Circular Economy And The Nordic Swan Ecolabel

The transition to Circular Economy necessitates right incentives for choosing products and services with lower environmental impacts, in the form of price signals and sufficient environmental information. An ecolabel indicates that the product is, environmentally speaking, among the best products available on the market and thus has the role to steer stepwise developments towards sustainability. The Swan criteria promote quality products with requirements on durability and the use of secondary raw materials. To further align the criteria with Circular Economy, future criteria development might focus more on aspects including upgradability, reparability, multi-functionality, component reuse and innovative forms of consumption and production. This report was prepared as part of a Nordic project, and the results could be useful in the development of the Nordic Ecolabel in the future.

The transition to Circular Economy necessitates right incentives for choosing products and services with lower environmental impacts, in the form of price signals and sufficient environmental information. An ecolabel indicates that the product is, environmentally speaking, among the best products available on the market and thus has the role to steer stepwise developments towards sustainability. The Swan criteria promote quality products with requirements on durability and the use of secondary raw materials. To further align the criteria with Circular Economy, future criteria development might focus more on aspects including upgradability, reparability, multi-functionality, component reuse and innovative forms of consumption and production. This report was prepared as part of a Nordic project, and the results could be useful in the development of the Nordic Ecolabel in the future.

Reliable information is needed to drive the market towards ecologically sound products. Product Environmental Footprint has many properties that are new to the Life Cycle Assessment tradition, increasing the consistency, accuracy and comparability of the results. It is important to start the organization of the PEF scheme, and invest in efforts to rapidly increase the number of product and service groups and actual product-specific PEF reports involved in the PEF scheme. Possibilities for common information basis and coordination between environmental information sources for the various product policy instruments and the PEF should be explored. Cooperation between type 1 eco-labels like the Nordic Swan and the forthcoming PEF scheme(s) is important.

The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) initiative of the European Commission and the Nordic Swan Ecolabel both aim at more sustainable consumption and production. We compared the two schemes in relation to their environmental information concerning the retail sector. The Swan aims to push stores to perform better and to help customers make environmental choices, whereas the OEF aims to create a common Life Cycle Assessment based methodology to assess impacts related to a retailer’s product portfolio. Overall, the OEF is considered a broader approach still under development, while the Swan is well-known in the Nordics. Their scopes, relevant impact categories and life cycle stages differed. However, climate change, resource use and biodiversity impacts were significant in both schemes. Possible synergies concern criteria setting, measurement and communication.

Available online: https://pub.norden.org/temanord2020-543/ A systematic and continuously measurement of the progress towards the circular economy can inform decision making and policies, and thus strengthen the circular transition. However, this pre-study, mapping circular economy indicators across the Nordic countries on both national and sub-national level, reveals that as of 2020, data streams and indicators are missing for the inner loops of the circular economy. A monitoring system embracing only selected aspects of the circular economy (where data is readily available) risks exaggerating the focus on these areas and downgrade the importance of other areas where data is unattainable, even though the latter may (in principle) be creating more circular value (such as prolonging products’ lifetimes).

The purpose of this report is to compare the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the Product Environmental Footprint with a focus on environmental information. The report compares the methods used by the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the PEF to identify the product-group-specific relevant environmental aspects. The analysis is based on the currently valid Swan Criteria and pilot phase final PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs). The report concludes that there are methodological differences in the way product comparisons are made. The report proposes recommendations for both schemes in terms of co-operation and required further work, related to the differences in methodological approaches, to avoid very different results in what will be considered as an environmentally sound product.

This report provides a framework for circular procurement and discusses its possibilities to promote circular economy. Several best practice examples in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway illustrate how and in which sectors and product groups circular procurement could be applicable. Different approaches to circular procurement and tendering criteria supporting circular aspects are also illustrated.The study was carried out in Nordic co-operation by Finnish Environment Institute, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and Copenhagen Resource Institute. The project was financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), administrated by the NCM Sustainable Consumption and Production Working Group and guided by a steering group consisting representatives from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.