<p>The aim with this study is to evaluate if standardization of sustainable housing is a practical solution to address the objectives/reach the goals of sustainable housing. The point of departure is that eco-labelling of houses is a way to put sustainable housing into practice. The Nordic Swan criteria for small houses and the UK Code for Sustainable Homes are two recently developed schemes for sustainable construction and design. These two labelling systems are chosen as case studies in order to compare and examine the practice of sustainable housing. How can the goals of sustainable housing be met in the form of eco- labelling? What are the benefits and obstacles/limitations for the cases to be effective and sustainable?  What can explain differences between the two cases? And is the function and organisation of the cases best explained by sustainable development ideas or ecological modernization?  It is suggested in the view of path dependency theory that the UK’s and Sweden’s decisions based on their expectations concerning development of the EU flower has made their respective eco-labelling of houses to have different organisational structure. The Code as a sector-specific label has the advantage, compared to the Swan, of being able to change its structure depending on the needs of pressure in the network of government, business and consumers.  The Code has several criteria concerning sustainable living besides criteria concerning environmental construction of the house and can therefore be considered as part of the sustainable development discourse.</p>

The aim with this study is to evaluate if standardization of sustainable housing is a practical solution to address the objectives/reach the goals of sustainable housing. The point of departure is that eco-labelling of houses is a way to put sustainable housing into practice. The Nordic Swan criteria for small houses and the UK Code for Sustainable Homes are two recently developed schemes for sustainable construction and design. These two labelling systems are chosen as case studies in order to compare and examine the practice of sustainable housing. How can the goals of sustainable housing be met in the form of eco- labelling? What are the benefits and obstacles/limitations for the cases to be effective and sustainable?  What can explain differences between the two cases? And is the function and organisation of the cases best explained by sustainable development ideas or ecological modernization?  It is suggested in the view of path dependency theory that the UK’s and Sweden’s decisions based on their expectations concerning development of the EU flower has made their respective eco-labelling of houses to have different organisational structure. The Code as a sector-specific label has the advantage, compared to the Swan, of being able to change its structure depending on the needs of pressure in the network of government, business and consumers.  The Code has several criteria concerning sustainable living besides criteria concerning environmental construction of the house and can therefore be considered as part of the sustainable development discourse.