United front needed

Research by British consumer group Which? in 2010 revealed that while consumer recognition rates for Fairtrade labelling are at 82% and 54% for organic labelling, only a fifth of consumers recognise labels which show the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions associated with making and transporting products.

To an extent, these statistics are inevitable when you consider the longevity of the schemes; Fairtrade was launched in the 1970s and Organic in the 1990s.

The carbon footprint label is still in its infancy, it was only launched to UK consumers four years ago.

Although skeptics would once have argued over how much recognition really matters, a recent move by Tesco, Britain’s largest supermarket, to end its pioneering carbon labelling scheme now reflects otherwise. Indeed, Tesco ended its scheme in January this year because of the expense and time associated with carbon labelling, but also because of a lacklustre response from consumers and other leading retailers.

At a time when almost half of the UK’s carbon footprint comes from the products we buy and services we use, a united front on this issue from all parties – consumers, retailers and, of course, Government – is the only way to make the scale of carbon savings required to make headway.

With the coalition now shying away from its bold claims that it will be the ‘greenest ever government,’ there’s a danger that carbon labelling initiatives will remain voluntary and largely unknown in Britain for the short term.

However, across the channel, it’s a very different story. Government-led, the French carbon labelling initiative is a year-long pilot which began in July 2011. It involves 168 global firms across many industries.

The new rules, devised by Ademe, the French Government energy and environment agency, and AFNOR, the French Standards Agency, require labels to show more than just the carbon footprint. Depending on the product category, they must also include other environmental data, such as the product’s water footprint and impact on biodiversity.

The scheme involves an accompanying campaign to raise awareness of the labelling to consumers.

If successful, the initiative will become compulsory and apply to all imported goods as well as those made in France. It will mean British companies who export whole products, or who feed into a product’s supply chain, will have to calculate their products’ environmental footprint in order to adhere to legislation.

Although the coalition is ‘worried about the combined impact of the green policies’ on UK businesses and the economy, it seems that eventually, Britain, once a pioneer in this field, will have to introduce such policies, if not for any other reason than to keep up with the rest of the world.

However, companies should look at the benefits to this. Although the process of calculating carbon can be seen as expensive and time consuming, it can ultimately prove a fruitful and money saving exercise. For example, by calculating the carbon footprint of a 75g packet of cheese and onion crisps, it was found that changing the way the potatoes were traded, Walkers, owned by PepsiCo, could save up 9,200 tonnes of carbon emissions and £1.2 million a year. Walkers has subsequently reduced the carbon footprint of its crisps by 7%.

It’s examples such as these that show the value in measuring carbon. Companies who engage in such practices are undoubtedly staying ahead of the curve and becoming more innovative.

Finally, we must not neglect the fact that environmental labels will play a big role to help consumers to reduce their own carbon footprint or at the very least, will give them the relevant details to make informed purchase decisions.

My advice for UK businesses – those exporting to France and those who are not – is, despite Tesco’s decision to stop its own scheme, to begin to work on environmental labelling and carbon footprinting now. Not only will businesses be able to understand the carbon life-cycle of products, but armed with this information, they’ll be able to identify carbon and ultimately cost savings too.

Views expressed on this page are those of the author and may not be shared by this publication.