Ecolabel selection tool - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Rouven Heidrich, Erik Neumann, Sönke Sanders
Edited by:
Last updated: June 18, 2026

Executive summary

Ecolabels help organizations communicate credible environmental and social performance in a marketplace where stakeholders are increasingly skeptical of self-declared sustainability claims. Because independent third-party certifications can reduce information gaps and build trust, ecolabels can strengthen reputation, support customer choice, improve supply chain relationships, and help organizations prepare for stricter future regulation.

Practitioners face a complex ecolabel landscape. Hundreds of labels differ by region, sector, product category, credibility, governance model, and level of difficulty. Type 1 ecolabels are generally the most consumer-oriented and independently certified, Type 2 ecolabels are often self-declared and more variable in quality, and Type 3 ecolabels are commonly used in business-to-business contexts. This complexity can make ecolabel selection difficult and may discourage organizations from pursuing certification.

Existing ecolabel tools and guides improve transparency but serve different purposes. Broad directories such as Ecolabel Index offer wide coverage but limited comparability. Evaluation platforms such as Siegelklarheit and Labelinfo.ch provide ratings across dimensions such as credibility, environmental impact, and social responsibility, but they are often limited by regional focus, simplified scoring, or incomplete coverage. Other resources, including Greenpeace Austria’s guide, Umweltbundesamt advice pages, the Global Ecolabelling Network, LiveToxFree, The Sustainable Agency, and the EU Ecolabel portal, provide useful orientation but vary in scope, methodology, interactivity, and applicability for organizational decision-making.

The proposed Ecolabel Selection Tool addresses these gaps by giving organizations a practical, transparent, Excel-based method for identifying relevant ecolabels. It organizes labels across industry sheets and evaluates them using consistent criteria, including popularity, requirements, credibility, environmental responsibility, and social compatibility. This structure helps users compare labels, understand trade-offs, and select certifications aligned with their operational capacity, market context, and sustainability goals.

Excel was chosen because it is accessible, transparent, adaptable, and easy to integrate into existing workflows. Users can inspect the logic, update data, add new labels, adjust weights, and tailor the tool to changing priorities. Compared with passive directories, the tool actively supports decision-making and can also function as an educational template for sustainability management.

The tool’s main limitations are manual database maintenance, Excel’s scalability constraints, simplified matching logic, and the absence of external feedback such as consumer recognition or brand value. Future development could include a web-based version, live database updates, API connections to ecolabel databases, machine learning-based recommendations, consumer perception metrics, and multilingual support.

1 Motivation and background

Sustainability has become a central concern for companies worldwide. However, effectively communicating actual environmental performance remains a challenge. Ecolabels have become a crucial tool for promoting transparency, building trust, and helping stakeholders distinguish genuine efforts from mere self-declarations. To better understand their role, it is essential to examine their origins, motivations, and the practical challenges they encounter.

1.1 Introduction to ecolabels

Faced with the global challenge of climate change and the drive for sustainability, many stakeholders expect companies to adopt environmentally friendly practices. To meet these expectations, corporations aim to be, or at least appear to be, sustainable businesses.¹ To achieve this, they can either implement measures to improve sustainability or hide their shortcomings. To demonstrate their efforts to stakeholders – whether truthful or not – companies often communicate through articles on their websites or other media.

This self-declaration of sustainability is usually not subject to control or verification by the company’s stakeholders, and therefore, stakeholders typically rely solely on the statements the firm makes itself. As a result, companies can easily inflate the amount of work they have done, creating a perception that their business is more sustainable than it actually is.² To obtain a reliable and honest assessment of a company’s sustainability, customers are increasingly looking for the ecolabels a product has rather than the potentially misleading the company’s self-declarations. Ecolabels are voluntary third-party certifications that independently assess a company’s sustainability. Since these certifications are not self-imposed but awarded by an independent third-party organization, customers often place more trust in the statements of these ecolabeling organizations than in the company’s self-declarations.³

1.2 Drivers for ecolabels

The primary motivation for companies to pursue ecolabels is to demonstrate their genuine commitment to sustainability in good faith to customers and stakeholders. This enhances the brand’s reputation and can help it stand out from competitors.⁴ It also allows for a broader appeal to the public. Environmentally conscious consumers tend to prefer products with well-known and reputable ecolabels over similar products without them. Additionally, obtaining an ecolabel helps companies stay ahead of potential tighter regulations that governments or other regulatory bodies might implement in the future. This can save time and money in the long run. Suppose a company is part of a supply chain involving other firms with high sustainability standards. In that case, these environmentally conscious suppliers and customers may want all companies in the supply chain to adopt eco-friendly practices.⁵ They might choose to stop doing business with companies that aren’t sustainable, leading to significant financial losses. Having an ecolabel can demonstrate genuine sustainability, help retain these partners, and open doors to new opportunities.

1.3 Issues for practitioners

However, those responsible for sustainability within a corporation can face many challenges when starting an ecolabeling program. The market is crowded with hundreds of different ecolabels a company can pursue. For example, the online database “Ecolabel Index” currently lists over 450 ecolabels from various countries and sectors.⁶ All these ecolabels can have very different requirements. Some may be nearly impossible to meet, even for sustainable businesses, while others have very minimal and easy-to-achieve standards.

Additionally, not every ecolabel is available to all businesses. Many ecolabels are only issued to companies in specific regions of the world. For example, some only certify companies in the EU, while others may only certify businesses in the USA. Furthermore, ecolabels vary by the sectors they cover. Some are specifically designed for agricultural products, others are tailored to the building industry, and some can be applied across multiple sectors.

Even more variations come from differences in ecolabel credibility. Some ecolabels, even those with lower standards, have very high credibility because they monitor and review each company, providing honest certification. There are three types of ecolabels.⁷ Type 1 ecolabels are generally considered the highest standard because they are designed to be consumer-friendly and informative. They are awarded by a certified third party, making them autonomous and independent. Type 2 ecolabels are often self-awarded and not certified by independent institutions. As a result, they can vary significantly in quality, transparency, and consumer-friendliness. These ecolabels are the most likely ones to be mistaken for greenwashing. However, not all Type 2 ecolabels are greenwashing. Type 3 ecolabels mainly target business-to-business (B2B) relationships rather than consumers. They are often used to evaluate the sustainability of the entire supply chain and can differ significantly in quality. It is advisable to inquire about these ecolabels if the goal is to satisfy and collaborate with B2B partners.

Although Type 1 is generally seen as the most consumer-friendly ecolabel, not all ecolabels in this category are the same and can vary significantly in quality. This level of variation and complexity, both within and across the three types of ecolabels, can easily overwhelm practitioners who may become lost in the wide range of options available. This can discourage companies from choosing and pursuing an ecolabel, which can slow down progress toward a more sustainable future.

2 Existing tools

To address the challenge of navigating numerous ecolabels and improving transparency, various tools have been developed to assist with this task. These tools have both strengths and weaknesses. The following section describes the existing tools, highlighting their benefits and limitations.

Ecolabel Index

The website “Ecolabel Index” is a free directory of ecolabels. As mentioned above, it contains 456 ecolabels in the database. The ecolabel entries include a brief description of each label and a link to the label’s website. The labels are listed in alphabetical order, with descriptions that are generally clear and precise, as well as related areas of application. This highlights the strengths of the tool, which are apparent and include broad coverage of existing labels. It is therefore ideal for gaining an overview of the available ecolabels.

Additionally, this allows for a quick and simple introduction, supported by brief descriptions of each label. However, one weakness is the lack of standardized comparison criteria, which means the labels cannot be directly compared. Without uniform evaluations or ratings, it is not possible to make a quick decision. This requires visiting the label’s website and searching for more information. The “Ecolabel Index” should therefore be viewed as a brief overview of many labels, mainly valuable because of its extensive database, as it lacks additional functions.⁶

Siegelklarheit

“Siegelklarheit” is an evaluation and comparison platform run by the German federal government. It assesses labels based on credibility, environmental impact, and social impact. In each area, labels are rated on a three-star scale. The assessment is conducted using the Sustainable Standards Comparison Tool (SSCT), which analyzes and evaluates the sustainability standards of labels based on over 300 criteria. The website features filters that allow labels to be sorted and compared by name and by attributes such as rating, product groups, and the three dimensions mentioned above. The labels are displayed in a straightforward interface that provides the direct star ratings for credibility, environmental friendliness, and social impact at first glance. Clicking on a label offers more details about its focus, certifying organization, and interesting facts. There is also a direct link to the label’s official website. This is a strength, as the SSCT achieves high transparency through its transparent methodology and makes relevant documents publicly accessible.

Furthermore, comparability across different areas is a clear and notable advantage. It helps make suitable purchasing and consumption choices. The star rating also supports decision-making and makes it easier. Since the German federal government runs the tool, it has credibility, which can be seen as a strength. Unexpectedly, the tool is available not only in German but also in English. One weakness is that it includes fewer labels than, for example, the Ecolabel Index.

Additionally, the three-star rating facilitates quick comparisons but may result in oversimplified information. The tool primarily aims to assist consumers with their buying decisions and is less useful for companies seeking labels specific to their business or product.⁸

Greenpeace Austria – Quality Label Guide for Food

The “Quality Label Guide for Food” from “Greenpeace Austria” is a criteria-based ranking of ecolabels. The tool provides specific advantages and disadvantages on various topics related to label sustainability. The labels and brands are categorized from “Very trustworthy and particularly environmentally friendly” to “Absolutely untrustworthy and contributing to environmental destruction”. Each label and brand also includes explanatory text with information about the label, covering both its positive and negative aspects, as well as the reasons behind them. The clear presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluated labels is a significant advantage for consumers.

Additionally, many key points are covered and highlighted, allowing for the collection, presentation, and evaluation of important information about the labels. However, the weakness here is that the focus is mainly on Austria and Germany, rather than being international like the other tools. Furthermore, the methodology is understandable but not as clearly explained and formalized as in the case of “Siegelklarheit”. Nonetheless, the brief descriptions and arguments, both positive and negative, are more detailed than on other websites.⁹

Labelinfo.ch

“Labelinfo.ch” is a Swiss platform that ranks ecolabels into five recommendation levels, from “Excellent” to “Hardly recommendable”. It features over 100 labels across various categories, including food, textiles, electronics, paper, and cleaning products. Users can search for labels, compare them within these groups, or look up labels by name. Filters also allow users to sort by overall rating and four key dimensions: credibility, environmental impact, social responsibility, and animal welfare. Each label is rated on a scale of one to four in these areas and can be compared. When selected, a brief description appears, along with a link to the label’s website for more details. The ratings across these areas provide the clearest view of each label.

However, it should be noted that although some labels have been added, specific ratings, such as those for “Blauer Engel”, are still pending. Additionally, the tool is mainly designed for the Swiss market and offers only French as an alternative to German. This means the tool cannot be directly adapted for other comparison portals, such as “Siegelklarheit”. Furthermore, classifying labels into dimensions can make decisions easier, but it can also oversimplify trade-offs between dimensions.¹⁰

Umweltbundesamt – Advice page “Siegel und Label”

The advisory page “Siegel und Label” from the “Umweltbundesamt” provides an overview of “top environmental seals”. It includes the “EU Energy Label”, “Organic Seal”, “EU Ecolabel”, “Blauer Engel”, and “Green Button”. The labels are briefly described, and tips on how to use them are also offered. Additionally, links are included to more detailed information about the labels and specific product groups. The tool explains the basic principles of good labels, such as transparent criteria, independent monitoring, a life cycle approach, and the role of government for European and German labels. Because the tool originates from the “Umweltbundesamt”, it has a high level of credibility.

Furthermore, there is a clear emphasis on having fewer but more impactful government labels. Moreover, the page addresses the central question of how to use labels effectively and remains straightforward, avoiding clutter with unnecessary details. However, this is not an exhaustive directory, but rather an overview of a few labels.

Furthermore, there is no simple way to compare the labels, unlike with other tools. For additional features, the website refers to various databases, such as the “labelinfo.ch” database mentioned above. The information provided mainly relates to the German-speaking region. Additionally, the website is only available in German, so there is no English version. Overall, the website functions more as a brief guide than a comprehensive tool.¹¹

Global Ecolabelling Network – Member overview

The “Global Ecolabelling Network” is a directory of Type I ecolabels, as defined by ISO 14024. It includes and showcases government and semi-government programs such as “Blauer Engel”, “Nordic Swan”, and “EU Ecolabel”. Currently, the “Global Ecolabelling Network” lists 39 members from roughly 60 countries and regions. The network distinguishes between full members (ISO 14024-compliant Type I ecolabels) and associate members (related organizations). Members can filter by membership types, Global Ecolabelling Network’s Internationally Coordinated Ecolabelling System (GENICES), region, programs, and product categories. Labels are shown with a link to their profile and website, and product categories are displayed directly. Each profile provides a brief description of the labels, along with links for further information. As a result, the “Global Ecolabelling Network” offers a qualitative preselection based on ISO standards, making strategic focus easier. This is a key strength of the website. Additionally, the tool features a world map that displays all labels according to their countries of origin, providing a clear overview of where the labels originate.

Unfortunately, there are no additional ratings for users. The website provides governance context but does not give purchase recommendations. This means that comprehensive comparisons, such as those available through other tools or websites, are not possible. However, the directory includes international labels and is available in English.¹²

LiveToxFree

“LiveToxFree” functions more as a guide than a tool. It provides an overview of labels and product groups in which the labels are used. The product groups include cosmetics, textiles, cleaning products, wood/paper, and furniture. Information on the labels is presented in tables, along with additional details about each label’s specific features. The labels are also roughly categorized based on how strict their criteria are, for example, “Nordic Swan” being very strict. It also explains who sets the requirements and whether the government or a private organization is responsible for them. The website’s main strength is its clarity and simplicity. However, one weakness is that it is not a tool like the other websites. This means users cannot search for or compare labels using filters. Additionally, there are only simplified categories (“medium to strict”), which aren’t formal evaluations.

Furthermore, the guide does not provide links to the labels for further information, which can be found in the sources, and the guide is only available in German.¹³

The Sustainable Agency – “A Guide to Sustainability Certifications”

Similar to “LiveToxFree”, the guide provided by “The Sustainable Agency” can also be consulted. Here, too, the labels are categorized (textiles, biodiversity, vegan, recycled, buildings, tourism, general). The entries for each label include a brief description and information on “Accredited by”, “Used for”, and “Examples of brands with certified products”. A link to the label’s website is also included. One strength of the guide is that it also covers smaller and more niche labels.

Nevertheless, a weakness is that the guide is more editorial and does not serve as a formalized evaluation tool. This means there is no way to compare and assess individual labels, as with some tools mentioned above. The descriptions of the labels also include a short paragraph evaluating them, but it is unclear what information these evaluations are based on. The focus of the assessments varies, making it challenging to compare labels.¹⁴

EU Ecolabel

The “EU Ecolabel” tool focuses on specific product groups and acts as the official portal for their information. Included groups are, for example, cleaning services, cosmetics, lubricants, textiles, and accommodation. Products are assessed based on the award criteria of the “EU Ecolabel”, which include factors such as life cycle approach, substitution requirements, durability, recyclability, fitness for use, and compliance with EU law. These criteria and the required evidence are detailed in the user manual in accordance with EU Decision (2021/1870). This allows for an accurate presentation of information about the groups. It is important to note that this is not a tool for evaluating different ecolabels but rather a tool from one ecolabel that provides information about various products, organized into product groups. As a tool from the European Commission, it maintains a high level of commitment and transparency, supported by clear evidence. The focus is on the product life cycle, and the criteria are regularly updated and made available for review. However, a weakness is that, as already mentioned, it is not a tool for ecolabels.

Additionally, food products are missing as a product category. Overall, therefore, the tool differs from previous tools and guides, which focus exclusively on various ecolabels. On a positive note, however, it is worth mentioning that the “EU Ecolabel” tool is available in many different languages.¹⁵

During the research, additional tools in the field of ecolabels were identified. Since describing and evaluating all the tools would go beyond the scope of this project, the focus was placed on the most essential tools, which were examined in greater detail. This section showcases the variety of tools and their different approaches. Given the different approaches, each tool has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, every tool plays a part in increasing awareness in the field of ecolabels and contributes to greater transparency. Still, it is essential to note that the tools also require further development of standardized comparison criteria to ensure better comparability among them. Nevertheless, the existing tools demonstrate the importance of ecolabels and ecolabel tools in general.

3 New tool

Considering the challenges identified in the existing ecolabel landscape, there is a clear need for practical guidance that goes beyond cataloging available options. To meet this demand, we introduce the “Ecolabel Selection Tool”, a transparent and user-friendly instrument that helps practitioners align their sustainability goals with the most relevant certifications. The following subsections present the tool’s objectives, structure, platform choice, comparative advantages, and limitations, concluding with reflections on its broader implications.

3.1 Purpose and objectives

The “Ecolabel Selection Tool” was created to assist organizations in navigating the increasing number of ecolabel options. While ecolabels can effectively close information gaps and promote environmentally responsible purchasing, the wide variety of schemes often leads to confusion and poor decision-making.¹⁶^,¹⁷ Current platforms, such as the “Ecolabel Index”, offer helpful catalogs of labels but do not actively support decision-making by connecting ecolabel features to specific product traits or organizational sustainability goals. In this context, the tool was designed as a straightforward, transparent, and flexible method for systematically aligning products and corporate priorities with the most suitable ecolabels.

Its primary objectives are to clarify the complex landscape of ecolabels for companies and practitioners, to offer a structured, criteria-based method for assessing label suitability, and to develop a flexible template that can be updated and expanded as ecolabel standards change.

3.2 Structure of the tool

The tool is designed as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to maximize accessibility. Excel was deliberately chosen because of its widespread availability, low barriers to entry, and transparent logic. The structure is divided into two parts: the landing page and 12 sheets for selected industries.

The landing page of the “Ecolabel Selection Tool” begins with two sections: “About Ecolabels”, which explains the role of voluntary ecolabel certifications in supporting sustainable consumer choices, and “How to use the tool”, which provides step-by-step instructions on how companies can navigate the database and find relevant ecolabels for their industry and region.

On the right side, the tool introduces several key evaluation categories:

Popularity shows how well-known an ecolabel is. Labels with low popularity (one star) may not be familiar to customers, while highly popular ones (four stars) are widely trusted and can enhance brand perception.
Requirements describe the level of effort involved in the certification process, ranging from low (easy for most companies to meet) to very high (requiring major restructuring and long-term effort).
Credibility is also rated on a star system (one to four stars), indicating ecolabels from low credibility (possible greenwashing) to high credibility, which reflects a strong scientific foundation, independence, and trustworthiness.
Environmental responsibility also uses stars to rate the extent to which an ecolabel prioritizes ecological issues, ranging from minimal consideration to comprehensive, life-cycle-based standards.
Social compatibility assesses attention to social issues, such as labor rights, community concerns, and gender equality, rated on a scale from one to four stars, from minimal to outstanding focus.

The star ratings allow companies to quickly compare ecolabels based on credibility, environmental, and social factors. Meanwhile, the popularity and practicality indicators help them strike a balance between visibility and practicality. Together, these categories enable businesses to select ecolabels that are both feasible and impactful for their sustainability strategies.

The core of the tool is a structured dataset of ecolabels. Each of the twelve industry sheets follows a consistent layout to help companies find relevant ecolabels for their specific sector. In each sheet, ecolabels are listed by region or country, along with their names, details such as logos, managing organizations, types of organizations (government, non-profit, for-profit, industry association, or other), and direct website links for more information.

Ecolabels are then assessed using the categories introduced on the landing page: Popularity, requirements, credibility, environmental responsibility, and social compatibility. These ratings are displayed directly in the table, with the star system making strengths and weaknesses easy to identify. Additionally, each ecolabel entry includes references to international standards (e.g., ISO norms), providing transparency about the technical and regulatory basis of the certification.

This consistent layout across all industry sheets ensures comparability. Companies can easily identify relevant ecolabels in their field, understand their recognition level, and assess how demanding or credible they are perceived to be. The combination of structured data, direct links, and standardized ratings makes the sheets a helpful starting point for choosing ecolabels that align with both operational capacity and sustainability goals.

3.3 Excel as the platform

The tool was intentionally created to be transparent, versatile, and focused on practical use. Unlike proprietary software options, Excel offers users complete insight into the underlying logic and formulas. This openness is crucial for establishing trust in sustainability management tools, particularly in situations where credibility and accountability are paramount.¹⁸

Furthermore, the modularity of Excel makes the tool highly adaptable. Organizations can easily add new ecolabels, update existing criteria to reflect changing sustainability priorities, or incorporate a weighting scheme to reflect these changes. This approach ensures the tool stays relevant as the ecolabel landscape continues to develop. Lastly, Excel offers strong compatibility with popular reporting and management systems, making it easy to integrate the tool into current workflows.

3.4 Comparative advantages

Compared with existing platforms, the “Ecolabel Selection Tool” offers several clear advantages. The tool is designed to actively guide users toward the most relevant ecolabels, rather than simply serving as a passive database. It is highly customizable, allowing users to adjust weights, inputs, and database entries for specific situations. Its spreadsheet-based setup keeps costs low and makes it accessible without requiring special software or licenses. Moreover, by making the criteria and trade-offs clear, the tool improves practitioners’ understanding of ecolabel differences.

3.5 Limitations and future development

Despite these benefits, the current version of the tool has some limitations. The most significant is the manual upkeep of the database. Ecolabel criteria, scopes, and governing bodies are often subject to change, requiring regular updates to maintain accuracy. Additionally, the tool is limited by Excel’s capabilities. While it works well for small to medium datasets, Excel is less effective for managing hundreds of ecolabels or complex multi-criteria analyses.

Another limitation is the simplified matching logic. While weighted scoring adds transparency, it may not fully represent complex interactions between product attributes and ecolabel requirements. Additionally, the tool does not currently incorporate external feedback, such as consumer recognition or brand value associated with specific ecolabels, despite these factors being crucial for marketing success.¹⁹

Future development could address these shortcomings in several ways:

Creating a web-based application with a live database and real-time updates.
Integrating with external ecolabel databases such as the “Ecolabel Index” via API connections.
Using machine learning techniques to improve recommendations based on past user choices.
Adding consumer perception metrics to support technical suitability.
Offering multi-language support to improve usability across different regions.

3.6 Conclusion

The “Ecolabel Selection Tool” provides a practical, transparent, and adaptable method for organizations to navigate the increasingly complex landscape of ecolabels. By structuring the decision-making process through a combination of user inputs, label databases, and weighted scoring, the tool contributes to more informed sustainability strategies. While current limitations highlight the need for ongoing refinement, the tool already offers significant value as a decision-support instrument and as an educational template for strategic sustainability management.

References

1
Trivedi, K., Trivedi, P. & Goswami, V. Sustainable marketing strategies: Creating business value by meeting consumer expectation. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences (IJMESS) 7(2), 186-205 (2018). ↩︎
2
Kim, E. & Lyon, T. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organizational science 26(3), 705-723 (2015). ↩︎
3
Bottega, L., Brécard, D. & Delacote, P. Advertising, ecolabeling and consumers’ beliefs: greenwashing or not? Economic Letters Vol. 235, 111513 (2024). ↩︎
4
Potter et al. The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systemic Review. Environment and Behavior Vol. 53(8), 891–925 (2021). ↩︎
5
Ahmadi-Gh, Z. & Bello-Pintado, A. Sustainability isomorphism in buyer–supplier relationships: The impact of supply chain leadership. Business strategy and the Environment 33(4), 3635-3653 (2024). ↩︎
6
Big Room Inc. Introduction Page. Ecolabel Index. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
7
Ecosystems United. the different types of ecolabels. Ecosystem United. https://ecosystemsunited.com/the-different-types-of-ecolabels/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
6
Big Room Inc. Introduction Page. Ecolabel Index. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
8
Siegelklarheit. Initiative of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Siegelverzeichnis. https://www.siegelklarheit.de/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
9
Greenpeace Austria. Label guide for food – which quality labels and organic brands can I trust? Greenpeace: Label Results Guide. https://greenpeace.at/ratgeber/guetezeichen-ergebnisse/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
10
Labelinfo.ch. Overview of quality and environmental labels in Switzerland. https://www.labelinfo.ch/de/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
11
Umweltbundesamt. Siegel und Label – Label guide: Top environmental labels for sustainable consumption. Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/uebergreifende-tipps/siegel-label#diese-siegel-und-label-helfen-beim-umweltbewussten-einkauf (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
12
Global Ecolabelling Network. Members list: type-1 ecolabelling programmes around the world. Global Ecolabelling Network – Our Members. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisations/ (2024). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
13
Livetoxfree. Dein Guide durch die Öko-Siegel & Labels. livetoxfree – Ratgeber: Guide through eco-labels and seals. https://www.livetoxfree.com/post/dein-guide-durch-die-oeko-siegel-und-labels (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
14
Dhanani, R. “A Guide to Sustainability Certifications & Ecolabels”. The Sustainable Agency. https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/sustainability-certifications-and-ecolabels-guide/ (2022). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
15
European Commission. EU Ecolabel Products Catalogue. https://environmental-data.ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/index.html (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
16
Delmas, M. A. & Grant, L. E. Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: The wine industry puzzle. Business & Society 53(1), 6-44 (2014). ↩︎
17
Thøgersen, J. Promoting “Green” Consumer Behavior with Eco-Labels, in: New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. (National Academy Press, 2002). ↩︎
18
Bennett, N. J. & Satterfield, T. Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters 11(6), 1-13 (2018). ↩︎
19
Dendler, L. Sustainability meta labelling: An effective measure to facilitate more sustainable consumption and production? Journal of Cleaner Production 63, 74–83 (2014). ↩︎

1
Trivedi, K., Trivedi, P. & Goswami, V. Sustainable marketing strategies: Creating business value by meeting consumer expectation. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences (IJMESS) 7(2), 186-205 (2018). ↩︎
2
Kim, E. & Lyon, T. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organizational science 26(3), 705-723 (2015). ↩︎
3
Bottega, L., Brécard, D. & Delacote, P. Advertising, ecolabeling and consumers’ beliefs: greenwashing or not? Economic Letters Vol. 235, 111513 (2024). ↩︎
4
Potter et al. The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systemic Review. Environment and Behavior Vol. 53(8), 891–925 (2021). ↩︎
5
Ahmadi-Gh, Z. & Bello-Pintado, A. Sustainability isomorphism in buyer–supplier relationships: The impact of supply chain leadership. Business strategy and the Environment 33(4), 3635-3653 (2024). ↩︎
6
Big Room Inc. Introduction Page. Ecolabel Index. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
7
Ecosystems United. the different types of ecolabels. Ecosystem United. https://ecosystemsunited.com/the-different-types-of-ecolabels/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
6
Big Room Inc. Introduction Page. Ecolabel Index. https://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
8
Siegelklarheit. Initiative of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Siegelverzeichnis. https://www.siegelklarheit.de/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
9
Greenpeace Austria. Label guide for food – which quality labels and organic brands can I trust? Greenpeace: Label Results Guide. https://greenpeace.at/ratgeber/guetezeichen-ergebnisse/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
10
Labelinfo.ch. Overview of quality and environmental labels in Switzerland. https://www.labelinfo.ch/de/ (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
11
Umweltbundesamt. Siegel und Label – Label guide: Top environmental labels for sustainable consumption. Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/uebergreifende-tipps/siegel-label#diese-siegel-und-label-helfen-beim-umweltbewussten-einkauf (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
12
Global Ecolabelling Network. Members list: type-1 ecolabelling programmes around the world. Global Ecolabelling Network – Our Members. https://globalecolabelling.net/organisations/ (2024). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
13
Livetoxfree. Dein Guide durch die Öko-Siegel & Labels. livetoxfree – Ratgeber: Guide through eco-labels and seals. https://www.livetoxfree.com/post/dein-guide-durch-die-oeko-siegel-und-labels (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
14
Dhanani, R. “A Guide to Sustainability Certifications & Ecolabels”. The Sustainable Agency. https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/sustainability-certifications-and-ecolabels-guide/ (2022). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
15
European Commission. EU Ecolabel Products Catalogue. https://environmental-data.ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/index.html (2025). [Accessed on 15.09.2025] ↩︎
16
Delmas, M. A. & Grant, L. E. Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: The wine industry puzzle. Business & Society 53(1), 6-44 (2014). ↩︎
17
Thøgersen, J. Promoting “Green” Consumer Behavior with Eco-Labels, in: New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. (National Academy Press, 2002). ↩︎
18
Bennett, N. J. & Satterfield, T. Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters 11(6), 1-13 (2018). ↩︎
19
Dendler, L. Sustainability meta labelling: An effective measure to facilitate more sustainable consumption and production? Journal of Cleaner Production 63, 74–83 (2014). ↩︎