Sustainability certifications are often seen as technical tools, but in times of global transition and regulatory uncertainty, they seem to play a deeper role. Why is it especially important for companies to stay anchored to recognized standards and shared principles when the landscape is so fragmented and fast-changing?
“Today, third-party verified certifications and statements to claim environmental benefits of products, processes or activities are essential tools for maintaining market positions and gaining new clients, but also to participate to tenders, especially public ones, where a rewarding score on sustainability aspects can also make the difference. It’s important to be able to trace certification and validation back to a specific international standard, such as ISO, to lend credibility and robustness, or even just to be able to compare product processes or activities based on their eco-efficiency. So I think that certifications are very important for any companies to stay on the market and to be able to defend positions.”

There are actually many different sustainability certifications, and they don’t all measure the same thing. Some focus on products, some on management systems, some on the company as a whole. Some only apply to specific geographic locations, some are global. So could you briefly explain these differences and what each type of certification actually guarantees? Maybe with a few clear examples.
“There is no ‘one size fits all’ standard to face sustainability challenges, and of course greenwashing is trending right now. Usually, certifications are categorized by what they measure—so the scope—and where they apply. So, understanding these distinctions helps you determine whether a label refers to a single ingredient, a final product or a corporate entire business. For instance, I found an interesting ‘periodic table’ of sustainability certifications where about 45 B2B or B2C single certifications are covered. In any case, it’s important to say that now only Life Cycle Approach based certifications are considered reliable and can answer to eco-efficiency and sustainability questions. At product level, for instance, attributes can guarantee organic, no animal testing, but also circularity for instance, or even low carbon footprint. At corporate level, organization carbon or water footprint are usually calculated to meet stakeholder requests for eco-transparency. In both situations—product, corporate level—the value chain is considered to guarantee a true cradle-to-grave approach, or cradle-to-cradle approach and dissertation.
Going to the geographic location issue, it’s true that regulatory framework can generate differences. In general, EU requires more granular reporting. So, multinational companies probably have to manage differences between EU and, for instance, US rules in reporting by adopting, for instance, interoperable frameworks. This can satisfy most stringent requirements while maintaining a globally consistent dataset. In more details, a dual-track accounting may be deployed to maintain a central master in having dataset, for instance, and then an automated reconciliation between database when you work in different geographical areas. In my opinion, it’s important to rely on global assertions by using global certifications—so valid everywhere—for instance, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol is designed for worldwide application.”

Another theme that comes out when talking about sustainability certifications and reporting is carbon offsetting. So, what exactly is carbon offsetting? How does it affect reported emissions, and how does it differ from reducing impact through long-term operational improvements?
“Carbon offsetting is a mechanism, is a tool to allow individuals, organizations to compensate greenhouse emissions—usually we say ‘unavoidable’ emissions—because this means that carbon offsetting is the last chance we have to reduce our carbon footprint. It’s important to say immediately that a Life Cycle Assessment approach or an Environmental Product Declaration approach doesn’t allow to use such a mechanism, such a tool, to compensate the calculations. So, it’s not an arithmetical situation in which you can deduct emissions by carbon offsetting. It’s an interesting tool, but shall be used with the right approach.
About carbon neutrality, that is very similar to carbon offsetting, it means to try to achieve a state where the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere is balanced by an equivalent amount removed. Try to get a net-zero carbon footprint. So, there are a lot of definitions around. It’s important to understand the meaning and different tools available to compare declarations again and also to write a strategy, a carbon strategy, into any organization or of course company.”

This brings us to the topic of language and awareness. Many people use terms like ‘carbon neutral’ without fully understanding what they mean. How important is education in this space, and how can structured resources and shared glossaries, like the Econyl Glossary, help create more transparent sustainability communication?
“Move beyond treating sustainability as a standalone topic is a way, or integrate it into core subjects like green supply chain management or eco-design at engineering level or as well humanities. So, in the end, ‘green pedagogy’ is always a challenge that company must accept to convey their messages to stakeholders, again, without the risk of running greenwashing. So, continuous education of internal staff as well as involvement of, for instance, students is very important to form opinion leaders that can support transparent and widespread green claiming. For instance, what we are doing today, organizing webinars and podcasts is good to put in practice what I said before. And the challenge is to reach the non-experts. So, the most important thing is to make people understanding that working on environmental or sustainability sciences is not easy. So, it’s not always possible to simplify the message. At the same time, we have to try to reach stakeholders in a clear and transparent way, giving them the tools to understand and to look for background documents to justify what we are saying.”