After 40 Years, Eco-Labels in Tourism are Still Failing. Is It Time to Move On?

In 1978 (the year I was born), the world’s first eco-label, Blue Angel, was established in Germany. Nobody knew back then that this was the start of a big industry. Today, the Eco-label Index estimates there are around 450 eco-certifications in 199 countries.

There is no doubt that all of these have good intentions. They all want to contribute to a more sustainable world. The value proposition of eco-labels lies in guaranteeing customers that products or services meet environmental standards, making them sustainable choices.

So, why isn't a single one of these labels or certifications delivering on their sole promise to the customer?

Their primary promise is to help us make sustainable choices. But do they really?

Does it even matter how well their own rules and criteria are followed? Can they truly deliver on their promise without fully considering the environmental and social impacts?

Some companies know their labels don’t keep this promise. Booking.com, one of the biggest players in tourism, recently announced that they are eliminating the Travel Sustainable badge and the accompanying green leaves from their platform:

“In anticipation of upcoming regulatory changes, we’re adapting our approach to focus more on third-party certification,” they wrote.

Booking.com is likely gearing up for the EU Green Claims Directive, aimed at preventing greenwashing by mandating that companies provide evidence for any environmental claims they advertise. This move is prompted by a 2020 study which revealed that more than half of the environmental claims in the EU were vague, misleading, or baseless, and 40% lacked substantiation. The directive seeks to ensure that all claims are reliable, comparable, and verifiable across the EU, not only for businesses based in the EU but also for those marketing to EU customers.

They are putting their own labels on hold because they are misleading. But only to replace them with third-party certifications. You will now need a third-party certification to be listed as a sustainable property on Booking.com. This way, they are pushing the responsibility for being misleading to another actor.

Unfortunately, the same issue comes with all eco-labels—they mislead. They convey a sense of sustainability that isn’t matched by reality. What is really sustainable, not to mention regenerative as many have started using instead?

Every label has its own set of criteria to achieve certification. Are these criteria telling the whole story?

As an example, not one of the programs includes major issues like the emissions from travel to and from the destination. This is in most cases the biggest source of emissions. For international travel or long domestic flights, air travel can account for more than 80% of a trip's total carbon emissions. Is it not sure whether removing plastic straws or the reuse of towels at the hotel has the same impact as calculating the full travel?

Another example is that criteria don’t reward local ownership or the local source of goods and staff. When a top-rated certified hotel in a developing country is owned by foreigners, has a staff of foreigners, and sells goods from other countries, there is not much value created locally. Is this ok?

Another example is water. Most certifications recommend measuring and reducing water use, especially as shortages grow due to climate change. But what does this mean in practice? If a hotel deems its high water consumption as “necessary for operation,” is that justified, even in areas where locals lack running water? Who decides what’s “necessary”?

I could go on with just about every criterion. There have been many fresh discussions on LinkedIn lately. And awareness of the issues is rising. Certifications often, not always, provide a good process, but the result—real, tangible environmental benefits—are often lacking. The gap is the crux of the issue.

Certifications only solve a small part of the problem, a start, but in the mind of consumers, the narrative is that a certified company is a sustainable choice.

Since this is obviously not true: How can we avoid this narrative to establish?

Some kind of certification might be a small part of the solution, but it can never be THE solution. Certifications can be considered like a driving license. It shows you have been trained to drive. It doesn't mean you're a good driver. My mom has had a driving license for more than 40 years, but she is not a great driver.

Harold Goodwin is a renowned expert in sustainable tourism, widely respected for his contributions to responsible tourism practices and policy development globally. He says:

“Certification may be the safest form of greenwashing. It certainly denies consumers information about what sustainability measures the business delivers and any means of holding the business to account for mis-selling.”

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) is an organization that establishes and manages global standards for sustainable travel and tourism. GSTC often highlights its success and impact on promoting sustainable tourism practices through its communications and reports. Latest on their big party in Stockholm. The measurement of these successes generally revolves around the adoption and implementation of GSTC's sustainability criteria by various tourism businesses and destinations worldwide.

GSTC frequently publishes case studies and examples on its website where specific destinations, businesses, or government bodies have successfully implemented the GSTC criteria to improve their sustainability measures.

Interestingly, many of the areas that GSTC promotes as successes are often cited as examples of their shortcomings. Critics point to low adoption rates, limited awareness and understanding of the standards, and the use of certifications primarily as marketing tools, rather than genuine indicators of sustainable practice.

Additionally, concerns about the complexity of the certification process and its accessibility, particularly for small and medium enterprises, underscore the challenges in achieving broad and effective implementation. Their urge to be neutral, seems to be making themselves their biggest hurdle for implementation, going trough full net of different alternatives.

Like the certification providers it accredits, GSTC is criticized for predominantly focusing on large-scale operators, potentially overlooking the unique challenges and contributions of smaller entities in sustainable tourism.

Many argue that the criteria are tailored for large companies in the Western world and are neither suitable nor fair for most developing countries. I tend to agree.

This can give strange effects. A big company might get rewarded for reducing food waste, pollution, and emissions, or for choosing good suppliers, while a small company never had those issues in the first place and might have nothing to reduce.

The certification named Travelife for tour operators and travel agents is accredited by GSTC. In my home country, Norway, the only Tour Operator Certified by Travelife is Apollo, well known for charter tours and mass tourism. Not what we usually think of when it comes to sustainable tourism. Apollo is a Swedish company, by the way. Or, actually, Apollo is part of the larger DER Touristik Nordic group, which itself is under the German REWE Group. Still, nice to have a Norwegian company represented on the list...

There are also a handful of Norwegian companies that are a Travelife Partner. According to Travelife, “becoming a Travelife Partner is the first step in the certification process. At this stage, a company commits to sustainability by signing the Travelife Sustainability System, which indicates their intention to work towards achieving higher standards.”

Not only should travelers be able to navigate in the jungle of certifications, but they should also understand that there are many levels in the certifications, and all companies with a similar but a little bit different logo aren’t really certified.

The issues is not always easy to see. A good start is to take a look at the companies that have achieved a certification.? I mentioned that in Norway the only Travelife certified operator is the Swedish/German charter tour operator Apollo. I recommend investigating the list of certified Companies. To put it mildly, it's an interesting list. You would be surprised by the companies that are considered sustainable. They include those selling cruises, mass tourism, and other activities that some might argue have little to do with sustainability.

Nestlés subsidiary Nespresso is a B Corp. Nestlé has faced various sustainability and ethical criticisms for their actions, such as going to court to claim that drinking water is not a human right. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.?

Anyway, who am I to judge? Check the lists of certified companies yourself. It’s mind blowing.

Comedian Steven Wright once said: “I’d kill for a Nobel Prize”. Unfortunately, though his joke is meant to be funny, it is too often true because many winners show the opposite of peace keeping through their actions. Similarly eco certifications often are handed to the less sustainable options, just because they have resources to go through a checklist.?

Many big players have a lighter way to be recommended. Many certifications only focus on parts of the tourism chain for certification? It seems that outbound tour operators like Apollo and, presumably, cruise ships get a pass as long as they collaborate with certified DMCs, accommodations, and excursions. Isn't this just greenwashing? After all, Amazon isn't called sustainable just because it sells some Fairtrade coffee, organic veggies, eco-friendly cleaning supplies, and biodegradable utensils, right? Who's really responsible here?

In january GSTC published:? “Good Practices for Sustainable Cruise Tourism Report.” Royal Carribian is highlighted by the GSTC for their effort to use local services as so-called sustainable guides (whatever that is) on their excursions.

When cruise lines like Royal Caribbean, Disney Cruise Line, and Norwegian Cruise Line own and operate private ports and islands such as Labadee in Haiti, Castaway Cay in the Bahamas, and Harvest Caye in Belize, they create highly controlled environments exclusively for their passengers. These ports feature resort-like amenities, including beaches, shops, and activities, all managed by the cruise companies themselves. Mahogany Bay in Honduras, owned by Carnival Corporation, offers a landscaped beachfront and various water activities designed to cater solely to its cruise guests. These venues are often equipped with shops selling locally sourced souvenirs, which may appear to support local economies.

However, the bulk of the economic activity benefits the cruise lines, with minimal interaction between passengers and the local community. Given this setup, one must ask: are they then sustainable because this resort sells some locally sourced souvenirs?

If you follow the logic from GSTC and more, they are considered sustainable. Yet, one might wonder: If cruises are deemed sustainable, what is not?

You will rarely find the companies with the least negative impact on any certification list. They are typically too small or would never engage in such schemes. Many companies have good practices but don’t seek certification. Only a few percent bother with it because they recognize the limitations.

The problem is not the certifications industry itself. As I have pointed out, there are good intentions behind it. Many certifications are also based on science, and skilled experts with deep knowledge in the sustainability field. No doubt, good things are being done.

It really doesn’t matter because it is the concept of picking a limited set of criteria and measures in a complex field that is the problem. It is an impossible task.

Can we make it better? I don’t know, but I have a lot of questions that deserve to be checked.

What if we transformed these certifications into something more educational, focusing less on the badge and more on learning and applying knowledge? Why not call them courses instead of certifications, to emphasize continuous improvement over static achievement? Booking.com’s decision to pause its certification use—what does it tell us? Isn't it clear evidence of the need for transparency and accurate data, rather than just another logo? Isn’t this widespread use of logos just another form of greenwashing? Some companies even put "Certified B Corp" in their business name. Can you imagine a worse kind of greenwashing?

Aren't eco-certifications too often seen as an endpoint, a trophy, rather than a step in ongoing progress? Shouldn't we shift our perspective to see them as part of a continuous journey?

Take Intrepid Travel's approach, for instance: they not even near perfect, (They were among the first companies to face a fine for greenwashing under new legislation, yet they continue to be highly regarded, and they are a B Corp ), but they also have an interesting approach with labeling their trips rather than the company itself or the accommodations, given that transportation often has the most significant impact on a traveler’s carbon footprint. Isn't this a more meaningful direction, even if imperfect?

Don’t we need a paradigm shift that takes the burden of choice away from the consumer and integrates sustainable practices as the default? Maybe instead of certification, the criteria should be a minimum standard to even be allowed to run a business?

With existing technologies that can track, report, and improve environmental impacts in real time, shouldn't we use these not just for monitoring but also as tools to drive actual change? Isn’t it clear that nudging alone is not enough; that we need robust systems to enforce and encourage sustainable behavior?

This conversation is urgent. Are we not at a critical juncture where continuing with ineffective certification just wastes precious time and resources? Isn’t the world changing, and shouldn’t our systems for ensuring sustainability evolve too? Isn’t it about more than reducing emissions or conserving water, but about creating an ecosystem where making sustainable choices is the easiest option?

The way forward involves complex, data-driven solutions that are transparent and accessible. Shouldn't we focus on living the principles of sustainability rather than just owning a certificate? Isn’t it time to challenge the status quo and advocate for systems that are adaptable, resilient, and genuinely impactful?

This discussion isn’t just theoretical; it’s a real call to action for all stakeholders in the sustainability ecosystem. Shouldn't we rethink our approach to eco-certifications and strive for a model that genuinely contributes to preserving our planet?

Today, the main focus seems to be increasing the number of certified companies. The industry is focused on their solution, their method, instead of finding a viable way to solve the problem.

Should we really make everyone in the tourism industry get certified? Forcing standardization might take away the fun and unexpected discoveries that make travel special. By focusing too much on meeting certain standards, places might start to feel the same, losing what makes them unique. This could also stop businesses from coming up with new and better ways to be sustainable, as they're just trying to fit a standard.

Standardizing everything might make travel less interesting and less diverse. Using René Girard's theory of mimetic desire, we can see how this push for uniformity might cause travel destinations to all start looking the same. Girard explains that people often copy what others want. In travel, this could mean that places might just copy each other, all trying to get the same 'certified' status, and in the process, we lose the variety and unique qualities that make traveling so interesting.

No one is perfect, no two companies are alike, and no two destinations are the same. Let's embrace these differences and the process itself, rather than the false illusion of perfection offered by certification.

PS: There are worse things than certifications that don’t work. For example, the sustainability award industry and travel media top 10 sustainability lists. That can be material for another rant, later.