He also vigorously attacks ISO 14001 in public which I also find usual and disappointing. Not every business with ISO 14001 is perfect but they are committed to complying with legislation and with continually improving. My experience is that companies do significantly improve! If there is a problem with a business not complying with legislation, this is an issue for the auditors and the relevant auditing bodies can and should be contacted.

My comment about profit wash is based on concern about some businesses that are definitely paying their staff and CEO’s better than some so called profitable businesses and who, in some cases, channel their certifications or other services into profit making businesses. Then the question arises about whether “not for profit” is a confidence boosting marketing ploy.

I feel that auditing against an international standard by qualified auditors is the best way to go.

I would certainly hope that companies are profitable, especially those that go to the extra trouble to certify their green credentials. My questions are about businesses that claim to be “no profit” but set up a series of profitable companies around them. I would rather they were honest about the fact that their certification business is a profitable enterprise as are auditing bodies like SAI Global, SGS, NCSI etc. No one in their right mind is opposed to business making a profit – it is necessary to continue in business.
I agree with Paul Wisniak that we need rock solid certification.

The seminal paper by Terrachoice on the ‘Six Sins of Greenwash’ http://www.terrachoice.com/Home/Six%20Sins%20of%20Greenwashing/The%20Six%20Sins
sets out to explain the fundamental problem of marketers delivering half truths or downright lies. In this and other similar papers the benefits of Accreditation and Certification are drawn into question when the essence of those programmes relies on wafer thin assurance and identity.
A manufacturer can fairly easily tailor all but the worst existing products to pass muster under most ‘labelling’ regime’s, and, most consumers do not recognise any of the previously mentioned certifying companies – certainly not without ambiguity.
On a B2B level some of these things mean a lot, but in consumer-land they’re mostly none the wiser.
It takes money and time to get listed on GECA, ES, EB and the rest, so that usually eliminates the riff raff, but I found the criteria and methodology applied by them ‘generous’.
What we need is rock solid product certification that is marketed and positioned into consumers minds with absolute clarity.

I know two distinctly separate third party auditors of one, and the long history of leading edge life ISO 14000 series standard life cycle analysis work that underpins the other two. So I find your suggestion that they do not adhere to the relevant International Standard in Australia most dubious.

ISO 14001 companies can be compliance performers on an improvement track which is great but they are not always leading in environmental performance. On the other hand Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA), Ecospecifier and Eco-Buy assess the top performers in class.

I look forward to a healthy debate.