Book contents
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Organizations and the Natural Environment
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Advancing a Perspective of Green Market Transformation
- 2 The Architecture of Green Building Policies and Practice
- 3 Choose Your Own Adventure!
- 4 The Labeling Building Challenge
- 5 The Public and Private Benefits of Green Building
- 6 Tossing a Pebble in a Pond
- 7 Demonstrating Innovation in Green Buildings
- 8 Keep Raising the Bar
- 9 It’s Not Easy Being Green
- 10 A Blueprint for Green Market Transformation
- 11 Conclusions
- Index
- References
3 - Choose Your Own Adventure!
The Landscape of Ecolabel Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2022
Book contents
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Organizations and the Natural Environment
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Advancing a Perspective of Green Market Transformation
- 2 The Architecture of Green Building Policies and Practice
- 3 Choose Your Own Adventure!
- 4 The Labeling Building Challenge
- 5 The Public and Private Benefits of Green Building
- 6 Tossing a Pebble in a Pond
- 7 Demonstrating Innovation in Green Buildings
- 8 Keep Raising the Bar
- 9 It’s Not Easy Being Green
- 10 A Blueprint for Green Market Transformation
- 11 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter offers a theoretical framework to understand the variation of ecolabel design based on the content, governance, and context of the label.Drawing upon green clubs and signaling theories, we suggest that ecolabels vary based on the stringency of the certification program, measured by the number and criticality of required standards, and the extent to which the requirements of these certifications incentivize the provision of public goods. We characterize important dimensions of ecolabels such as their impact, the value of the signal, and the extent to which they address externalities and information asymmetries. To illustrate these concepts, we take a closer look at GreenCo, a business sustainability rating system in India, and a sample of over 50 different agricultural ecolabels. This examination shows the important variation in factors like types of requirements, stringency, and institutional processes that govern the labels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, broader stakeholder engagement is associated with more emphasis on public benefits, while more surprisingly industry sponsorship does not tend to be found among the more lax labels with less public benefit.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market TransformationLearning to LEED, pp. 62 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Bowen, F. and Aragon-Correa, J. A.. 2014. “Greenwashing in Corporate Environmentalism Research and Practice: The Importance of What We Say and Do.” Organization & Environment 27, no. 2: 107–112.Google Scholar
Carmin, Joann, Darnall, Nicole, and Mil-Homens, Joao. 2003. “Stakeholder Involvement in the Design of U.S. Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Sponsorship Matter?” Policy Studies Journal 31, no. 4: 527–543.Google Scholar
Darnall, Nicole and Aragón-Correa, J. Alberto. 2014. “Can Ecolabels Influence Firms’ Sustainability Strategy and Stakeholder Behavior?” Organization & Environment 27, no. 4: 319–327.Google Scholar
Darnall, Nicole and Carmin, Joann. 2005. “Greener and Cleaner? The Signaling Accuracy of U.S. Voluntary Environmental Programs.” Policy Sciences 38, no. 2–3: 71–90.Google Scholar
Darnall, Nicole, Ji, Hyunjung, and Potoski, Matthew. 2017. “Institutional Design of Ecolabels: Sponsorship Signals Rule Strength.” Regulation & Governance 11, no. 4: 438–450.Google Scholar
Darnall, Nicole, Ji, Hyunjung, and Vázquez-Brust, Diego A.. 2018. “Third-Party Certification, Sponsorship, and Consumers’ Ecolabel Use.” Journal of Business Ethics 150, no. 4: 953–969.Google Scholar
Farhi, Emmanuel, Lerner, Josh, and Tirole, Jean. 2013. “Fear of Rejection? Tiered Certification and Transparency.” The RAND Journal of Economics 44, no. 4: 610–631.Google Scholar
Fiorini, Matteo, Hoekman, Bernard M., Jansen, Marion, Schleifer, Philip, Solleder, Olga, Taimasova, Regina, and Wozniak, Joseph. 2016. “Exploring Voluntary Sustainability Standards Using ITC Standards Map: On the Accessibility of Voluntary Sustainability Standards for Suppliers.” International Trade Centre Series, ITC Working Paper Series WP-04-2016.E.Google Scholar
Fischer, Carolyn and Lyon, Thomas P.. 2014. “Competing Environmental Labels.” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 23, no. 3: 692–716.Google Scholar
Fuerst, Franz and McAllister, Patrick. 2011. “Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Effects of Environmental Certification on Office Values.” Real Estate Economics 39, no. 1: 45–69.Google Scholar
Giovannucci, Daniele and Ponte, Stefano. 2005. “Standards As a New Form of Social Contract? Sustainability Initiatives in the Coffee Industry.” Food Policy 30, no. 3: 284–301.Google Scholar
Harbaugh, R. and Rasmusen, E.. 2018. “Coarse Grades: Informing the Public by Withholding Information.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 10, no. 1: 210–235.Google Scholar
Jaffee, Dwight, Stanton, Richard, and Wallace, Nancy. 2012. “Energy Factors, Leasing Structure and the Market Price of Office Buildings in the US.” UC Berkeley Fisher Center Working Papers.Google Scholar
Kok, Nils, McGraw, Marquise, and Quigley, John M.. 2012. “The Diffusion over Time and Space of Energy Efficiency in Building.” Annals of Regional Science 48, no. 2: 541–564.Google Scholar
Lenox, Michael and Nash, Jennifer. 2003. “Industry Self‐Regulation and Adverse Selection: A Comparison across Four Trade Association Programs.” Business Strategy and the Environment 12, no. 6: 343–356.Google Scholar
Li, Y. 2020. “Competing Eco-Labels and Product Market Competition.” Resource and Energy Economics 60: 101149.Google Scholar
Mason, Charles. 2013. “The Economics of Eco-Labeling: Theory and Empirical Implications.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 6, no. 4: 341–372.Google Scholar
Minkov, Nikolay, Lehmann, Annekatrin, Winter, Lisa, and Finkbeiner, Matthias. 2020. “Characterization of Environmental Labels beyond the Criteria of ISO 14020 Series.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, no. 5: 840–855.Google Scholar
Potoski, Matthew and Prakash, Aseem. 2005. “Green Clubs and Voluntary Governance: Iso 14001 and Firms’ Regulatory Compliance.” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 2: 235–248.Google Scholar
Potoski, Matthew and Prakash, Aseem. 2009. Voluntary Programs: A Club Theory Perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potoski, Matthew and Prakash, Aseem. 2013. “Green Clubs: Collective Action and Voluntary Environmental Programs.” Annual Review of Political Science 16, no. 1: 399–419.Google Scholar
Rivera, J., 2002. “Assessing a Voluntary Environmental Initiative in the Developing World: The Costa Rican Certification for Sustainable Tourism.” Policy Sciences 35: 333–360.Google Scholar
Rivera, J., de Leon, P., and Koerber, C.. 2006. “Is Greener Whiter Yet? The Sustainable Slopes Program after Five Years.” Policy Studies Journal 34, no. 2: 195–224.Google Scholar
Sejas-Portillo, Rodolfo, Comerford, David, Moro, Mirko, and Stowasser, Till. 2020. “Limited Attention in the Housing Market: Threshold Effects of Energy-Performance Certificates on Property Prices and Energy-Efficiency Investments.” CESifo Working Paper Series 8669, CESifo.Google Scholar