A LITTLE information is a dangerous thing. A lot of information, if it’s inaccurate or confusing, even more so. This is a problem for anyone trying to spend or invest in an environmentally sustainable way. Investors are barraged with indexes purporting to describe companies’ eco-credentials, some of dubious quality. Green labels on consumer products are ubiquitous, but their claims are hard to verify.
The confusion is evident from New Scientist‘s analysis of whether public perceptions of companies’ green credentials reflect reality (see “Hey, green spender, spend a buck on me”). It shows that many companies considered “green” have done little to earn that reputation, while others do not get sufficient credit for their efforts to reduce their environmental impact. Obtaining better information is crucial, because decisions by consumers and big investors will help propel us towards a green economy.
“Better information is crucial, because decisions by consumers will propel us towards a green economy”
Advertisement
At present, it is too easy to make unverified claims. Take disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, for example. There are voluntary schemes such as the , but little scrutiny of the figures companies submit, which means investors may be misled.
Measurements can be difficult to interpret, too, like those for water use. In this case, context is crucial: a litre from rain-soaked Ireland is not the same as a litre drawn from the Arizona desert. The involvement of organisations that specialise in thorny measurement issues, such as the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, will be key.
Similar problems bedevil “green” labels attached to individual products. Here, the developed by the Green Electronics Council shows the way forward. Its come from the , the world’s leading professional association for technology.
Other schemes, such as the planned by US retail giant Walmart, are broader. Devising rigorous standards for a large number of different types of product will be tough, placing a huge burden on the that is doing the underlying scientific work.
Our investigation also reveals that many companies choose not to disclose data. Some will want to keep it that way. This is why we need legal requirements for full disclosure of environmental information, with the clear message that the polluter will eventually be required to pay. Then market forces will drive companies to clean up their acts.
Let’s hope we can rise to this challenge. Before we can have a green economy we need a green information economy – and it’s the quality of the information, as well as its quantity, that will count.