Executive summary

Faced with the gravity of today’s environmental and social problems, consumers are increasingly seeking out sustainable products that minimise negative impacts on people and the planet. In 2015, a survey of 30,000 consumers in 60 countries found that 66% of consumers are willing to pay more for products or services from companies committed to positive social and environmental impact (Nielsen, 2015). In the UK alone, the market for ethical products grew to more than £81.3 billion in 2017, with demand for sustainable fish growing by nearly 37% in 2016 (Ethical Consumer, 2017). Studies also show that many shoppers rely on labels and certifications as a quick and easy way to identify more responsibly made products without having to become supply chain experts (e.g. Nielsen, 2014).

As sustainability goes mainstream, more and more companies are keen to show off their credentials by adopting different types of certification, labels and ethical commitments. The number of different schemes and voluntary initiatives has grown exponentially in recent years. The Ecolabel Index, the largest global directory of ecolabels, currently lists over 460 labels in 25 different sectors (Ecolabel Index, 2018). Most of these have emerged in the past two decades. But are they any good? This report shows that, rather than being an accelerator for positive change, this ‘flood’ of certification creates confusion for consumers and the industry and is standing in the way of genuinely sustainable consumption.

We investigated voluntary initiatives in three sectors where growing consumption and unsustainable sourcing have caused serious environmental problems: palm oil, fisheries and textiles. Palm oil is one of the leading drivers of deforestation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, forest fires and loss of habitat for charismatic and endangered species such as orangutans, elephants and rhinos. Industrial fishing has devastated the planet’s oceans; nearly 90% of global fish stocks are either fully fished or overfished (FAO, 2016a). It is also a hugely wasteful industry. Nearly 10 million tonnes of good fish are thrown back into the ocean every year, while damaging fishing methods have wreaked havoc on ecosystems: gill nets commonly kill dolphins, porpoises and whales, longline fishing is a particular problem for birds and discarded fishing gear continues to kill sea life for many decades in what is called ‘ghost fishing’. Last but not least, the textile industry uses one-quarter of the world’s chemicals and has been blamed for 20% of global water pollution, making it the second biggest polluter of freshwater on the planet. Violations of human and workers’ rights are also rife in all three sectors.

In the absence of effective national and international legislation to tackle these problems, and with increasingly globalised supply chains, voluntary schemes are seen as a convenient way to fill the gap. In this report, we analyse the context in which such voluntary initiatives emerge, what their role is and how they set out to address some of the challenges identified. We investigate an array of voluntary initiatives that provide a company, product or service with a sustainability endorsement, ranging from product labels to industry-wide initiatives aiming to improve the environmental performance of a sector as a whole. We review key schemes in each of the three sectors, evaluating how they work, their achievements and their failures. Our focus is mostly environmental issues, although in some cases we also look at reports on human rights violations.

This report comes at a time when many of these schemes are under pressure to reform from NGOs and scientists – and, in some cases, even progressive companies. But despite the fact that the tide is turning, there is still a massive push for certification – and not always for the right reasons. This report demonstrates that many of these schemes are being used as a cover, which makes it more difficult for NGOs and academics to question the sustainability of some products and companies. For example, McDonald’s has used the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label to deflect criticism over the sustainability of the New Zealand Hoki Fishery, which has been criticised for its high discard levels and trawling methods (McGrath, 2016). Governments are also increasingly using schemes as evidence of sustainability, as demonstrated by the use of certified palm oil to comply with biofuels targets, despite doubts about its success in stopping deforestation. The following section presents the key findings of this report.

In the absence of effective national and international legislation to tackle these problems, and with increasingly globalised supply chains, voluntary schemes are seen as a convenient way to fill the gap. In this report, we analyse the context in which such voluntary initiatives emerge, what their role is and how they set out to address some of the challenges identified. We investigate an array of voluntary initiatives that provide a company, product or service with a sustainability endorsement, ranging from product labels to industry-wide initiatives aiming to improve the environmental performance of a sector as a whole. We review key schemes in each of the three sectors, evaluating how they work, their achievements and their failures. Our focus is mostly environmental issues, although in some cases we also look at reports on human rights violations.

This report comes at a time when many of these schemes are under pressure to reform from NGOs and scientists – and, in some cases, even progressive companies. But despite the fact that the tide is turning, there is still a massive push for certification – and not always for the right reasons. This report demonstrates that many of these schemes are being used as a cover, which makes it more difficult for NGOs and academics to question the sustainability of some products and companies. For example, McDonald’s has used the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label to deflect criticism over the sustainability of the New Zealand Hoki Fishery, which has been criticised for its high discard levels and trawling methods (McGrath, 2016). Governments are also increasingly using schemes as evidence of sustainability, as demonstrated by the use of certified palm oil to comply with biofuels targets, despite doubts about its success in stopping deforestation. The following section presents the key findings of this report.