Informing the Green Consumer; The Debate over the Use and Abuse of Environmental Labels

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 11-21

  Salzman, James ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecolabel; Environmental label; Green consumer; Green procurement; Life cycle management; Trade policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002537396     PISSN: 10881980     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jiec.1997.1.2.11     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. BNA (BNA International Environment Reporter). 1996a. Business group urges European Commission to halt work on label, 29 May, 433.
2. _. 1996b. Local authorities encourage purchases of goods awarded ecolabel under EU scheme, 2 October, 891.
3. _. 1996c. EU to overhaul ecolabeling program, 6 March, 154.
4. _. 1996d. AEU, US agree to hold technical meetings, 16 October, 920.
5. _. 1996e. Current report: Trade, 6 March, 159.
6. _. 1996f. Business group urges European Commission to halt work on label for paper products, 29 May, 433.
7. _. 1996g. WWF asks commission to back FSC scheme, 28 June, 542.
8. _. 1996h. Swedish environmental group puts brakes on controversial electricity labeling plan, 29 May, 454.
9. _. 1996i. Foods products ecolabel slated for 1998, 3 April, 282.
10. Business and the Environment. 1994. Dutch scheme calls for produces to supply environmental information on products, 12-13 January.
11. Cessford, C. 1996. Eco-labels to help falling fish stocks. Evening Post, 26 November, 3.
12. CTE (Coalition for Truth in Environmental Marketing Information). 1996. Information brochure.
13. Clover, C. 1996. Sainsbury's set to drop "green" house cleaner, Daily Telegraph, 10 September.
14. Elkington, J., and J. Hailes. 1988. The green consumer's guide. London: Guild Publishing.
15. EPA Invitation for Comments. 1995. Federal Register, 29 September, 50722-6.
16. Esty, D. 1994. Greening the GATT. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
17. GATT Council, United States. 1991. Restrictions on imports of tuna. Report of the Panel.
18. ISO/CD 14024. 1996. Second Committee draft. Section 6.1.
19. Jha, V. and Z. Simonetta. 1994. Eco-labeling initiatives as potential barriers to trade. In Life-cycle management and trade. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
20. NWF (National Wildlife Federation). 1996. Guarding the green choice: Environmental labeling and the rights of green consumers. Information brochure.
21. Newsweek. 1996. No basis for a trade war, 5 August, 14.
22. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1992. Green products by design. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. Polak, J., director, Terra Choice. 1996. Personal communication, 13 November.
24. President. 1993. Executive Order 12873. Federal acquisition, recycling and waste prevention. Federal Register, 22 October, 54911-9.
25. Pulp and Paper. 1996. EU's new "eco-label" called trade barrier, October, 19.
26. Salzman, J. 1991. Environmental labeling in OECD countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
27. Shimp, R., associate director, Environmental Quality - Worldwide, Procter & Gamble. 1996. Presentation to Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee to the U.S. Trade Representative, 9 October.
28. Sucharipa-Behrmann, L. 1994. Eco-labels for tropical timber: The Austrian experience. In Life-cycle management and trade. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
29. TBT. 1993. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, December 15, 1993. Reprinted in Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, pt. 2, ch. 6, p. 1.
30. Weissman, A., vice-president for Standards and Certification, Green Seal. 1996. Personal communication, 8 November.
31. World Trade Organization, Committee on Trade and the Environment. 1996. WT/CTE/W/40. Item 3, 7 November.