Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeISO 14020 series of standards provide guidance for establishing ecolabels and a classification based on three label types, I, II, and III. They also determine the consideration of product’s life cycle and application of the life cycle assessment (LCA) in ecolabeling. Still, the large number and variety of existing ecolabels has led to consumer confusion in the recent years. The objective of this paper is to propose a characterization scheme for ecolabels and to provide recommendations for the enhancement of existing ecolabel classification, questioning the current sufficiency of ISO.MethodsTo reach the objective, we first create a sample of ecolabels covering forest and paper products as an example, to narrow down the enormous number of existing ecolabels (over 460 as of August 2018). Second, we analyze their content, purpose, and awarding criteria through a desk research. In parallel, scientific publication, reports, and standards are also analyzed. Third, based on the obtained information, we define a list of ecolabel characterization attributes and their options and observe tendencies in ecolabel development. Ultimately, based on the outcomes of the proposed characterization scheme, we give recommendations for enhancement.Results and discussionUltimately, we compare a sample of 45 ecolabels against 18 attributes of the proposed characterization scheme, including, among others, their ISO typology, life cycle perspective, awarding format, covered environmental aspects, and scope. Regarding type I or type III label, ISO seems to be explicit and their requirements are well respected, including how LCA is to be applied. However, approximately 60% of the explored ecolabels in our sample did not declare any ISO typology, whereas none assigned a type II classification. These “undefined” ecolabels, as we call them, apply different awarding formats and criteria in combination and hybrid forms that are not recognized and described by ISO or any other observed classification approach. Misuse of the term “LCA” is also perceived in such “undefined” initiatives.ConclusionsWe conclude that the current ISO standards on ecolabels belittle the consequences that the increased number of undefined ecolabels brings. We provide a list of recommendations for the enhancement of the current ISO classification in seven topics, namely, awarding format, aspects diversity, operation scope, verification, reconsideration of the usability of ISO 14021, new ISO classification, and transparency. Limitations of the study and outlook conclude the work.

The proliferation of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for concrete and concrete-related products has seen remarkable growth since 2020, reflecting an increasing global commitment to sustainable construction practices. Concurrently, the introduction of the European standard EN 16757 for Product Category Rules (PCR) has provided a structured framework for creating EPDs that align with ISO 21930 and EN 15804, ensuring consistency and transparency. These developments underscore the need to revisit and refine ISO 13315-8, which plays a pivotal role in eco-labelling and EPDs for concrete products. This study undertakes an analysis of current EPD Standards on concrete to identify differences and characteristics among nations. By examining variations in methodologies, data quality, and regulatory requirements, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of global EPD practices. These insights will inform the ongoing revision of ISO 13315-8, offering targeted recommendations to enhance its applicability and effectiveness in addressing the evolving needs of the concrete industry.

PurposeLife cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are increasingly considered pivotal concept and method for supporting sustainable transitions. LCA plays a relevant role in decision support, for the ambition of a holistic coverage of environmental dimensions and for the identification of hotspots, possible trade-offs, and burden shifting among life cycle stages or impact categories. These features are also relevant when the decision support is needed in policy domain. With a focus on EU policies, the present study explores the evolution and implementation of life cycle concepts and approaches over three decades.MethodsAdopting an historical perspective, a review of current European Union (EU) legal acts and communications explicitly mentioning LCT, LCA, life cycle costing (LCC), and environmental footprint (the European Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint PEF/OEF) is performed, considering the timeframe from 1990 to 2020. The documents are categorised by year and according to their types (e.g. regulations, directives, communications) and based on the covered sectors (e.g. waste, energy, buildings). Documents for which life cycle concepts and approaches had a crucial role are identified, and a shortlist of these legal acts and communications is derived.Results and discussionOver the years, LCT and life cycle approaches have been increasingly mentioned in policy. From the Ecolabel Regulation of 1992, to the Green Deal in 2019, life cycle considerations are of particular interest in the EU. The present work analysed a total of 159 policies and 167 communications. While in some sectors (e.g. products, vehicles, and waste) life cycle concepts and approaches have been adopted with higher levels of prescriptiveness, implementation in other sectors (e.g. food and agriculture) is only at a preliminary stage. Moreover, life cycle (especially LCT) is frequently addressed and cited only as a general concept and in a rather generic manner. Additionally, more stringent and rigorous methods (LCA, PEF/OEF) are commonly cited only in view of future policy developments, even if a more mature interest in lifecycle is evident in recent policies.ConclusionThe EU has been a frontrunner in the implementation of LCT/LCA in policies. However, despite a growing trend in this implementation, the development of new stringent and mandatory requirements related to life cycle is still relatively limited. In fact, there are still issues to be solved in the interface between science and policy making (such as verification and market surveillance) to ensure a wider implementation of LCT and LCA.

BackgroundOur food system plays an important role in environmental degradation. Effective interventions are needed to promote sustainable food choices. Online grocery shops offer a way to study and evaluate these on a large scale. This study examines the impact of eco-labels and price discounts on the sustainability of grocery purchases in a real UK online supermarket using a customised browser extension.MethodsParticipants recruited from the UK Prolific panel were randomly assigned to one of six groups in a 2 × 3 factorial design. The interventions were (i) eco-labels, displaying the environmental impact of products on a scale of A (best) to G (worst), and (ii) price discounts (£1, £0.50, or no discount) offered on more sustainable alternative products for <3 items in participants’ baskets. The alternative products offered were randomly selected from a list created by the research team; they were more sustainable than selected products, usually priced within £2 of the selected products, and with an equal or better nutritional profile according to their traffic light labelling. The primary outcome was the average eco-score of purchased products, with lower scores indicating more sustainability. Preliminary results are based on data from 1431 participants recruited in 5 waves between April 2024 and November 2024 and who completed >1 shop in the 8-week period they were enrolled in the study. Additional data collection will be on-going until April 2025. Regression analysis was used to test the effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsInitial findings suggest that eco-labels have a negligible effect on the sustainability of grocery purchases (b = 0.04, SE = 0.43, p= 0.92). Price discounts may improve the sustainability of purchases if sufficiently large (for £1 discount: b = -0.90, SE = 0.49, p= 0.07). There may be an interaction between the interventions; there is a greater effect of price discounts in the group where eco-labels are visible (b = -1.53, p= 0.03). Further analysis will explore the mechanisms driving these effects, including consumer acceptance of alternatives and willingness to pay for more sustainable products. We will also examine the potential impact of the interventions on nutrition and health outcomes.ConclusionPrice incentives may be a more promising way to promote sustainable online grocery purchases than eco-labels alone. Policy interventions such as subsidies or taxes may be more impactful than information-based approaches alone.

Providing consumers with product-specific environmental impact information for food products (ecolabels) may promote more sustainable purchasing, needed to meet global environmental targets. Two UK studies investigated the effectiveness of different ecolabels using an experimental online supermarket platform. Study 1 (N = 1051 participants) compared three labels against control (no label), while Study 2 (N = 4979) tested four designs against control. Study 1 found significant reductions in the environmental impact score (EIS) for all labels compared to control (labels presented: values for four environmental indicators [-3.9 percentiles, 95%CIs: -5.2,-2.6]; a composite score [taking values from A to E; -3.9, 95%CIs: -5.2,-2.5]; or both together [-3.2, 95%CIs: -4.5,-1.9]). Study 2 showed significant reductions in EIS compared to control for A-E labels [-2.3, 95%CIs: -3.0,-1.5], coloured globes with A-E scores [-3.2, 95%CIs:-3.9,-2.4], and red globes highlighting ’worse’ products [-3.2, 95%CIs:-3.9,-2.5]. There was no evidence that green globes highlighting ’better’ products were effective [-0.5, 95%CIs:-1.3,0.2]. Providing ecolabels is a promising intervention to promote the selection of more sustainable products.

BackgroundThere is a need to understand how to implement food system interventions that promote healthy and sustainable diets for all populations. Online grocery retail is increasingly popular and many interventions which aim to promote healthier and more sustainable foods in-store may also be viable in online retail settings. This study was a process evaluation of a plug-in based, online grocery intervention which involved: i) eco-labelling of food products, ii) product swap suggestions to more sustainable alternatives with price discounts on suggested swaps. We explored intervention implementation, how and why it worked, for whom, and in what circumstances.MethodsA convenience sample of intervention recipients (n=24) and implementers (n=4) were recruited through an online survey panel to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview questions explored determinants of online food purchasing decisions, the impact of the intervention on food choices, and perspectives on intervention mechanisms, and were grounded in realist principles. Data were thematically analysed.ResultsRecipients described that their engagement with the plug-in could be limited by their understanding of the intervention and level of exposure to it, their own health and sustainability literacy, and the extent to which they prioritised sustainability over product affordability, quality and comparability. They felt that intervention effectiveness would vary depending on recipient characteristics and shopping habits. Implementers described challenges relating to the development and implementation of the plug-in, including the technical knowledge required for development, and difficulties interacting with fluctuating supermarket websites. Facilitators of implementation included having available financial and technical resources, such as pre-existing plug-in components.Both implementers and recipients felt that the intervention acted through nudge principles and increasing recipient knowledge, though recipients also described a sense of guilt about choosing less sustainable products which might encourage changes to shopping behaviours. Recipients described opportunities for intervention optimisation, such as increasing usability amongst different shoppers, including those who predominantly shop in-store, and the use of concurrent marketing strategies to promote uptake. Implementers felt that ultimately, sustainable changes to online food systems will be brought about by policy action rather than smaller-scale interventions.ConclusionConsumers found interventions to promote more sustainable alternatives when online grocery shopping to be acceptable and potentially effective, though recipients and implementers highlighted opportunities for optimisation and scalability. Understanding the mechanisms behind intervention impacts, barriers to implementation, and strategies for optimisation, is important for future food system interventions and policies.

This study examines how environment-related food labels affect shopping behaviour. Using an experimental store consisting of nearly 300 available food items, we observe the food purchases of consumers before and after each product is tagged with one of three environmental labels: single traffic lights, multiple traffic lights and the kilometric format. The kilometric format indicates the greenhouse gas emissions for each product by indicating the equivalent number of kilometres driven by an average car. The other two formats are based on the traffic-light rating system used for nutrients by the British Food Standard Agency. Multiple traffic lights present three traffic lights simultaneously: one each for greenhouse gas emissions, water eutrophication and air acidity. The single traffic light label displays one unique traffic light for greenhouse gas emissions. All three types of environmental labels lead consumers to purchase more environmentally friendly food baskets (i.e., significant decreases in carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulfur dioxide emissions). Labelling, however, does not affect the price of selected food baskets (in Euros per 100 g) or their nutritional content. By generating more product substitutions between unlabelled and labelled baskets, multiple traffic lights are more effective in reducing GHG emissions, eutrophication and acidification.

Providing consumers with product-specific environmental impact information for food products (ecolabels) may promote more sustainable purchasing, needed to meet global environmental targets. This UK study (N = 1051 participants) investigated the effectiveness of different ecolabels using an experimental online supermarket platform, comparing three labels against control (no label). Significant reductions were found in the environmental impact score (EIS) for all labels compared to control (labels presented: values for four environmental indicators [-3.9 percentiles, 95%CIs: -5.3, -2.6]; a composite score [taking values from A to E; -3.9, 95%CIs: -5.2,-2.5]; or both together [-3.2, 95%CIs: -4.5, -1.9]). Providing ecolabels is a promising intervention to promote the selection of more sustainable products.

Background Food systems highly contribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and shifting towards more environmentally friendly diets is urgently needed. Enabling consumers to compare the environmental impact of food products at point-of-purchase with front-of-pack labelling could be a promising strategy to trigger more environmentally friendly food choices. This strategy remained to be tested. Methods The effect of a new traffic-light front-of-pack environmental label on food choices was tested in a 2-arm randomised controlled trial in a virtual reality supermarket. Participants ( n  = 132) chose food products to compose two main meals for an everyday meal scenario and for an environmentally friendly meal scenario with or without the label. The environmental label (ranging from A: green/lowest impact, to E: red/highest impact) was based on the Environmental Footprint (EF) single score calculation across food categories. The effect of the label on the environmental impact of food choices in each scenario was tested using linear mixed models. Results In the everyday meal scenario, the environmental impact of meals was lower in the label condition than in the no label condition (-0.17 ± 0.07 mPt/kg, p  = 0.012). This reduction was observed at no nutritional, financial nor hedonic cost. The effectiveness of the label can be attributed to a change in the food categories chosen: less meat-based and more vegetarian meals were chosen with the label. In the environmentally friendly meal scenario, we demonstrated that the label provided new information to the participants as they were able to further reduce the environmental impact of their food choices with the label (-0.19 ± 0.07 mPt/kg, p  = 0.005). Conclusions Implementing a front-of-pack environmental label on food products in real supermarkets could increase awareness of the environmental impact of food and contribute to drive more environmentally friendly food choices. Trial registration The study protocol was pre-registered prior to data collection at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04909372).