Select your language

A. Relevance and sustainability context

A.1 Policy relevance

The indicator measures the market share of products with voluntary or mandatory eco-labels. This only includes market shares of products with eco-labelling that sets stringent sustainability standards. Up to now, only state-regulated eco-labelling has been considered. The indicator shows whether these labels successfully shift markets toward sustainable products. It validates policy investments in certification schemes and identifies where stronger interventions are needed. It feeds into the Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie and SDG 12 monitoring.

A.2 Sustainability and / or comparative evaluation options

To further contextualize the indicator, complementary benchmarks are needed, e.g. total consumer spending across all product categories, the bioeconomy's contribution to GDP.

B. Data availability

B.1 Stage of development

The indicator is maintained by the Kompetenzzentrum Nachhaltiger Konsum at the Umweltbundesamt as part of long-term monitoring initiatives. It is integrated into the Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie and SDG 12 reporting.

B.2 Data sources

Kompetenzenzentrum Nachhaltiger Konsum (KNK), UBA

B.3 Coverage over time and replicability

Market share data for state environmental labels exists for approximately 10-15 years, with more comprehensive coverage emerging over the past decade through KNK monitoring activities. Current reporting occurs annually through KNK monitoring reports. Updates typically lag by 12-18 months due to data collection, verification, and publication processes.

B.4 Coverage across scales and sectors; compatibility

The indicator is reported at a national level while regional and international compatibility are limited. The indicator includes sectoral breakdowns for office products, electronics, textiles, and cleaning products.

C. Considerations for operationalization

C.1 Feasibility: Fit for monitoring

The indicator is fit for bioeconomy monitoring with an established methodology and institutional backing.

C.2 Institutions

The Kompetenzzentrum Nachhaltiger Konsum (KNK) is primarily responsible for calculating and presenting indicator data through its Datenmonitor Nachhaltiger Konsum. The Umweltbundesamt itself publishes environmental label statistics.

C.3 Future prospects

The continuation of monitoring is considered likely due to stable institutional embedding through UBA, integration into official government reporting mechanisms, and the establishment of a clear target that reinforces commitment to ongoing monitoring.

C.4 Costs, considerations and reproducibility

Potential costs could include additional data collection and combination with existing monitoring systems.

C.5 Potential for automation

Automation could be feasible provided that the collection and continuous updating of data can be reliably assured.

C.6 Presentation options and breakdown / sub-indicator needs

The indicator is presented as a trend analysis of market shares and well as revenue over time.

C.7 Potential for scenario integration

Currently this indicator is more useful for ongoing policy monitoring than for scenario building.

C.8 Interlinkages and alignment with other monitoring activities

This indicator is mainly used in Germany's own sustainability monitoring. It also connects to broader reporting systems at the UN level (SDG 12 on sustainable consumption), EU level (European Green Deal and Circular Economy goals), and national level (Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie)

Legend

Tier

Tier I describes the 30 core, priority indicators defined by the project that are highly relevant to represent a specific thematic area and which together with other Tier I indicators forms a systemic perspective of the various risks, opportunities and trade-offs within the Bioeconomy.

Tier II describes explanatory indicators that are of high priority and help to provide more specific information on trends within specific thematic areas.

Stage of development

Established:
Indicators which are already reported in other official monitoring systems

Semi-established:
Indicators which are developed by e.g. federal research institutes as part of long-term and regularly updated initiatives

New
Indicators not previously reported in an official capacity, but well established through research projects

Developing
Indicators under development with some reporting in new state-of-the research projects, but not subject to multiple years of revision and replication

Future
Indicator gaps requiring research for possible future integration

Robustness

Very robust:
methodologically sound, reliable, and fit for bioeconomy monitoring

Robust:
fit, but with acceptable uncertainty and/or potential challenges

Sufficient:
possibly fit, but with foreseeable challenges

Weak:
currently unfit, but short-term potential

Insufficient:
currently unfit, but with long-term potential