Eco-Mark: the Scheme of 1991

In one line

For thirty-three years India had an eco-label that existed only as a Government scheme, had almost no products on it, and was replaced by rules in 2024.

What the scheme was

Its form. Ecomark was launched in 1991 as a Government of India scheme administered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, not as delegated legislation. There was no rule, no notification under section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 constituting it, and therefore no statutory duty on anybody.

Its emblem. An earthen pot, chosen as an object made from a renewable material by a traditional process, biodegradable at the end of its life and useful without electricity. It is one of the better pieces of regulatory design in Indian environmental law, and it is worth naming in an answer because an eco-label is an act of communication and the choice of image is the message.

Its method. The Ministry decided which product categories would be covered, and for each category criteria were worked out and notified with the assistance of a steering committee, a technical committee and the Bureau of Indian Standards. A manufacturer whose product met the criteria and held the relevant Indian Standard licence could use the mark.

Its administration. The Bureau of Indian Standards operated the certification, since Ecomark was granted alongside a licence for the corresponding Indian Standard, and the Central Pollution Control Board and the Ministry set and revised the criteria.

A note on sources. The Ministry no longer serves the 1991 resolution and it is not on India Code, so the description above is given at the level of the scheme's structure rather than by quotation. In an examination the safe course is to describe the 1991 arrangement as an executive scheme, note the earthen pot, and then state the present position under the Ecomark Rules 2024, whose text is available and which is what a current answer must be built on.

Why it did not work

Four reasons, and they are the reasons any voluntary label fails.

One, it had no legal force. A scheme that is not made under a statute imposes no duty, creates no offence and gives no remedy. Nothing prevented a manufacturer from making an environmental claim about his product without applying for the mark at all, which is why the 2024 Rules recite the object of preventing misleading information on environmental aspects of products.

Two, certification was tied to an Indian Standard licence. A manufacturer had to hold or obtain a Bureau of Indian Standards licence for the product before he could seek Ecomark, which added cost and time to a voluntary process with no commercial reward at the end.