La régulation et l'harmonisation internationale des programmes d'écolabels sur les produits et les services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE REGULATION AND INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION OF ECOLABEL PROGRAMS ON GOODS AND SERVICES Considering both trade globalization and the growing media coverage of the deterioration of natural resources and of the ozone layer, the average citizen has become more demanding as a consumer when it comes to the environmental quality of the products he purchases. In this context, the implementation of adequate labeling may become both a major competitive issue in the marketplace as well as a means of promoting sustainable development that will allow the inclusion of environmental considerations in production procedures and in individuals’ behavior and choices. Designed to inform both private and public consumers of a product’s environmental performance as compared to other products in the same category, the ecolabel is an excellent tool for the implementation of this new development paradigm. The ecolabel is a tool whose goal is to use markets in order to meet environmental goals. Presently, the ecolabel is the result of a « voluntary » step taken by a manufacturer who takes it upon himself to declare that his products are ecological through the use of different seals or phrases (« nitrate free », « ozone layer friendly », biodegradable). Alternatively, the manufacturer may ask an independent organization for the right to use an ecolabel, by following a preset procedure and respecting pre-established criteria. Since the end of the 1980s, many countries have set up ecological certification and ecolabeling programs : the « European ecolabel », the « Blue Angel » in Germany, the « Green Seal » in the United States, « NF » in France, « Eco-mark » in Japan, and the « Eco-logo » in Canada. For the last ten years, the ecolabel has drawn the interest of public authorities in Western countries. Over this same decade, Europeans have gained a level of expertise that today allows them to assume an international leadership role in the field of ecolabeling. In this context, several European jurists and economists have naturally become interested in the conditions linked to the development of this new tool for regulating production. Their studies show that the creation of a national policy of ecological labeling must be based on recognized standards – private or prescribed – so that the awarding of an ecolabel can be based on objective criteria. In the framework of trade liberalization, the development of such ecolabel programs must be carried out while, at the same time, an effort is made to avoid creating obstacles to international trade. Very little study has been devoted to the rules of international law that apply to this subject. This question is, however, central to the reflection which must be undertaken on ecological labeling’s development as a sustainable development tool. Our paper sets out to answer this question and to study the impact that the International Standards Organization’s (ISO) 14000 series of standards has had on the harmonization of national ecolabeling policies. Considering the impact of international law standards on the ecolabel’s development as a sustainable development tool, it is logical to make an in-depth analysis of the conditions of national ecolabeling policy harmonization at the international level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".