Jan. 11, 2008 A special report from Ethical Corporation magazine questions the value of carbon labels as a marketing tool. The labels, which tell consumers the total amount of carbon emissions associated with a product's manufacture and distribution, may not be the best way for brands to communicate their climate efforts, say companies currently piloting a U.K. carbon-labeling scheme.

Government-funded nonprofit the Carbon Trust begain piloting its carbon label last March with U.K. brands Walkers, Boots, and Innocent. (Since then nine additional companies, including Coca-Cola, Cadbury Schweppes, and Kimberly-Clark have signed on.) So far the project has exposed three key challenges for marketers keen to communicate their companies' climate efforts via carbon labels.

#1: Lack of awareness. A survey of Boots customers finds that just 28% understand that the term "carbon footprint" relates to climate change. Nearly half (44%) confused the carbon labels with Fairtrade certification.

Even so, the labels may lend some amount of green credibility. According to Solitaire Townsend of Futerra Communications, a label is always welcome because it backs up the green message. This might seem a bit disappointing if youve spent millions on tracking a product footprint, but Im afraid labels can add weight to your communications , nothing more, she says.

#2: Lack of context. While most of the Boots survey respondents say they appreciate assigning a concrete number to a product's carbon footprint, it's unclear whether those numbers mean much to consumers.

Beverage company Innocent puts these figures into context by casting its products' carbon footprint as carbon calories." An Innocent smoothie, for example, accounts for 9% of the daily carbon emissions an individual might responsibly allocate toward food and drink, according to U.K. government targets.

The Carbon Trusts Euan Murray thinks this is a smart parallel to make. "Twenty years ago if you asked somebody what number of calories was high and what was low they would not have known. The same thing could happen here.

#3: Limited opportunity for comparison. Unlike calorie count, few brands currently carry a carbon label, making it difficult for shoppers to compare similar products based on environmental performance.

This is likely to change over time, as more companies eager to broadcast a green message consider adding carbon labels to their products. Supermarket chain Tesco last year committed to carbon labeling on all of its products, though the company says its decision is not marketing-driven. "You cant use labels as a unique selling point," says Testco spokesman Trevor Datson. "The whole point is to help people reduce their personal carbon footprint."

This sentiment is echoed by other industry players, who look at carbon labels simply as a means of giving customers clear information. In fact, many expect carbon labels to become mandatory at some point, as nutrition labels now are for food products. The Ethical Corporation piece sums it up this way:

As it stands, carbon labeling is set to fall into the category of nutritional information , something that could well become obligatory on packets of all shapes and sizes in years to come. Brands view the label as an outlet providing consumers with the information they require to make educated choices when they shop. For now, consumers can choose a company that appears to have committed itself to reductions, but until consumers can compare like with like, the number on the label is ultimately meaningless.