When environmental labels such as Energy Star, Green Seal and EcoLogo were first introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, government purchasers were the first to embrace them. Government purchasers saw them as a useful way to identify more environmentally preferable products and began including preferences or requirements for products meeting the standards in purchasing specifications.

Once government purchasers proved there was interest in buying more environmentally preferable products, manufacturers increased production to meet the demand. As a result, it became easier for the average consumer to buy "greener" products. Well-known consumer companies are now promoting "green" cleaning products, recycled-content, process chlorine-free paper and energy-efficient televisions and computers, among other "greener" offerings.

As interest in greener products expanded, there was also a corresponding increase in the number of environmental labels. In 1992, there were fewer than a dozen environmental labels in the entire world. There are now more than 300.

Too many environmental labels is actually making it more challenging for both government purchasers and the average consumer. Not all labels are created equal. In fact, some of the labels are essentially meaningless. A few creative entrepreneurs have even set up Websites to sell environmental certifications online without establishing an environmental standard, requiring any product testing or even reviewing the product.

Comparing eco-labels

There are three critical components of any labeling program — the validity of the standard on which the label is based, the process used to set the standard and the verification processes used to determine if a product meets the standard.

Based on recommendations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Consumer's Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) and members of the Global Ecolabeling Network (GEN), purchasers can use the following guidelines to identify the most credible labels.

1. Validity of the Standard

• Standards should have a clear and consistent meaning. The meaning of the label should not change based on who is certifying a product or which manufacturer's product is being certified.

• Standards should be clear about what aspects of a product's environmental performance it covers. They should include explicit information defining what ingredients and practices are acceptable or prohibited and which testing protocols are used to make such determinations.

• Multi-attribute standards should be based on human health and environmental considerations throughout the life cycle of the product from raw material extraction, manufacture, use and ultimate disposal of the product. The life cycle stages considered and covered by the standard should be explicitly stated.

2. Standard-Setting Process

• Standards should be developed in an open, public, transparent process that includes broad stakeholder participation including government purchasers, academic experts, environmental non-profits, government officials, manufacturers, suppliers and end users.

• There should be no conflict of interest for the standard-setting organization.

• Standards should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

3. Verification Process

There are a variety of verification procedures to determine whether a product meets a standard. Some are more rigorous (and more expensive) but provide a greater degree of assurance.

• Self-verification. Individual companies determine whether their products meet the standard.

• Self-verification with random audits. Individual companies verify their products, but an organization conducts random audits to ensure compliance.

• Independent third-party certification. An independent organization certifies that the products meet the standard based on information provided by the manufacturer.

• Independent third-party certification with on-site audits. An independent organization certifies the products meet the standards based on information provided by the manufacturer after an onsite visit to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the manufacturer.

It is important to note that a stringent verification process is meaningless if the standard being used is not meaningful.