Paper presented at the Joint Meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society, held in Madison, Wisconsin, June 5-8, 1997.

In June of 1996, approximately fifteen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representing environmental, sustainable agriculture and labor interests banded together to form the "Campaign to Defend Eco-Labelling." Coordinated through Green Seal, a national nonprofit environmental organization that develops environmental standards for consumer products¹, the Campaign is led primarily by Green Seal, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Center for International Environmental Law, the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.² The Campaign's formation came as a reaction to efforts by an industry alliance to put a stop to so-called "third party" eco-labelling (i.e. labelling involving an intermediary between the consumer and industry) by working through the office of the United States Trade Representative's office . Calling itself the "Coalition for Truth in Environmental Marketing Information," and led most notably by the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America and Proctor and Gamble Corporation, the industry alliance sought to affirm the principle of industry control over labelling practices, asserting that industry was capable of providing all product facts needed by consumers without the interference of third-party organizations and that eco-labelling practices constituted a violation of the principles of free trade. While the initial skirmish has been settled for the time being, the two parties to this conflict continue to organize, raise funds and structure their respective groups for future battles over eco-labelling, confrontations which would appear to be inevitable.

Given the current global strength of free market ideology, the emergence of an organization such as the Coalition for Truth in Environmental Marketing Information seems somewhat paradoxical. Free markets are, after all, continually promoted in current political discourse as a means to greater consumer choice and as a way of increasing economic efficiency by stimulating competition among producers. If eco-labelling provides new ways for consumers to distinguish among products, increasing consumer options and fostering innovation and competition among producers of "green" products, how can the practice be accused of violating the fundamental principles of free trade?

I argue here that in order to understand this seeming paradox, we need to look more closely at the underlying assumptions behind the free trade model as they relate to different kinds of eco-labelling schemes. Several eco-labelling approaches based on product-related qualities seem, at least for the time being, to be more amenable to the free trade model. They raise difficult questions about implementation, particularly in Third World contexts, but have more or less garnered the grudging support of First World industry, at least for potential compliance in the domestic arena. However, a small but growing subset of eco-labelling schemes distinguish their products not by physical criteria, but rather by qualities such as the manufacturer or producer's adherence to fair labor practices, or their contribution to such abstract social values as fair trade, meant to contribute to the development of Third World countries. The individual choice of the product is thus linked to the expression of certain ethical or political goals of a shared social nature, or what I will call the "social value" of the product.

This paper develops a sociological interpretation of these labelling approaches as representative of a struggle in the marketplace between two very different value domains: that of neoliberal economic theory on the one hand, and on the other an alternative conception of the economy based on very different assumptions about human nature and social interaction. What is happening at the interface between free trade ideology and social value eco-labelling is taken as a prefiguring microcosm of future social and political struggles that can be expected as market-based concepts of social organization continue to expand their influence. Social value eco-labelling is considered as indicative of a larger movement to reappropriate or rehumanize the market mechanism itself and make it responsive to consciously selected social goals. As such, it may be considered as one method of encouraging a shift from competitive to cooperative norms as a basis for international market exchange, a transformation with potentially far-reaching consequences.

The following sections further specify the subcategory of social value eco-labelling, and then consider some distinguishing aspects of this type of labelling in relation to neoliberal concepts of market exchange. The concluding section discusses the potential for this form of market-based social intervention to act as a counter to the often corrosive effects of rapid free market expansion.

Eco-labelling has recently become an important topic for discussion within international fora concerned with how this approach may affect international trade relations (OECD 1995, UNCTAD 1993, 1994, 1995, WTO 1997). It is of no less concern for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose interest in these types of marketing schemes stems from their potential impacts on local or community environmental awareness and sustainable "green" economic development (Dawkins 1995, Hartman Group 1996, Lefferts 1996). At the international level, eco-labelling is often associated with terms and concepts such as "Processing and Production Methods" (PPMs), "Life-Cycle Assessment" (LCA), "materials accounting" and "closed-loop production" (Hearne 1996, OECD 1995, UNCTAD 1995). Dawkins (1995) links the rise in interest in these approaches to the greening of public awareness and consumer demand for environmentally "friendly" products which has brought about a proliferation of eco-labels over the past decade, and to government commitments made to implement Agenda 21 following the Rio conference of 1992. PPM and LCA labelling approaches are briefly sketched here as one way of defining eco-labels.

Processing and Production Methods (PPMs) concern the way in which products are manufactured or processed and natural resources are extracted or harvested, and are often the basis for national regulations. Such regulations for environmental, safety and health purposes are permitted under multilateral trade rules and typically do not cause problems for international trade when they are deemed to have only domestic effects. Thus the final negotiations of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in the Uruguay Round recognized the right of countries to set environmental standards within their own territorial boundaries (Dawkins 1995). However, environmentally harmful PPMs become an issue when production or processing effects cross borders (for example, toxic emissions from "smokestack" production, or downstream polluting effects of production). Furthermore, domestic PPM standards can cause friction when they are perceived as imposing trade restrictions on imports from other countries, as was the case with the well-known tuna-dolphin controversy (Dawkins 1995, Bonanno and Constance 1996). Countries with sufficient economic power can conceivably set product standards at home that other exporting countries, particularly developing countries, may not be able to meet, effectively creating a non-tariff trade barrier. Because of the importance of PPM standard setting to environmental outcomes, their potential role in eco-labelling schemes and how such schemes will interact with international trade agreements is being carefully considered by several international governmental bodies. Some specific standards for eco-labelling are beginning to be issued as well, notably by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (for organic food production) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is charged with developing standards for environmental management generally, including eco-labelling as a specific environmental management category (the IS0 "14000 series").³

Two potential ways that PPMs can impact the environment are typically distinguished in international debate (see OECD 1995): 1) the product itself may pollute or degrade the environment when consumed or used (product-related PPM), or (2) a production or processing method used may negatively impact on the environment (non-product related PPM).⁴ Product-related aspects can theoretically be known or verified by inspection and testing at the border, and while imposing restrictions on import due to specific aspects of the product may be contended, the actual ability to measure, quantify and monitor the product's effects is usually considered to be more of a technical than a political obstacle. The international community has longer and more extensive experience with this type of standard setting, which can in fact be beneficial to industry and trade (for example, by setting certain standards for production that allow a product to be used in several countries, such as standardized electrical specifications for many appliances). Under the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), in particular Article I, and according to the Agreement on the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement which was completed in the context of the Uruguay Round, import discrimination against "like products" (i.e. with the same physical characteristics) was prohibited. This prohibition will be enforced by the new dispute resolution capacities of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which was created and inherited GATT authority upon the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994 (OECD 1995).

Non-product related PPMs have proven to be more troubling in terms of international trade agreements, and have prompted close scrutiny of the motivations behind trade restrictions related to them. OECD (1995, p. 23) states that:

While OECD recognizes that motivations are most frequently associated with environmental concerns, usually stemming from the desire to protect transboundary and global environments, shared resources, and living resources such as migratory and endangered species, it also notes that competitiveness motivations and value-based motivations can come into play. In the first case, developing countries may resist raising environmental PPM standards if they perceive that this will raise final product cost, placing them at a global competitive disadvantage. As Dawkins states (1995, p. 510):

And some producers have objected that a proliferation of different non-product related PPM restrictions on imports would make it impossible for them to meet all such standards if they wish to market their products globally (i.e. "costs of compliance" objections). But environmentalists fear that such objections will lead to a "downward harmonization" of environmental standards (Dawkins 1995), a possibility that was largely confirmed by events surrounding the tuna-dolphin controversy. On the other hand, as consumers become increasingly aware of the detrimental effects of certain PPMs they may begin to organize regionally or even internationally to demand higher international standards due to moral, value or ethical preferences, seeking to force standards up in other countries as well as in their own ("upward harmonization"). Such efforts are not unheard of even in the current context, as several highly successful eco-labelling schemes have shown (Dawkins 1995, UNCTAD 1993). Upward harmonization is generally considered to require significant technical assistance flows from developed to developing countries, as well as graduated periods of adjustment that take into account the differing circumstances and possibilities of Third World production facilities.

Finally, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an alternative approach to ecolabelling that is more holistic than PPM analysis, dealing with the entire life span of a product and its environmental impacts. A heavy degree of responsibility for developing LCA methodologies and guidelines for international use has fallen to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which states that:

Because individual PPM regulations have caused problems for international trade in terms of national sovereignty and trade competitiveness, it has been suggested that the LCA approach be broken into two phases: "cradle-to-export border," and "import-border to grave."

Life Cycle Assessment standards under discussion respond to concerns about worker and consumer exposures, as well as potential impacts on the environment. However, they have drawn strong industry opposition due to fears of public overreaction to disclosures about the use of hazardous materials in production, as well as fears about the loss of trade secrets (Hearne 1996). As a methodology under development, LCA is fraught with technical and political obstacles. Dawkins (1995, p. 511) mentions several problems faced in its implementation, including the high cost of collecting life-cycle information, different national methods of reporting data that may not be compatible, unavailability of some data, lack of conventions on whether component parts or only the final product itself should be tracked, and whether and how to consider energy inputs, byproducts and waste for both components and final products. Problems with methodological approaches often stem from much deeper differences among countries and regions, a problem shared by both LCA and PPM approaches. OECD, for example, states that:

The feasibility of reaching rapid agreement on appropriate standards, whether PPM or LCA-based, seems shaky to many when viewed against the international mosaic of cultures and production practices that would potentially be affected. Perhaps most importantly for this discussion, no international convention exists which allows us to assess and weigh qualitative values against those that can be quantified (usually in terms of monetary value). Many of the values defended by environmentalists and other public advocacy groups are fundamentally qualitative in nature, and have thus far resisted the best attempts by economists and others to reduce them to comparable dollar values (Daly 1993, Glynn 1996, O'Neill 1993). In practice, however, the inability to quantify natural attributes often leads to ignoring environmental impacts altogether, as observed by Dawkins:

As a result of the complexities faced by PPM and LCA approaches, international organizations currently stress the need for more time for discussion and international cooperation in establishing workable eco-labels, along with adherence to principles of transparency, equivalencies, mutual recognition, and technical assistance to developing countries (UNCTAD 1994, pp. 16-21). A report resulting from work conducted by OECD's Joint Session of Trade and Environment Experts is therefore worth quoting at some length for the overview it provides of this stance towards ecolabelling negotiation at the international level:

One of the key issues that concerns NGO groups is the relative lack of access, or at times complete secrecy, of negotiations held within various intergovernmental bodies concerning eco-labelling standards, which relates to the issue of transparency and to possibilities for broader public participation. For example, the operation of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, officially established with its first meeting in Rome in 1963 as a United Nations food standards body run jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), has been severely criticized by a large number of consumer, environmentalist and food and agriculture-related groups for its high degree of industry representation and its lack of democratic participation in decision making (Avery et. al 1993). And yet the Codex Commission will soon be issuing guidelines for organic production that are expected by many to be taken up by the WTO as the basis for future international regulation in this area. Dawkins (1995) has also pointed out the serious threats posed by "institutional capture" of public policy negotiations by private interests acting within intergovernmental standards setting bodies, stating:

Let us turn now from the arena of international negotiations to consider some aspects of eco-labelling schemes in practice to better distinguish what I am calling social value eco-labelling from other practices. To begin with, industry itself has obviously participated in the "green" labelling trend of the past ten or more years, taking advantage of a burgeoning consumer-driven market for environmentally friendly products, and even contributing to the strengthening of that market via advertising. Critics of their practices have pointed out, however, that companies make their own choices of what to include on labels, without outside oversight in most cases (exceptions in the U.S. include alcohol and tobacco products, for example), and that often their "green" claims are exaggerated or unfounded (Bruno 1992). Eco-labelling schemes, on the other hand, typically involve some form of third party oversight, can be restricted to only a portion of manufacturers of a product (this is the case for "leadership" labels that recognize top environmental performers, for example), and the labels are usually granted by a government or private organization (NGO) to applicants (businesses) based on their voluntary compliance with standards that are most often set by a group or board of reviewers that includes non-business representatives such as environmentalists and consumers.⁵ While requiring conformity to standards if they are to be displayed on the product, they are still considered market-oriented environmental instruments because they do not involve direct government regulation or legal sanctions for violation.

If industry can benefit from such "green" marketing, at least in certain forms, at what point does their support of these practices begin to fray, and why? Part of the answer lies in competition for market shares by industries not participating in voluntary eco-labelling programs. Eco-labels can lend the impression to consumers that something is "wrong," or at least "less right," with a non-labelled product. Eco-labels, in some cases, can even provide a decisive edge to a product in market competition, particularly during periods of consumer crisis (such as the alar scare). Another part of the answer to industry resistance lies in an understandable desire to retain the maximum amount of control possible over all aspects of production and prevent outside interference.

But I contend here that there is a deeper objection that arises when eco-labelling becomes a matter of asserting social or cultural values via consumer choice in the market. In some ways, this practice is fundamentally incompatible with "pure" liberal market ideology, tending to undermine or transform it over the long run. Asserting social values via the market can potentially place transnational corporations on a playing field on which they are less favorably equipped to compete, not only for reasons of their methods of production which may be unsustainable at present, but for reasons intrinsic to requirements for profitability in a global marketplace, and to some basic tenets of neoclassical economic theory.

Consider the definition of "green labelling" offered by Lefferts (1996) in her report prepared for the environmental organization Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet:

What is important to note about this definition is the gap between what can be addressed on a label under this definition as opposed to the food labels which currently greet consumers at the supermarket. The Mothers & Others report states that while consumers have made gains in terms of truth-in-advertising and clear reporting of contents on labels with the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990, "consumer interest extends beyond interest in healthier diets," (p. 1) to concerns with production practices, particularly regarding the use of biotechnologies (as in the struggle over rBGH milk labelling and labelling of genetically altered crops). They assert that consumers worry not only about their own health and that of their family, but also about the effects of production practices, such as pesticide use, on farm workers and on the environment. Thus "green" consumers and environmentalists view eco-labelling as a way to "use their purchasing power in the marketplace," where labels are "one tool to help them" achieve their objectives (p. 4).

Examples of "green food labels" included in the Mothers & Others report that presumably reflect consumer concern include: locally-grown, biodynamically-produced, made without animal products, from free-range animals, "NDR" (no detected residues), from animals not treated with drugs, dolphin-safe, heirloom/rare variety, in-season, minimally-packaged (or processed), not produced using petroleum products (or non-renewable resources), produced in a way that avoids clearing virgin rainforest, or that maintains wildlife corridors, or reduces waste or pollution, and so on. Some of these labels could be considered product-related in that the product itself could conceivably be tested (i.e. for traces of drugs, etc.) or a system devised to check for compliance with the practices (i.e. free-range animals).

But while it is obvious that product-related standards for single product aspects (for example, regulating content of a certain known carcinogen) do have social value in the general sense, the distinction being drawn here is one of the scope of intent behind the labelling practice itself. Clearly some of the labels listed would require a major readjustment of society overall if they were to become the norm for most if not all buyers (i.e. "locally-grown," or "maintains wildlife corridors"), and others tread bravely into the domain of international political negotiations (i.e. "dolphin-safe," "avoids clearing virgin rainforest"). And one label mentioned in this report ("Alp Action") is directly explicitly at promoting particular traditional production methods in order to preserve the local culture which depends on it:

Jha et al. (1993) review seven major eco-labelling schemes in their report prepared for UNCTAD, and although none of these schemes apply to food products, some fundamental aspects of them schemes are worth noting. They point out that eco-labelling approaches differ from "single issue labels" which address only one aspect of a product (biodegradability, for example), calling instead for an overall assessment of the product's ecological impact over its lifetime (LCA emphasis), and also differ from "negative labels" that contain consumer warnings about possible adverse health effects. They are, instead, "promotion instruments," designed to set producer incentives to improve the environmental qualities of their products, as well as to raise consumer awareness and ultimately change consumer behavior. While most corporate advertising does indeed aim at changing consumer behavior, the desired change typically ends at increased purchasing of the company's product.

And finally, Kristin Dawkins includes in her report on eco-labelling a section dealing with "alternative trade" labels⁶, stating that:

The Mothers & Others report (p. 5) says of these labels that there exists a "spectrum of 'greenness,'" ranging from the practical to the ideal, and that the emergence of Alternative Trade Organizations which have economic justice as their primary aim has resulted in "labels with a deep shade of green."

Thus eco-labels, as defined here, carry explicit messages about socially defined values that go well beyond the actual contents of a product to encompass the way in which the product inserts itself into the overall environment, as well as into the social configurations (cultures, nations, communities) living within it. This can include the effects on the environment and on society a method of production and distribution (including both transportation costs and fairness of distribution), but can extend as well to the contribution of the product's method of production to the maintenance of a particular way of life for producers (or consumers), to preservation of a particular landscape or cultural practice, or to other socially-defined desirables. Such desirables, often non-market in the sense that they cannot be monetized without doing violence to their essential character, may include social justice, ethical norms of moral obligation to others, human and non-human, and obligations to future living things.

The definitions of eco-labelling presented here are offered for their value in the abstract, as social markers that represent attempts to capture or describe some element of collective intent about the organization of society and social production. The point is to consider what the emergence and translation into institutional form of these new practices means in social terms? Should we interpret this pattern as a passing fad, a belated off-shoot of 1960s activism perhaps, a morbid preoccupation with self and personal health often attributed to the "me" generation, or a quasi-religious amalgam of good intent and market irrationality? Or is this tendency to create labels that are in some way anchored to broader social values better understood in the context of the rapid changes taking place in national and international markets themselves? Does it reveal something about the failures of the "free" market system, and the systems of governance thus far devised to cope with it, that points to a coming sea change in public sentiment and a corresponding demand for new economic forms of expression?

Sociologists tend to view markets themselves as they do other social institutions. That is, as made up of patterns of behavior that: 1) reflect agreed-upon social norms or expectations, 2) are enforced by sanctions, 3) are subject to change on an ongoing basis as collective understandings evolve, and 4) depend on shared social understandings for their very existence. In other words, they view markets as "socially constructed" (Mingione 1991, Swedberg 1994). Economists, on the other hand, tend to view markets primarily as price-making mechanisms for the exchange of goods and services among a given set of buyers and sellers. The emphasis in much of economic theorizing is on the mechanistic or impersonal aspect of market exchange, versus the very social understanding held by sociologists. In some respects, the struggle over eco-labelling can be viewed as a microcosm of this very old debate about the nature of markets.

Economists also rely upon certain core assumptions about the nature of individual human behavior for the construction of their view of the economy. In particular, individuals are held to make rational choices given the options presented to them, judging which action to take by how well the expected outcome will meet their outcome preferences (i.e. individuals are taken to be "self-interest maximizers"). Given these assumptions, the market is viewed as one method of aggregating all of the different individual choices that may be brought to bear on a situation. Assuming the market is sufficiently "free" for individuals to express themselves, market outcomes tell us something about the actual choices made by people collectively, and implicitly therefore reflect social choice. And exchange in the market is said to be working efficiently if all available resources are being put to their best possible use given the values expressed by society. But, as Paul Thompson (1995, p. 109) points out:

The problem arises because the predictive power sought by economic theory (how people will actually behave in terms of future choices) is sometimes mistaken for the ability to advise the public on which choices should be made, something which is fact lies outside of the domain of the economist's skill. As Thompson observes (p. 104):

Eco-labels, and particularly those of the "social value" variety discussed here, have often been attacked on the basis of their lack of "efficiency," (or sometimes their "messiness") in terms of market exchange. This is what is implied, in fact, when a practice is said to be an obstruction of the "free market." But the market, viewed as a social construction, is efficient for some things and not others. To quote Thompson once more (p. 110):

Let us take a specific eco-labelling example--the transportation costs of food products in terms of their environmental and social impacts--and examine it on the one hand as an efficiency issue under the economic status quo, and on the other as a social demand for systemic change to the "rules of the game." Clearly, in the current period of concern for global climate change and ozone depletion, a great deal of money and intellectual endeavor are being expended to find solutions to the pollution generated by our existing transportation systems (Muller 1996, Victor 1994). Ongoing work on PPM and Life Cycle Analyses discussed earlier are part of this effort, and in economists' terms depend on finding ways of quantifying or rendering in monetary terms all effects and environmental interactions connected with each production activity, such as transportation. As emissions from food transport are theoretically measurable, given enough time we could expect that economists will be informing us as to the "true," environmentally-corrected costs of food transportation, thereby making it possible to incorporate these costs into the cost of the food sold at market. This can be considered a victory for food systems-oriented environmentalists who have long advocated this type of accounting (for example, the SAFE Alliance, based in the United Kingdom, which has promoted a "Food Miles" green label).

However, implementing such a system of food labeling and environmental accounting will obviously have severe impacts on the food industry as it currently operates, and not just because consumers could be expected to resist large increases in food costs (or may be unable to pay them in many cases). The global marketplace as it is currently evolving is structured to allow freedom primarily to finance capital which can be moved rapidly from location to location to take advantage of relative prices of the "factors of production" (land and labor) to produce products most cheaply, then further taking advantage of government subsidies to the energy sector to transport these cheaply-produced goods to the highest paying markets. The fact that this is a perversion of the original theory of comparative advantage underlying free trade has been pointed out by Herman Daly (1993, p. 51-2):

Withdrawing subsidies from government to the energy sector, along with "eco-pricing" of environmental externalities, would make it difficult if not impossible for such unregulated international capital to continue to "buy low" and "sell high" on the global food system market. These types of market adjustments are among the most discussed in policy circles today, due in part to the extreme unpopularity among investors of any discussion of regulation of capital markets. Thus eco-pricing, indicated by eco-labelling of a voluntary or mandatory nature, and elimination of government subsidies to polluting industries are considered possible ways to increase the "efficiency" of the current system vis-a-vis the environment, but without profoundly altering the status quo in terms of social organization.

Now let us consider an eco-label that encourages consumers to "buy locally" as a means to a constellation of other social goods, not simply because it reduces the pollution associated with transportation. The popularity of various kinds of localism, locally-embedded food systems, "food sheds," integrated regional food economies, and so forth, has continued to rise among supporters of sustainable agriculture (for examples of the arguments made, see Allen 1993, Hannum 1997, Kloppenburg 1991, Vitek and Jackson 1996). I would argue that here we are witnessing the use of a market mechanism as a tool bring about fundamental change in the economic system itself--in Thompson's terms, to change the "rules of the game." The reasons given for buying locally often reference non-market, non-commodifiable values of a social, ethical or ecological basis. The global market as it is now known, however, requires commensurable, exchangeable values (see Friedmann 1994). Commensurability is not possible when the values under discussion include a sense of community, commitment to place, love of a particular cultural landscape or appreciation for long-held social practices and customs. In short, these economic "externalities," internalized via an eco-labelling scheme, can become the basis for preference choices that effectively bar the door to world traders seeking the "absolute advantage" (Daly 1993, p. 52) afforded by mobile international capital which competes locally primarily on the basis of price advantage acquired through economies of scale and underpaid production inputs.

By bringing the concept of "eco-" attached to an eco-label in line with a locally-based system of production, the label becomes a way of indicating products that are identified with a specific bioregion (watershed, etc.), the plant and animal populations living there, the specific climate, and the prevailing system of human production that (it is hoped) is adapted to it. This concept of eco-based concern would also be understood to be set apart from concepts of "the environment" that are universalistic in character and thus amenable to traditional reductionistic scientific study and cost-benefit analyses. The environments being considered are instead defined by the individuals or social groups who create the labels as particular environments, imbued with some form of cultural or personal meaning or importance. In other words, in the case of the rather specific type of eco-labelling discussed here, science is not looked to as the ultimate arbiter of what a given social group should do to protect their environment, and thus science cannot be looked to define the "eco" criteria a label may carry, or to evaluate and control adherence to it by the producer of the product.

This type of labelling also positions itself differently in relation to the market itself. If science is not to be the arbiter of a product's "eco" qualities, neither in a certain sense is the "free" or liberal market as a price-making mechanism considered a sufficient arbiter of product quality. In fact, such a "free" market has never existed in reality, as all economists well know (and constantly lament). The market has always been structured and supported by the intervention of governments, and this continues to be the case today. The implication of this is that with the advent of social value eco-labelling as discussed here, markets may be undergoing a reconceptualization in terms of their relationship to governance. Social value eco-labelling opens new spheres of social action outside of state government structures, or perhaps more accurately, they create different forms of local government structure that are infused with a sense of moral and ethical obligation of which the idealized liberal market is notably devoid.

In particular, for eco-labelling schemes to work, a new social norm of cooperative markets will need to be forged. In sociological terms, expanding the dominance of free market ideology brings social change, and this change will inevitably be accompanied by the construction of new social norms and sanctions to impose them. These norms rest in turn on the construction of new social meanings, meanings that emerge as social groups of all kinds respond to change and attempt to reach a collective understanding of their new terms of existence. By communicating a set of socially held values as a guide for purchasing choices, eco-labelling becomes part of a larger effort to create spatially and ethically situated alternative economies as a counter-norm to the globalized market of commodified values. Although still largely obligated to present their product at the anonymous market interface of the shopping centers and malls which have replaced local direct markets in most of the West, eco-labellers can nonetheless create the option for consumers of moving towards internally-generated (as opposed to market given) goals of economic and environmental well-being. At the same time, they can provide a means to act on shared social values relative to the well-being of persons and cultures in other countries, as has already been shown through numerous international eco-labelling schemes. Together with that other well-known method of consumer influence on the market--the boycott--eco-labelling may yet become a potentially powerful force for social change.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

NGO Non-governmental organization

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PPMs Processing and Production Methods

TBT Agreement on the Technical Barriers to Trade

(subsidiary agreement to the GATT)

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

WHO World Health Organisation

WTO World Trade Organization

1. Further information about Green Seal is available at: http://crest.org/environment/GreenSeal/index.html.

2. The information given here pertaining to the Campaign is based on telephone interviews with Mark Ritchie of IATP (May 7, 1997) and Arthur Weisman of Green Seal (June 2, 1997).

3. For a useful summary of the role of key international organizations in environmental standard setting generally, see Dawkins (1995), pp. 562-577. Also see WTO (1997) for a brief overview of activities of all key international players in the eco-labelling arena.

4. For further discussion of the importance of the distinction between product-related and non-product related qualities in international negotiations, see OECD (1995), UNCTAD (1993, 1994, 1995) and Dawkins (1995).

5. For overviews of several different eco-labelling schemes in use, see Dawkins (1995), Lefferts (1996), OECD (1997), UNCTAD (1993).

6. Dawkins (pp. 582-83) states that "The fair trade movement actually began shortly after World War II, as Oxfam and similar agencies sought more lasting strategies than aid to help relieve famine and otherwise contribute to Third World Poverty. Known collectively as Alternative Trade Organizations or ATOs, their primary objective is to ensure a more direct relationship and a more equal basis of exchange between peasant producers in the Third World and consumers in the First World. In 1989, 40 of these groups formed the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT) with headquarters in Amsterdam. Presently, they share in several hundred million dollars worth of trade annually."

7. "Externalities" in economics refer to costs or harms (to the environment, for example) that are left out of calculations, either because they are too difficult or impossible to measure (i.e. social justice, intergenerational equity), or because "persons or groups deciding on behalf of their own interests do not have to bear them" (Thompson 1995, p. 27).

Allen, Patricia (ed.). 1993. Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Avery, Natalie, Martine Drake, Tim Lang. 1993. "Cracking the Codex: An Analysis of Who Sets World Food Standards." London: National Food Alliance. (Available from the National Food Alliance, 5-11 Worship Street - Third Floor, London EC2A 2BH, UK.)

Bruno, K. 1992. The Greenpeace Book of Greenwash. Greenpeace International.

Daly, Hermon E. 1993. "The Perils of Free Trade." Scientific American, November:50-57.

Dawkins, Kristin. 1995. "Ecolabeling: Consumer's Right to Know or Restrictive Business Practice?" Produced for the Global Environment and Trade Study (GETS). Presented to the Max-Planck Institute symposium, "Enforcing Environmental Standards: Economic Mechanisms as Viable Means?" July, 1995, Heidelberg, Germany. (Available from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2105 First Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404.)

Friedmann, Harriet. 1994. "Distance and Durability: Shaky Foundations of the World Food Economy." Pp. 258-276 in The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems, Phil McMichael (ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Glynn, Simon. 1996. "Ethical Issues in Environmental Decision Making and the Limitation of Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA)." Ethics and the Environment 1(1):27-39.

Hannum, Hildegarde (ed.). 1997. People, Land, and Community: Collected E.F. Schumacher Society Lectures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hartman Group. 1996. "The Hartman Report. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Phase I." Bellview, WA: Prepared by the Hartman Group for The Food Alliance. Summer, 1996. (Available from The Food Alliance, P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, WA 98504-2560.)

Hearne, Shelley A. 1996. "Tracking Toxics: Chemical Use and the Public's 'Right-to-Know.'" Environment 38(6):5-34. July/August 1996.

International Organization for Standardization. 1995. "Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Guidelines." ISO/TC 207/SC5, p. 4. (As cited in WTO 1997).

Kloppenburg, Jack, Jr. 1991. "Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture." Rural Sociology 56(4):519-548.

Mingioni, Enzo. 1991. Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life beyond the Market Paradigm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Translated by Paul Goodrick.

Lefferts, Lisa Y., Consulting. 1996. "Green Food Labels: Emerging Opportunities for Environmental Awareness and Market Development." New York: Mothers & Others. February, 1996. (Draft copy only is available from Mothers & Others, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211.)

Muller, Frank. 1995. "Mitigating Climate Change: The Case for Energy Taxes." Environment 38(2):13-43.

O'Neill, John. 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World. London: Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1995. "Report on Trade and Environment to the OECD Council at Ministerial Level." OCDE/GD(95)63. Paris: OECD.

________. 1997. "Case Study on Ecolabelling Schemes." (Soon to be derestricted.) Paris: OECD.

Swedberg, Richard. 1994. "Markets as Social Structures." Pp. 255-282 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg. Princeton, New Jersey: Russell Sage Foundation.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 1995. "Trade, Environment and Development: Aspects of Establishing and Operating Eco-Labelling Programmes." TD/B/WG.6/5, March 28. Geneva: UNCTAD.

________. 1994. "Eco-labelling and Market Opportunities for Environmentally Friendly Products." TD/B/WG.6/2, October 6. Geneva: UNCTAD.

________. 1993. "Ecolabelling and International Trade." UNCTAD/OSG/DP/70, GE. 93-53875, October. Authored by Veena Jha, René Vossenaar, Simonetta Zarrilli. Geneva: UNCTAD.

Victor, David G. and Julian E. Salt. 1994. "Managing Climate Change." Environment 36(10):7-15.

Vitek, William and Wes Jackson (eds.). 1996. Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

World Trade Organization. 1997. "Eco-Labelling: Overview of Current Work in Various International Fora." Note by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/W/45, 15 April. (Available via internet at http://www.wto.org, World Trade).