Underwriters Laboratories Introducing Green Label
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 01. 5.09
Labels and standards are a touchy and confusing subject. Who sets them? What do they cover? TreeHugger readers have seen companies just calling themselves green, companies inventing their own labels (like SC Johnson), Companies going to third party labels-for-hire to certify what they think is important but may not be, (Like LG Eden and SCS) Labels that cover only one aspect (like Energy Star and Greenguard), and labels that let the manufacturer submit data for claims without verification (like EPEAT-see comments).
Then, for the last hundred and sixteen years, there have been Underwriters Laboratories. They are a pain. They are expensive if you have a product you need certified. They are expensive if you want to buy a copy of a standard. They are rigorous and thorough and slow and did I mention expensive? But when a product has a UL label you know it has been put through the wringer. And now they are going to certify products and tell us if they are truly green.
Image: How Stuff Works
ULC is going to operate in two ways: in their traditional fashion where a standard is set and the product must meet it (like in the stove in the picture above, which might have to withstand certain established kinds of abuse and number of cycles before getting approval). This is the critical link that has been missing: an established set of standards that everyone agrees to, and third party testing that ensures that it meets this standard. Products that pass the testing will be able to display the classic UL label.
But such testing is time-consuming and yes, expensive. In certain industries, like construction materials or with electrical appliances subject to the building or electrical codes that demand UL certification or its international equivalents, it has been accused of impeding innovation and change.
So they will also be starting an Environmental Claims Validation (ECV) program, where manufacturers can verify claims made by manufacturers. According to UL's press release,
These claims are often subject to greenwashing: exaggeration, distortion, or lying. "If the customer comes to UL and says, 'This is what the advertising says about our product,' that is what we'll test," explained [Marcello] Manca. [VP at UL] Relevant claims include energy efficiency, recycled-content levels, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and avoidance of banned substances.Referring to Federal Trade Commission guidance for environmental marketing claims, UL will determine what tests it must perform to validate a given claim and will carry them out. If a claim is validated, it will publish the results in an open database. "We like to think the end point will be certification to industry standards," said Manca, noting that he considers ECV a "bridge to certification."
I am not crazy about ECV certification; that is what other companies like Scientific Certification Systems do. Essentially if you go to an ECV certifier and say "my product is insulated with sustainably harvested baby seal fur" they will check to see if yes, it is made of baby seal fur and yes, baby seals are harvested sustainably. Then they give you a certificate.
My favourite example of greenwashing with ECV certification is LG Eden countertops, which markets itself with the tag line "When we go green, we go all the way," while proudly waving their SCS certification that shows that they recycle exactly 12% of their preconsumer cutoffs, production waste and mistakes, and yet thanks to the ECV certification feel comfortable calling themselves green. Other than UL not permitting the use of their logo with such claims, I cannot see how their ECV certification is much different.
But the Classic Certification Program? Where the industry agrees to an open, transparent standard and a reputable testing organization puts their feet to the fire? That is big news.
Labels in TreeHugger
Reading Between the Labels
Better Green Labels Needed to Clear Up Consumer Confusion
Nutrition Labels For Houses
Energy Star Labels Stripped from Five Fridge Models
Seventh Generation Makes Reading Product Labels Easier
Green Product Labeling: Is It Valid and Does It Matter?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Create a Go Green Plan: Follow Wa$ted!'s Salon Example
- Green Glossary: Lyocell
- Green Glossary: Green Super Model
- Green Glossary: Nature Deficit Disorder
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Green Glossary: Ingeo
No question there is much to do to help consumers understand what is green. BuyGreen.com has created Green Standards we apply to all the products we sell. We have created what we think is a comprehensive view that is applied consistently for all products and creates transparency. All the information is conveniently placed with every product. These Green Standards are our best effort to better understand what is often a complicated question - why is this product eco-friendly? We like to say there is no Black and White when it comes to Green.
Regarding GREENGUARD - the plot thickens.
thye do NOT test for all harmgul emissions, such as PBDE.
They will not tell you what thye know is toxic, but do not test for. they will only tell you what they do test for.
Lucky for us, nature has already established these standards. Nature holds the blueprints (or greenprints rather) to sustainable design for all products, systems and services. Look outside and you will find the secrets to sustainability, and "going green".
Nature is the guru of green design. We should look to her for guidance in incorporating the fundamental principles of sustainable design.
Hello - interesting development,
Just wanted to make a correction to your statement that EPEAT is not verified. As someone who works with EPEAT I can attest that the system contains ample verification requirements. Verification in EPEAT (www.epeat.net/verification.aspx) occurs post-declaration, but is to a high standard, and may be repeated at any time for any product and any criterion in the system - with no advance warning to manufacturers. And unlike any other ratings system, verificaiton failure results in public exposure of the product manufacturer should a lack of compliance be discovered - so manufacturers have a very strong incentive to maintain compliance at all times.
With a highly dynamic product sector like electronics, post-declaration verification may also be more reliable than pre-certification, because supply chain manufacturers and processes change frequently and rapidly in electronics manufacturing - so parts that were tested at one stage may not comply later on in a product's lifecycle. The stakeholders who were involved in developing EPEAT's requirements (through a consensus based public process - anohter distinction vs this proprietary UL model) felt that continuing surveillance in a post-declaration system was a more effective method of ensuring compliance with the EPEAT system's strict criteria than testing in advance of product release with no risk of public disclosure.
EPEAT's multi-attribute standards are developed through an IEEE process which is open to all interested parties - for those reading this who have specific concerns regarding halogenated chemcials or other issues, you are encouraged to participate in standards development and update processes.
To comment on what Green Girl said, I would question how often EPEAT verification is actually performed. I hear it isn't performed on many products, less than 20% of all products in the registry. I would also say, is the verification performed actual testing? Is someone testing the product for energy efficiency and hazardous substances, or are they simply taking the words of the manufacturer? I think that is the core problem with "certification" in the green market today, it is too much like self-declaration.
There were also mis-statements about UL's program I believe. As the article mentioned and other people I have spoken with have mentioned, UL is taking an approach to certify products to industry accepted, consensus standards. Additionally, as we all know from having visitors to our manufacturing plants (and as we all love to hate), UL performs ongoing inspections, every time, on a regular/random basis. Our plants get random UL inspections four times per year, whereas EPEAT may or may not perform "verifications" at a future date.
I think this article nailed it on the head. UL has historically been expensive, time consuming, and sometimes a pain in the ***, but UL performs scientifically rigorous evaluations and provides reliable results. Kudos to UL for entering this market.