By taking note of the dismal response to the Ecomark labelling initiative and asking the government to review this nearly two-decade old provision, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has done what the concerned authorities should have thought of on their own. Of the 17 product categories that have been recognised as 'green', products of only three categories (manufactured by some 15 companies) have managed to find takers for this symbol of environmental safety. This is in sharp contrast to the experience in Europe, Japan and the Scandinavian countries, where eco-labelling has become the dominant trend for marketers. In Japan alone, over 5,000 items in as many as 64 product categories are said to have acquired the country's eco-seal. The 'Nordic Swan' environmental mark of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark is now applicable to nearly 1,200 products in 60 product categories. It is, therefore, regrettable that while environmental concerns have gained a toehold in consumer minds in other parts of the globe, India is nowhere near achieving this objective. Conceptually, the Indian eco-label is fairly sound as it is based on a cradle-to-grave approach, requiring the products to be produced, used and even disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. The logo of the mark-- an earthen pot-- has also been well-conceived as this familiar utility vessel is made from a renewable resource, that is mud, and produces no hazardous waste that might need specialised disposal. Unfortunately, not many enterprises and even a smaller proportion of consumers are aware of it. What is worse, many among those who have secured the Ecomark do not bother to put this seal on their products, though everyone makes it a point to display other quality marks like the ISI standards mark of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Clearly, they do not think that they see much value in the Ecomark.
In most countries where the eco-label has gained ground, the impulse for doing so has emanated mostly from environmentally enlightened consumers. Issues like energy efficiency in product manufacturing, product take-back for recycling or disposal, and use of non-hazardous material are becoming part of consumers' buying decisions. Ecomarks are also getting greater weights in the official procurement process in many countries. Japan even has a Green Procurement Law on its statute books.
In India, by way of contrast, hardly any effort has gone into promoting the Ecomark, leave alone making it mandatory for certain categories of products which are hazardous by nature and create problems of disposal. The BIS, which has been entrusted with the task of evolving the standards and assessing and certifying compliance with these norms before the grant of licences, has failed to effectively implement the Ecomark scheme. Nor has it bothered to educate the public on the attributes of the Ecomark, the way it has been doing for other marks like ISI and the gold hallmark. Indeed, consumer welfare organisations and the government's consumer affairs department, too, have done little on this count. Manufacturers, therefore, do not perceive much gain from using Ecomark on their products. The government should look into the way the Ecomark programme is being implemented and address all the issues involved in order to ensure that it serves the objective of promoting environment-friendly practices in the consumer products sector. If it finds itself incapable of doing that, it should take the honest decision of scrapping the whole initiative.