Are Eco Labels Greenwashing? A Review of the Rainforest Alliance, GOTS & FSC

Ever wondered what those eco symbols you see on products really mean and why they matter? Are they greenwashing, or can they actually help us make informed decisions? Labels like Energy Star, Rainforest Alliance, and Marine Stewardship Council have all been designed as eco labels to help us as consumers make better choices. But they've had their fair share of controversy too. Eco labels have different aims depending on the product and the sector. Generally, they give you a peek behind the scenes of how a product was made, what the environmental conditions are, and how workers are treated. However, that's not the case for every label, and that's where it can get confusing. In this video, you'll learn about what an eco label is and why they're important. We'll also do a spotlight on three Eco labels and whether or not they're trustworthy.

Eco labels help us to make more informed decisions. For example, if you see a label that says "Fair Trade" on it, you automatically know that those farmers have been paid fairly. If consumers do favor Eco labels, then that's the perfect circumstance for businesses to become more environmentally and socially sustainable. However, not all of these labels are trustworthy, which would never lead to consumers buying it and leading to that innovation. It's important that the labels are reviewed and enforced to ensure that they're up to the standards that they claim they are.

There are three different types of eco labels under the International Organization of Standards. The one that we'll be focusing on is Type One. Type One eco labels are certified by a third party. The third party looks at principles and procedures for that product or service and looks at their compliance with preset criteria that they need to fulfill to receive that standard. They're only applicable for a certain amount of time, after which you have to reapply to get that label again.

Now let's review three examples of eco labels to see whether or not we can trust them.

The Rainforest Alliance seal or the little green frog that you see on products sometimes means that the product comes from a certified farm or forest. To receive that certification, the farm or forest has to fulfill certain criteria. This includes protecting existing ecosystems and restoring habitats, reducing water waste, preventing contaminated water, and ensuring that workers are paid a legal minimum wage, have fair working hours, access to accommodation, and that there is no forced or child labor. However, there are some shortfalls when it comes to the criteria. It lacks important provisions like paying living wages, mandatory risk assessments, and banning all pesticides. For example, certain pesticides that are classified as highly hazardous are still allowed to be used regardless of their potential health risk to the workers. In 2015, an investigation into tea plantations in Assam, India, uncovered some poor conditions, including child workers, pesticide use without protection, and damaged housing as accommodation for workers. These were all clear violations of the criteria under the Rainforest Alliance certificate. To their credit, the Rainforest Alliance responded quickly to these allegations and ended up decertifying some of these farms. But one of the key issues that came out of this was that the audits on the farms were only happening yearly, which wasn't enough to monitor working conditions. Another controversy emerged when Oxfam found poor working conditions in Latin America on banana and pineapple farms. Workers were working 12-hour days without enough compensation to survive. However, these cases are rare. It's worth thinking about whether it is possible to have a perfect certification where no farms fall through the cracks, and it's important to know what the certification covers. In the case of the banana and pineapple farms, the certification only covers legal minimum wage rather than a fair living wage.

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is the leading standard for organic textiles. GOTS covers the environmental, social, and technical side of textiles. It's worth noting that clothing or textiles with the GOTS certification doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% organic. The label can be applied when there's 70% certified organic materials in the product, and it is fully GOTS certified when a product is made up of 95% certified fibers. A lot goes into the manufacturing process of textiles, and the whole supply chain has to be certified for that end product to be GOTS certified. The criteria for something to be GOTS certified include the use of GOTS-approved dyes and chemicals, prohibition of environmentally hazardous substances, and ensuring the treatment of wastewater. The social conditions under GOTS mean that there must be freely chosen employment, no child labor, and remuneration of a living wage. One key issue though for this certification is that it doesn't cover the growing of crops. This can be quite a big exclusion when you consider the amount of water that is used in growing cotton, the insecticides that are used, and the poor working conditions of those working on the fields. None of this is covered by the GOTS certification. While it's great that the certification covers the rest of the supply chain, can you really consider something as organic if it hasn't been grown organically? Like the Rainforest Alliance, GOTS has had its fair share of controversy. In their own investigation in 2020, they discovered evidence of systematic fraud in India of raw cotton transaction certifications. Interestingly though, this was by GOTS themselves as they were running their monitoring program. Yes, there are flaws with the certification, but does that mean that we should get rid of it completely? Maybe there are just some more checks and balances needed to be put in place, or it could be considered if it could expand to the growing of crops themselves. The GOTS certification already does a lot for the supply chain and ensuring that textiles are produced more sustainably.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is designed to ensure that the management, harvesting, processing, and manufacturing of wood products meet the standard. There are several different steps within the criteria managing environmental and social effects. This includes ensuring that there is compliance with laws, improving the social and economic well-being of the workers, protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, conserving and restoring ecosystems, and improving conservation values. However, the FSC is highly contentious. Of all the Eco labels that we're talking about today, this is the one that is most called upon as being greenwashing. Greenpeace was a founding member of the FSC, but they withdrew their membership in 2018 after several reports by themselves and externally to the state of what was happening. Here are some of the controversies surrounding FSC certified forests and woodlands. The illegal logging of Europe's last old growth in Romania, which led to some journalists following the story being attacked with axes by the loggers. The illegal clear-cutting of the last habitat for Siberian tigers in Russia. Clearcuts of ancient rainforest in Indonesia without the informed consent or consultation of local indigenous people. And the rape and murder of locals protesting in the Congo against illegal logging of their forest, who were simply protesting because they were losing their water sources due to the deforestation. There are deep-rooted problems with the FSC certification, and with high-profile and pretty shocking stories coming out of FSC certified forests, it's difficult to see how they can be trusted. It needs a stronger standard with full transparency and enforcement of the standard. After hearing those stories, would you trust something that said it was FSC certified?

None of these certifications are perfect, and most importantly, we have to understand what we mean when we're talking about a specific certification. What is that product certified for? What are the criteria that it has to fulfill? When it comes to monitoring those certifications, what are the shortfalls? If they're only looking at paperwork rather than turning up unannounced and seeing what conditions are really like, can we really trust them?

So, do you think that Eco labels are greenwashing? I think it depends on the context, which doesn't help consumers much, as Eco labels are designed to do. That said, we have to consider what the alternative is. Not having any Eco labels won't help the state of environmental and social conditions either. Without these certifications in place, there's no way to find out which farms or supply chains that you're supporting. These Eco labels won't ever be perfect, but they can lead to those improvements in supply chains, and that might not be the case without them. Maybe they all need a little bit of work rather than removing them entirely.

Do you look at Eco labels when purchasing? Let's chat in the comments. If you enjoyed this video, make sure to subscribe for some more Eco content. Until next time.