlands, which suggests that that sustainability certificates are little more than corporate greenwash. Its report, 鈥溾��, says the benchmarks are often set far too low, and that the certifiers are too intertwined with those they police.

The analysis argues that rather than catalysing change, certification is 鈥渟tanding in the way鈥� of progress on sustainability. Green labels encourage us to consume by salving our consciences. And by giving kudos in questionable circumstances, they actively undermine truly green-minded products. Ouch.

Debate about the value of green labels has raged since they first appeared over a quarter of a century ago. Puritans line up against pragmatists: is it glass half full or half empty? I have wavered. But if the charge is now that some labels may do more harm than good, then it is time to take a closer look.

The report focuses on certification schemes for textiles, fisheries and the palm-oil industry. There are many more schemes for other products, all designed to allow shoppers to determine eco credentials at a glance.

For fisheries, the report raises issues including the claim that schemes can 鈥減lace too much emphasis on increasing the number of fisheries participating and the volume of seafood caught, rather than on the quality of participation or outcomes鈥�. For textiles, it says certification schemes can give an 鈥渦njustified green glow鈥� by failing to 鈥渇orbid the use of hazardous pesticides, artificial fertilisers or GM cotton鈥�. And for palm oil, its criticisms include manufacturers putting sustainable logos on products without knowing whether their suppliers are still burning rainforests.

So, has the report nailed a global green failing? Or is it throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Some ethical consumers will never be satisfied with anything less than perfect, of course. That鈥檚 fine. We need them to raise ambition. But the acid test is not the purity of the logos. It is whether they can change how industries operate.

And here, the report offers some hope. Despite all its chastisement, it concedes, for instance, that fisheries certification schemes 鈥渃an and do have some positive impacts鈥�. Their existence has 鈥渕ade industry and government regulators more proactive about sustainability concerns鈥�.

Equally, nobody would say oil-palm growers have altogether stopped chopping down trees, but the in the past couple of decades. Something must be going right. I see that as a glass half full.

None of this lets consumers off the hook. Green labels do nothing to discourage us from buying more stuff, which arguably is what is needed most of all in a truly sustainable world. But it is surely perverse to see them as part of the problem. They may be imperfect and deserving of robust scrutiny, but on balance, the labels are worth keeping.