Ecolabels as Instruments for Biodiversity Governance in Agri‐Food Systems: A Comparative Assessment of EU Certification Schemes

ABSTRACT

Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services, yet it continues to decline due to intensive agriculture, pollution, habitat loss and climate change. Although ecolabels are increasingly used to communicate sustainability attributes and influence consumer choices, their role in addressing biodiversity conservation within agri‐food systems remains underexplored. This study investigates how EU‐relevant food‐related ecolabels incorporate biodiversity‐relevant ecosystem services into their certification criteria and how these criteria can be interpreted as market‐based governance responses to biodiversity loss. To this end, 44 food‐related ecolabels adopted, recognised or applied within EU food markets were analysed through a three‐step framework combining keyword‐based content analysis, ecosystem service classification, co‐occurrence network analysis and the Driving Force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework. Ecosystem services were classified according to the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) framework, whereas network analysis was used to examine interconnections among ecosystem services and the DPSIR framework and interconnections between biodiversity‐related services and other ecosystem services. The DPSIR framework was then applied to assess how ecolabel criteria address drivers, pressures, states and impacts associated with biodiversity loss. Findings reveal substantial variation in the extent to which ecolabels incorporate biodiversity‐relevant ecosystem services. Comprehensive sustainability schemes such as Naturland, KRAV and Rainforest Alliance address a broad range of provisioning, regulating, habitat and cultural services, whereas more specialised schemes, such as PDO, Beter Leven and Streekproduct, focus on narrower sustainability dimensions. Network analysis identifies habitat‐related services, particularly the maintenance of genetic diversity and species life cycles, as central links between biodiversity conservation and other ecosystem services. The DPSIR assessment further shows that ecolabels primarily address biodiversity‐related pressures through requirements related to habitat protection, agroecological management and reduced chemical inputs. The study shows that ecolabels can be interpreted not only as consumer‐facing sustainability signals but also as potential instruments of biodiversity governance. By providing a comparative ecosystem service‐based assessment of EU food‐related ecolabels, the study offers a framework for evaluating their biodiversity relevance and highlights opportunities for developing more biodiversity‐oriented certification schemes within agri‐food systems.