Green Sale

In the face of the proliferation of allegedly "green" products and manufacturing processes, there is a need to monitor corporate environmental claims. In an attempt to respond to this challenge, a number of environmentalists have decided to issue seals of approval to specific products which meet designated standards (a process known as "third party certification"). This is a seriously flawed idea, and it is likely to undermine the credibility of the environmental movement.

Two prominent efforts--Green Cross and Green Seal--have been launched in this area.

Green Cross seems to be especially deficient. The Environmental Defense Fund charges in a recent report that "Green Cross has issued certifications or engaged in practices that we believe are misleading to consumers." The report criticizes Green Cross for applying standards inconsistently, not allowing for sufficient public comment on its certification process and maintaining relations with retailers which pose potential conflicts of interest.

The other major environmental monitoring and approval operation, Green Seal, appears to be more credible. It is headed by Denis Hayes, the organizer of the major 1970 and 1990 Earth Day events. Its board consists of top representatives of the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. But the involvement of prominent individuals in this process makes it all the more troubling, since it has the potential to taint the reputation of the organizations and people who comprise the environmental movement.

Green Seal is now developing standards for three products: toilet and facial tissue and re-refined motor oil. The emerging standards for motor oil illustrate one of the key problems with the Green Seal concept.

Green Seal has proposed a standard requiring motor oils to have at least 50 percent recycled content in order to qualify to display a Green Seal. This is not, however, a state-of-the-art requirement. Some motor oils, according to Green Seal spokesperson Susan Alexander, are already 95 percent recycled. Green Seal is not requiring such a level, Alexander explains, because it wants to set standards which are economically feasible for manufacturers.

Green Seal and other third-party certifiers thus face an irresolvable dilemma. If they demand state-of-the-art recycling and environmentally-benign technologies, then few companies will qualify for a stamp of approval and the Green Seal will not appear widely enough to gain mass recognition and acceptance. Without such acceptance, it will not work to offset the uncertified claims made by corporations and it will not significantly affect consumer behavior.

The alternative to setting state-of-the-art environmental standards is to recognize, as Green Seal has, a need to compromise. But this means that Green Seal itself will be compromised, since it will reflect what the market is accomplishing rather than what companies could or should attain.

A second problem with Green Seal is that manufacturers must pay it in order to have their products tested and considered for a seal of approval. This simultaneously discriminates against smaller companies that may not have the resources to pay Green Seal to test its products and places Green Seal in the difficult position of being financially dependent on the companies it is supposed to be monitoring.

The third major defect with Green Seal cuts to the heart of the Green Seal project itself. Even if Green Seal sees fit to praise certain corporate practices, the environmental movement should never endorse any corporation. Green Seal offers its seal to specific products rather than to corporations, but the two cannot be easily divided. Again, the case of motor oil is instructive.

If Exxon were to offer a 95 percent recycled motor oil, it would still be inappropriate for an environmental group to offer it a seal of approval. No specific product or act of Exxon should be considered or lauded outside of the context of the company's immensely destructive environmental record. Even if the company had a perfect environmental record,its endangerment of coal workers in the United States and in Colombia and its involvement in price-fixing activities (to name but a few examples) should preclude any endorsement of the company by a responsible corporate monitor.

The operative principle of the environmental movement must be to maintain a healthy distance from corporations, both to avoid a loss of public credibility and to maintain its ability to be critical of society's major polluting institutions. By offering a seal of approval to businesses, Green Seal and similar third- party certification projects violate this principle. Plagued by irresolvable contradictions, such efforts should be abandoned.