|
[Return
to: IPP-EPD Workshop Reports]
Content:
- Objectives
- Definitions
- Issues
Discussed
- Key
Outputs
- Notes
- Contact
Information
The workshop was chaired and
facilitated by Professor Martin Charter (CfSD, Co-ordinator) and Inga
Belmane (CfSD, Researcher).
1 Objectives
The workshop was designed as a
follow-up for the workshop held on 21st of June, ‘Developing competencies
for IPP: focus on electronics and white goods sector’, at CfSD, Surrey Institute
of Art and Design, University College, UK.
The objectives of the workshop
were:
- provide update of information
regarding development of IPP/EPP (environmental product policies across
the Europe)
- provide update of information
regarding development of WEEE Directive and national ordinances on producer
responsibility (‘PR’) in the electronics sector
- discuss the relationship
between ‘producer responsibility’ (e.g. WEEE and national ordinances)
and IPP
- discuss potential IPP development
scenarios in Europe.
2 Definitions
Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
– EC initiative aimed at reducing the environmental impact from products.
It strives to improve environmental performance of products and services
through the life cycle of the products.
Environmental Product Policy
(EPP) – any other environmental product policies applied on national/regional
basis.
Eco-product development
– product development and management incorporating environmental considerations
at the each stage of the process and taking into account life cycle considerations.
Sustainable product design
– product development incorporating environmental, social and ethical
considerations throughout the life cycle of the product and each stage
of the product development process.
3 Issues Discussed
There were following main items
discussed:
- the IPP concept and its
relationship to sustainable development,
- the IPP toolbox and integration
of tools,
- IPP and electronics sector:
‘PR’ in electronics sector and its relationship with IPP concept,
- possible development scenarios
of IPP at EC level.
3.1 IPP concept and its relationship
to sustainable development
The participants discussed the
relationship between IPP and sustainable development. It was stressed that
IPP is focused only on environmental dimensions but ignores social and ethical
aspects. However, the social dimension is especially important in the context
of sustainable consumption. As a result of the high degree of complexity
and the intangibility of social (e.g. consumption) issues most of policy
measures have been focused on the supply side (e.g. products and production).
A question was raised whether IPP as an environmental policy is now outdated
as the sustainability concept stresses both social and ethical dimensions
as well as environmental dimensions. However, the social and ethical dimensions
imply a high level of complexity and there are no practical tools/methodologies
to deal with these issues so it is understandable that work has concentrated
on where the tools and experience exist (e.g. tools such as Environmental
Management Systems (EMS), total quality management (TQM), Responsible Care).
This discussion led to the thought ‘what is Sustainable Integrated Product
Policy (SIPP)’?
Participants highlighted several
examples on eco-product development/management where environmental and
social issues have been incorporated, such as:
- in Austria, unemployed
people are being employed to do repair work on electronics and white
goods and the city of Stuttgart (Germany) have established a pilot dismantling
line employing the long-term unemployed;
- Nike has started to build
playgrounds from recycled shoe soles for communities.
The pressures for sustainability
in all dimensions are starting to increase in business. The NGO/private/public
organisations are developing different kinds of sustainability indexes (e.g.
Dow Jones in Switzerland and ‘Business in the Environment’ in the UK); there
are also ethical and socially responsible investment funds investing primarily
in pro-active and pioneer companies. However, there is still a perception
in business that better environmental performance leads to higher costs.
That indicates the need for education.
3.2 IPP progress at EC level
The participants expressed concerns
about the slow progress on the preparation of the Green Paper by DGXI (Environmental
Directorate at EC). The reasons for the delay appear to be administrative
problems within DGXI.
Although the EU Presidency
[1] (Finland: until end of the 1999) can put pressure
on the Commission to move faster on IPP, this did not seem realistic as
Finland does not appear to be giving a high priority to IPP. The next
presidency will be Portugal (January 2000 – July 2000), which seems to
be a similar case, then France (July 2000 – January 2001), and Sweden
(Jan 2001 – July 2001). This may mean that work will be picked up by Swedish
presidency in 2001 since Environmental Product Policy (EPP) is one of
the Swedish government’s environmental priorities. However, national governments
and interested stakeholders can apply pressure to the Commission to ‘speed
up’ developments on IPP issues. The background paper on the informal meeting
of Environmental Ministers at Weimar, May 7-9, 1999, [2]
suggested that politically IPP has been given the ‘go ahead’. However,
the concerns were raised by the workshop participants that the Weimar
discussion was on a relatively general level (e.g. introducing the IPP
concept to all member states) and specific implementation measures were
not discussed.
Several issues at an EC level
can be catalysts for IPP progress:
- The 6th framework action
programme which should start in 2001. At present, the programme is in
the discussion stage but EC working papers suggest that IPP and products
will be given a higher priority [3]
- Cardiff meeting (Cardiff
European Council, June 1998) where the integration of environmental
policy into other policy fields was discussed.
There was a discussion about how
to measure IPP/EPP progress. It was realised that the question is too broad
to answer until concrete objectives and targets are set.
3.3 IPP toolbox
The current proposed IPP toolbox
is a mix of different policy measures, aimed at ‘greening’ consumption (demand
side) and ‘greening’ of product development (supply side). The integration
of tools was stressed as one of the main pre-conditions for IPP to succeed.
Some of the instruments were discussed in more detail, such as eco-product
development, product standards and links with EMS (Environmental Management
Systems) on the ‘supply side’ and greener procurement on the ‘demand side’.
3.3.1 Integration of tools
There are several Environmental
Product Policy (EPP) tools that have been/are implemented in practice in
the member states with different success levels. For example, in UK eco-labels
have been considered as one of the major instruments but they were never
supported by public information campaigns, and therefore eco-labelling has
failed. Another example is UK’s DETR’s (Department of Environment, Transport
and Regions) sudden launching of the website on greener procurement. These
‘stand-alone’ actions indicate that successful IPP should support and integrate
both development of green(er) products and green(er) consumption.
The integration of different
EPP tools poses real difficulties within governments since there is a
different ownership of tools between different departments/ministries
(e.g. eco-labels are likely to be controlled by environmental department,
taxes by finance and technology by industry departments). Finding the
right balance and avoiding the issue of focusing on one single instrument
(e.g. eco-labelling or ‘producer responsibility’ (‘PR’)) is a challenge
for policy makers.
3.3.2 Tools on the supply
side
Eco-product development
The supply side tools of EPPs have been much more developed than the tools
on the consumption side. In the business context, instruments such as environmental
management systems, product stewardship, and eco-design are being employed.
However, with regards to eco-design, much of the activity has been eco(re)design
e.g. improving existing product in relation to specific environmental features
of the product. There has been relatively little eco-innovation e.g. environmentally-considered
new product development. Therefore, CfSD focuses on the eco-product development
concept which suggests that the environmental considerations should be integrated
in the each of the product development and management stage from the idea
generation phase. There are a considerable number of tools developed for
the improvement of environmental features in the design stage (e.g. eco(re)design))
or product assessment (e.g. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and related tools)
but very few address the product development stage from idea generation
phase.
Another short-coming of the
existing tools is a lack of simple, easy-to-use tools for SMEs and even
large companies. SMEs and even large companies education might follow
the ZBIA model (Zero ? Basic ? Intermediate ? Advanced), i.e. bringing
the environmental awareness or knowledge first from zero to basic, then
from basic to intermediate, and finally from intermediate to advanced
level e.g. ‘design for dismantling’. However, CfSD’s research and work
with SMEs indicates difficulties of communicating the environmental issues
to SMEs and the need for ‘hands on’ support.
Eco-product development and
links with environmental management systems
One of the recent developments on the supply side is the Product Oriented
Environmental Management (POEM) concept in the Netherlands. POEM links
environmental management systems and product development The reasons for
introducing POEM concept are:
- Around 1000 eco-design projects have been completed in the Netherlands,
and the majority of them appeared to be ‘ad hoc’ projects without continuation
- Therefore, a more systematic approach is needed, recognising both technical
and management considerations.
With regard to formal EMS,
the current developments regarding inclusion of product management into
EMS are:
- ISO 14 001 is considering the development of DfE (Design for Environment)
technical report for informative/educational purposes only (i.e. guidance
document). However, discussions are still proceeding.
- EMAS: discussions have just started.
Environmental considerations
in the product standardisation process
Incorporating environmental considerations into product standards has
been addressed in the IPP discussions (e.g. in Weimar) as one of the critical
issues. One of the first steps taken now in the positive direction is
that CEN (European standardisation body) has set up (in September 1999)
an environmental help-desk (as a response to pressure from national and
European authorities).
Government subsidies and funding
support
The Austrian government is supporting eco-product development by funding
projects such as annual eco-design competition, eco-design information
website and direct subsidies for innovative projects.
Global trends in eco-product
development
The global trend in greener products development suggests that at present
Europe seems to be the leader, followed by Japan and then by US. However,
recently Japan has shown a lot of interest in eco-design. For instance,
the world’s biggest international conference on eco-design has been held
in Japan (March 1999) where the greatest number of participants were from
Japan (e.g around 350 from 500). Japan may become the leader of
eco-design as a result of government support from MITI (e.g. Japan’s Industry
Department) to develop an extensive cooperation between government, industry
and academia. For example, Japanese electronics companies have launched
products with lead free soldering in the market. Also, Japan has the highest
numbers of ISO 14000 certifications worldwide. On the contrary, US appear
to be reluctant to adopt eco-product development and seems to be opposing
Integrated Product Policy concept by using the ‘barriers to trade’ argument.
Additionally, relatively (e.g. per population and/or per GDP) US has a
low number of ISO certifications worldwide.
3.3.3 Tools on the demand
(consumption) side
Sustainable consumption
The participants expressed that there have been very few tools to green
the consumption side, primiarily, due to the high complexity and intangibility
of the consumption issues (e.g. what does sustainable consumption mean?
consuming less? consuming differently?). The quick wins always have been
in production and now on products side. The issue of sustainable consumption
is very contradictory – does it mean that reduced consumption will imply
the need to reduce industrial production? However, the importance of consumption
is getting more and more important. The international Commission on Sustainable
Consumption has been established in Mansfield College, Oxford University
to feed into Rio+10 conference in 2002. ‘Sustainable Consumption’ is being
discussed in wide range of meetings and conferences, however the practical
measures are lacking.
Consumer behaviour and needs
There is very little knowledge about consumer’s environmental behaviour
and needs. For example, the launching of chain of repair shops in Vienna,
Austria generated considerable more consumer response that was expected.
Consumer perceptions also play a role – they are not necessarily linked
with any scientific proof. One of the best examples is the perception
that recycled paper is of less quality. Sony has produced some visual
examples of greener TV concepts and asked its customers which one of these
examples seems to be most environmentally friendly. Consumers did not
tend to choose the environmentally best products.
One of the reasons for the
lack of understanding customer needs and wants in relation to environmental
issues is that the product development is largely controlled by the Marketing
function which is one of the least green business functions. For example,
Rank Xerox has two questions in its annual customer survey on environmental
issues. Environmental director had to lobby hard for these two questions
and has to report on the business benefits of these questions.
The conventional market research
techniques to identify customer needs and expectations on environmental
issues have not worked. The communication function with customers is usually
carried out by marketing and sales functions, which are one of the least
aware ‘green’ business functions. That leads to a lack of knowledge about
customer needs and expectations on environmental issues.
Greener purchasing
One of the tools discussed in detail was greener public purchasing. So
far, most of the activities have been concentrated on central and local
government purchasing although there are several major groups of purchasers:
- government and public bodies
- distribution chain
- ‘business to business’
- final consumers.
The reason why greener purchasing
has been primarily focused at a central government and local authorities
level is that it is easier to start with government and governmental policies
which can provide an example for other organisations. However, greener
purchasing is still not a common practice in majority of public and governmental
bodies.
Recently, to stimulate greener
purchasing, Austrian Green Procurement centre has received money from
EU LIFE fund to develop greener procurement tools particularly for small-sized
local authorities who do not have enough resources to develop their own
purchasing guidelines and manuals. Criteria will cover certain product
groups, such as office equipment, furniture, cleaning agents, office paper
and stationary and will be published, so industry knows what purchasers
will be looking for.
There are also possibilities
to use eco-labelling criteria in the greener purchasing. The technical
eco-label criteria of specific products can be included in the bidding/tendering
documents (but it is not allowed to require that the specific product
has to have an eco-label).
Information tools
The issue about the information tools was mainly discussed in the context
of the necessity of an European clearing-house for product information.
DGXI has made references to potential role that the European Environmental
Agency (EEA) may have as information collector (e.g. databases, product
files) and disseminator. However, currently there appears to be lack of
resources for EEA to perform this function.
3.4 IPP and electronics sector
The relationship between ‘PR’
and IPP was discussed. The participants agreed that there is strong relationship
between ‘PR’ and IPP since ‘PR’ is one of the major instruments of IPP.
However, there could be some conflicts:
- ‘PR’ is primarily concentrated on the ‘end of life’ phase but IPP is about
the environmental considerations through the full life cycle of the product,
- ‘PR’ passes full responsibility to producer whereas the IPP approach suggests
that the responsibility should be shared between the actors along the product
chain.
It was also stressed that ‘PR’
is not a panacea and should be used in combination with other instruments.
For example, Sweden is increasing waste tax on landfilling and applying
a ban on the landfilling of combustable and organic waste. These measures
together may create pressure on businesses to reuse and recycle products
since landfilling costs will increase.
Two other issues that were
discussed and considered important were the supply chain in electronics
sector and waste recovery schemes.
3.4.1 Supply chain management
(SCM)
SCM is particularly important
in electronics sector, since a lot of companies are no longer manufacturers,
but assemblers and ‘systems integrators’. The EC discussions have not addressed
these issues so far.
The findings of CfSD’s
report ‘Chain of Uncertainty’ (a study of electronics component suppliers
about eco-design and WEEE awareness in the Surrey and Hampshire region)
stressed that majority of electronics component suppliers (majority of
them are small and medium sized companies (SMEs)) are likely to have very
little/no awareness on business and environment (including eco-design)
issues.
Supplier shifts: the majority
of component suppliers seem to be in Far East, however recently trend
towards production of sub-components being switched in parallel to Eastern
Europe due to rising labour cost in South East Asia. However, it has been
difficult to substantiate this due to the lack of up-to-date information
showing the distribution of component suppliers worldwide.
Taking into account the issues
discussed above the question was raised by the workshop participants:
How to educate and train the suppliers?
The example reinforcing the
importance of understanding the supply chain within the context of
‘PR’ in electronics sector is the proposed ban on halogenated flame retardants
in Sweden. Sweden did not want to import computers with halogenated flame
retardants. Therefore, the Swedish government established co-operation
with component manufacturers outside Sweden (e.g. held a workshop in Thailand
and is promoting a dialogue with Japan and US).
3.4.2 Waste recovery
‘Take back ‘ and recovery schemes
have to be developed depending on the type of product:
- highly valuable products (e.g. electronics containing precious metals)
- low value products (e.g. consumer goods)
- products with high toxicity.
One of the obstacles to WEEE
recovery is a weak European infrastructure for electronics waste and volatility
of recycling markets, e.g. relatively few specialist recyclers.
There is a need to invest more
in R&D to support development of new products/materials which could
be dealt with easily at the ‘end of (their useful) life’. One example
is Brunel University who are working on developing ‘smart materials’,
which would disassemble under the heat. This may make the recycling of
low value electronics e.g. mobile phones more feasible.
3.5 IPP Scenarios
Three possible scenarios were
presented and one further scenario emerged in the discussion:
1. GREEN – the scenario follows traditional Green Paper route: Green Paper
sets out the background for consultation process and after a consultation
White Paper is produced which proposes certain legislative measures. Usually
after publishing of White Paper legislation is being drafted.
2. DENMARK – follows advanced national approach, e.g. Denmark as an example.
It means developing one common policy framework.
3. DISCUSSION – the discussions proceed slowly at EC level, whilst the national
approaches developing faster than IPP and in an erratic manner.
One other scenario emerged:
4. FULL STOP! – IPP will be dropped as an EC policy issue (mainly due
to high degree of complexity and international trade rules).
There was discussion about
what kind of document will result from IPP debate. Based on the analogy
on the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive the
question was raised whether IPP might result in the framework Directive.
Participants thought that the issue is too diverse and complicated, that
there is no possibility of a Directive on IPP. Therefore, it appears to
be most likely that IPP will result in some kind of a strategy document
or action programme.
The participants came to two
conclusions:
1. PESSIMISTIC
Commission stops the process because of the administrative problems and
high complexity of the issue, and also because of raising concern about
barriers to trade.
2. REALISTIC
- national approaches develop faster than IPP
- in the short term the progress of IPP is delayed because of the administrative
problems within DGXI.
- however, the work progresses in medium/long term because of the importance
of the subject (as highlighted by the new Comissioner statement about
the importance of products in the 6th Framework Action Plan)
- the outcome of the Green Paper and DGXI work is the strategic/guidance
document on IPP.
4 Key Outputs
Throughout the workshop a range
of key issues were discussed.
4.1 IPP definitions
The significant developments,
since the publication of the Ernst and Young report in March 1998, have
been:
- services are now included
- the principle of continuous
improvement has been incorporated
- lifecycle perspective has
been introduced.
4.2 IPP development scenarios
How will IPP be incorporated into
legislation? Will it stay as a policy framework, passing the main responsibilities
to member states (subsidiarity principle)? Or will it be a Directive? There
seems to be a trend that national environmental product policies are developing
faster than IPP at the European Commission (EC) level.
4.3 IPP agenda at EC
The Environmental Directorate
(DGXI) at the European Commission (EC) is preparing a Green Paper, which
is expected to be published in the 2nd quarter of 2000. It is seen as a
major step in the debate on IPP. It appears that the next discussions will
only take place after the Green Paper. DGXI is looking for stakeholder
contribution to the Green Paper and has been running stakeholder discussion/consultation
sessions (e.g. session with representatives of industry and retailers, and
one with consumers and NGOs).
The further developments of
IPP at an EC level are uncertain, since the Finish presidency (July 1999
– January 2000)) did not appear to be very interested in speeding-up the
development of process. The next presidency will be Portugal (January,
2000 – July 2000), which seems to be a similar case. Some participants
were sceptical about the progress of IPP at the EC level (e.g. UK Consumer
Organisation) –‘will it ever happen?’ However, the background paper on
the informal meeting of Environmental Ministers at Weimar, May 7-9, 1999,
suggests that politically IPP has been given the ‘go ahead’.
At present, IPP is a European
debate. There are indications outside Europe that political barriers may
be introduced in an attempt to slow down the IPP development process,
i.e. the U.S. may lobby against IPP, by using a ‘barriers to trade’ argument.
4.4 IPP implications for
stakeholders
4.4.1 Industry
IPP can offer certain opportunities
for industry to promote greener products more efficiently. It also can cause
barriers to businesses. The following opportunities and barriers were recognised
by the delegates:
Opportunities
Increase in sales
Public purchasing contracts are demanding certain environmental requirements.
Without complying with them, companies can loose potential sales opportunities.
‘Business to business’ customers can pose similar demands through the
supply chains.
Additional value
Environment can ‘add (extra) value’ to the product, e.g. more energy
efficient washing machine results in less costs for consumers. According
to a retailer, some environmentally aware customers are even ready to
pay a small ‘green premium’ (e.g. 10-20 pence in UK).
Preparedness for new regulations
Companies who have established eco-product development and management
programmes can be better prepared for the future taxes and regulations.
Constraints/barriers
Potential emergence
of new taxes and regulations
Direct regulations and taxes are the measures most often applied in the
environmental policy. The industry representatives feared whether it might
be the same case with IPP.
Trade barriers
The high European standards can raise problems in relation to barriers
to trade: can the suppliers outside Europe achieve higher European environmental
standards?
4.4.2 Environmental NGOs
What is the role of NGOs in IPP?
Can NGOs undertake a role of education/information?
4.4.3 Consumers and consumer
organisations
The need for an independent, reliable
information source was expressed by workshop delegates. Listening only to
consumers can result in neglecting other important issues or a misperception
of environmental aspects of products (for example, it is perceived that
use of metals in electronics is better than plastics; however, both of these
materials have their own advantages and disadvantages and there is no single
answer as to which of these are environmentally preferable from a lifecycle
perspective). Consumer organisations and advise centres can play a role
of information and guidance provider.
4.4.4 Retailers
The retailers largely influence
the choice of the products on the marketplace and are important gate-keepers
between producers and consumers. They are influential actors in the education
and information of consumers.
The opportunities might arise
from IPP for retailers to have different market strategies, which are
focused on environmental, social and ethical issues. For example, ‘Body
Shop’ is a good example how to differentiate in the market by social/ethical
considerations.
4.5 IPP toolbox
The current proposed IPP toolbox
is a mix of different policy measures, aimed at ‘greening’ consumption (demand
side) and ‘greening’ product development (supply side). The workshop participants
agreed that there will not be a ‘one fits all’ solution. However, the current
toolbox needs more systematic considerations in which combinations of different
measures will be applied.
Economic (e.g. taxes, product
charges) and direct regulatory instruments (e.g. ‘producer responsibility’,
bans, product standards) have been used in environmental policies for
a relatively long time. Industry representatives feared that IPP discussions
might result in new taxes and regulations and that the potential of other
instruments has not been explored, e.g. negotiated agreements.
One of the leading principles
of IPP is the involvement of all stakeholders. The IPP debate focuses
more on the concept of ‘shared responsibility’, where different tasks
are shared by different stakeholders along the product’s lifecycle. It
is also clear that industry is in more favour of a ‘shared responsibility’
approach instead of passing all responsibility to the producer, which
is the case of the proposed draft WEEE Directive. However, these tasks
and responsibilities (e.g. economic, physical, information) must be clearly
defined. It also means that all stakeholders must ‘buy into’ the process.
4.6 IPP : product development
and management
The issues below were highlighted
as important on the supply side of IPP.
4.6.1 IPP and supply chain
management (SCM)
Supply chain management (SCM)
is particularly important in the electronics sector, since a lot of companies
are no longer manufacturers, but ‘systems integrators’. The EC discussions
have not addressed these issues so far. Considering eco-product development
issues along the supply chain, the following issues were raised:
- The international aspects
of supply chain: where are the majority of electronics component suppliers
located? The research in the UK shows that it has been hard to find
component suppliers based in the UK (e.g. in counties of Surrey and
Hampshire). Are they now in the Far East?
- Should companies educate
and train their suppliers worldwide (e.g. producing eco-design checklists
in Chinese)?
- Can suppliers world-wide
comply with the European standards? For instance, is it possible for
a component manufacturer in China, to ensure 5% recycled content in
plastics, as was proposed in the early drafts of the EC WEEE Directive?
- The above research also
showed that amongst electronics component suppliers there is very little
or no awareness about business and environment issues, eco-design, and
even the up-coming WEEE Directive in its 2nd draft.
- How to get information
passed down the supply chain? Are manufacturers of final goods able
to educate all their suppliers (when there may be thousands of components
in one final electronics equipment?), and what is the cost?
- The supply chain is a potentially
powerful channel to influence small and medium sized companies (SMEs)
to improve their environmental performance since SMEs are more likely
to listen to their customers.
4.6.2 Innovation
How can IPP influence innovation?
Whether it is about continuous improvement of existing products (e.g., eco(re)design)
or eco-innovation (of new products)?
4.6.3 Orientation towards
services
In general, it has been assumed
that product replacement by services is an environmentally preferable option.
However, there is a big knowledge gap concerning services (evaluation of
environmental impacts, tools for eco-product development in service sector,
etc.).
4.6.4 Eco-product development
and EMS
The Dutch government and industry
has come up with the concept, which links environmental management systems
and product development – POEM or Product Oriented Environmental Management.
The reasons for introducing the POEM concept are:
- Around 1000 eco-design
projects have been completed in the Netherlands up to now, and the majority
of them appeared to be ‘ad hoc’ projects without continuation,
- Therefore, a more systematic
approach was needed; it is important to recognise that eco-design has
both technical and management considerations.
The preliminary findings from
experience with POEM are:
- POEM can easily be integrated
into existing environmental management systems,
- POEM requires higher co-operation
amongst different business functions,
- The business benefits of
POEM are not clear,
- What is the actual ambition
of POEM in terms of eco-innovation? How can POEM stimulate innovation?
The current developments regarding
inclusion of product management into formal EMS schemes are:
- ISO 14 001 is considering
the development of DfE (Design for Environment) technical report for
informative/educational purposes only (i.e. guidance document)
- EMAS: discussions have
just started.
4.7 IPP: Consumption issues
The delegates found that the consumption
side of IPP has been less addressed when compared against environmental
product policies. There was a consensus amongst the delegates that
it is crucial to influence the consumption side but it was also realised
by participants that it is a hard and difficult task. The importance of
the consumption side is crucial in order to reduce environmental impacts
from products. The following issues were raised:
- How can companies influence
consumption side?
- The consumer needs information
and guidance about products. How can a consumer get it and what kind
of information do consumers need?
- How are companies communicating
with their customers?
- How to raise basic awareness
on the consumption side?
4.7.1 Communications with
customers
In order to find out customer
needs, better dialogue with them is necessary. Conventional market research
techniques have not worked. The communication function with customers is
usually carried out by marketing and sales functions, which are some of
the least aware ‘green’ business functions. That leads to the lack
of knowledge about customer needs and expectations on environmental issues.
4.7.2 Rebound effects: improved
products but increased consumption:
It has been noticed that environmental
improvements to products are out-weighted by increased consumption. Good
examples are e.g. light bulbs and washing machines, where cost savings have
encouraged customers to increase the consumption (e.g. leave the lights
on, wash clothes more often). There is an opportunity for consumer education.
4.7.3 Consumer education
What kind of information and education
is necessary for a consumer? Too much information can produce ‘rebound effects’
(e.g. consumers get bored). For basic consumer education, it is important
to focus on single aspects where there might be an interest from a consumer.
These aspects could be energy consumption in households, and ‘do it yourself’
shops.
The delegates stressed that
the education and re-education on different levels (schools, universities,
professional institutions, inside companies (especially marketing and
sales functions, etc.) is necessary.
4.7.4 Needs for information
and information sources
If IPP is to differentiate between
environmentally preferable and less preferable products for consumers to
choose, objective and reliable information sources are necessary. Companies
are currently developing internal eco-design benchmarking tools. However,
there is nothing to benchmark against if one wants to see where the product
stands against the best practice in industry. Benchmarking exists for certain,
simple to measure aspects, such as stand-by power consumption for monitors.
However, it is hard to compare products in their overall environmental performance.
The need for better environmental benchmarking possibilities was expressed.
5 Notes
[1]. The Presidencies are
changed every 6 months.
[2]. Federal Ministry
for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, ‘Informal
Meeting of EU Environmental Ministers on Integrated Product Policy (IPP)’,
Background paper on Product Related Environmental Policy, Bonn, May 7-9,
1999.
[3]. European Commission,
‘From Cardiff to Helsinki and beyond: Report to the European Council on
integrating environmental concerns and sustainable development into Community
policies’, 1999.
[Back
to Top] [IPP-EPD Workshop
Reports] [CfSD Projects]
[CfSD Home]
|
|
