31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/29 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on a Community Award Scheme 
for an Eco-label^) 
(91/C 339/09) 
On 22 February 1991, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130 S of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
6 September 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Boisseree. 
At its 289th plenary session (meeting of 25 September 1991), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Gist of the Commission Proposal 
1.1. The Commission is proposing the adoption of 
a Council Regulation on the introduction of a Com­
munity Eco-label. The purpose of this is to: 
— provide consumer information on environmentally 
friendly products, 
— promote environmentally friendly manufacturing 
processes and products to serve the needs of the 
market, based on use of the label in producer and 
dealer advertising, 
— increase public awareness of the environment and 
facilitate the solution of environmental problems 
(waste prevention and disposal). 
1.2. The proposal was prompted by the encouraging 
results obtained with Eco-label schemes in certain 
countries, particularly the Federal Republic of Ger­
many. In view of the forthcoming completion of the 
Single Market, the Commission would like such a 
scheme to be introduced throughout the Community, 
particularly as other Member States are planning to 
follow Germany's example. 
1.3. The Commission draft provides for a 'voluntary' 
scheme, i.e. the producer or importer will not be obliged 
to apply for an Eco-label and, of course, authorization 
to manufacture or market products will not depend on 
the award of the Eco-label. 
1.4. The Eco-label is to be awarded to environmen­
tally less harmful products ('more benign product alter­
natives', see Article 1); this means that the items con­
cerned should cause less environmental damage during 
manufacture, use, consumption and disposal than com­parable products. The scheme is also designed to con­
serve resources and promote the use of clean manufac­
turing technologies. 
1.5. The label will be awarded on the basis of the 
following procedure: 
— establishment of eligible product groups, 
— definition of criteria for the evaluation of product 
groups, 
— award of the Eco-label, at the request of the manu­
facturer or importer, by a Jury comprising govern­
ment representatives and representatives of econ­
omic and social interest groups, 
— conclusion of a contract governing use of the label, 
which is to enjoy legal protection. 
1.6. The following bodies will be involved at differ­
ent stages of the procedure: 
— national authorities, 
— the Commission, 
— an Advisory Committtee consisting of national rep­
resentatives, 
— the Jury, 
— the European Environment Agency. 
1.7. The Regulation will initially be limited to mass-
produced goods. It is not entirely clear from the Com­
mission proposal whether the Regulation will apply 
solely to private consumption or also to consumption 
by public bodies and commercial undertakings. 
(!) OJ No C 75, 20. 3. 1991, p. 23. 1.8. National ecological labels and other mandatory 
product markings will not be affected by the new Regu­
lation in the first instance. 
No C 339/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
2. General assessment 
2.1. The introduction of a Community Eco-label has 
the Committee's full approval. It represents a free-
market instrument for environmental policy which 
should ensure a widespread increase in public aware­
ness (see Own-initiative Opinion on Environmental Pol­
icy and the Single European Market).^) The Com­
munity label is a sensible addition to existing environ­
mental policy instruments. It must never result in a 
failure to take regulatory measures where these are 
necessary. The award of the Community Eco-label can 
merely supplement, but never replace, such measures. 
2.1.1. Experience gained in certain countries, par­
ticularly the Federal Republic, indicates that the award 
of Eco-labels with the approval of economic and social 
interest groups can considerably reduce environmental 
burdens by encouraging ecologically-acceptable behav­
iour by all market participants, i.e. manufacturers, 
dealers and, not least, consumers. 
2.1.2. Nevertheless, the Committee feels that the 
Commission draft needs to be improved if its stated 
objective is to be fully achieved. 
2.2. Experience at national level reveals that new 
marking systems take time to become established on 
the market. Consequently, the Committee endorses the 
Commission's proposal that national labelling schemes 
should still be allowed for the time being. 
2.3. The Community Eco-label scheme is designed 
to reduce the environmental impact of air, water and 
soil pollution, noise and waste and the use of energy 
and resources. This goal can be achieved not only by 
providing less environmentally harmful products for 
the private consumer but also by increasing the 
acceptability of products largely used in the public 
sector and industry (e.g. recycled building materials, 
low-noise construction machinery). A reduction in 
environmental burdens can also be achieved in the 
services sector—e.g. by the provision of adequate public 
transport and waste prevention measures and recycling 
programmes—and here too a Community Eco-label 
could act as a valuable incentive. Whilst the Community 
scheme would primarily cover mass-produced goods 
for private consumption and use, it should also apply 
to products consumed in the public sector and industry, 
and to services. It is in this area that existing national 
Eco-label schemes have proved particularly successful. 
(*) OJNoC322, 31. 12. 1990. 2.4. The Committee concurs with the Commission's 
view that packages which form an integral part of the 
product should not be treated as separate products 
but should be regarded as product components for 
evaluation purposes. Assessment of such products must, 
therefore, include the impact of the packaging com­
ponent and its environmental acceptability. The vast 
quantities of waste generated in the Member States, of 
which packaging accounts for a high proportion, make 
it essential to include the latter in the impact assessment. 
In this way, the Community Eco-label could provide 
incentives to manufacturers to market products which 
require little packaging and avoid waste. 
2.5. In establishing the product groups, care must be 
taken to include all appropriate alternatives. To this 
end, account must be taken of products which, whilst 
only having a small market share, offer definite environ­
mental advantages over traditional rival products which 
have achieved market dominance. 
2.6. From the point of view of the credibility and 
acceptability of the Community Eco-label, particular 
importance attaches to the precise definition of 
demanding requirements in laying down specific criteria 
for individual product groups. On the one hand, these 
criteria must be so precise that any Community or 
third-country manufacturer seeking to use the Com­
munity Eco-label and satisfying the criteria can be sure 
that labels will be awarded solely on the basis of such 
compliance and that all applications will receive equal 
treatment. On the other hand, the criteria must be 
sufficiently stringent to guarantee consumer confidence 
in the environmental acceptability of products bearing 
the label. 
2.7. The Committee cannot understand why the 
Commission proposal does not provide for the involve­
ment of economic and social interest groups in the 
establishment of the product groups and specific cri­
teria. Such participation already exists in countries with 
highly successful Eco-lebel schemes. 
2.7.1. The acceptance of the Community Eco-label 
as an instrument which interested manufacturers or 
importers are free to use to indicate the environmental 
acceptability of their products will largely depend on 
the involvement of the economic and social interest 
groups in the decision-making process from an early 
stage. In this connection, the Committee would rec­
ommend a procedure which significantly involves these 
interest groups both in the establishment of the product 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/31 
groups and thereafter in the definition of the eligibility 
criteria for the award of the label. The fact that, by 
virtue of its voluntary nature, the Community scheme 
cannot establish the manufacturing and marketing eligi­
bility of products, is a further reason for seeking to 
minimize State involvement in this way. 
2.7.2. The procedure for the award of a Community 
Eco-label should therefore be as public and unbureau-
cratic as possible. In the Committee's view, it should 
take the following form: 
— A board made up of representatives of the economic 
and social interest groups is assigned joint responsi­
bility with the Commission for establishing product 
groups on the basis of proposals submitted by the 
Commission, national governments, associations or 
European manufacturers, dealers and consumers or 
environmental associations. The European Environ­
ment Agency should also have a say in the decision. 
— With expert assistance from the European Environ­
ment Agency or, until the latter becomes oper­
ational, a comparable scientific body at Community 
level, this board and the Commission define in detail 
the specific criteria which products in individual 
groups must satisfy to be eligible for the Community 
Eco-label; whilst compliance with protective legal 
provisions is essential in this context, it must not 
constitute the sole criterion for the award of the 
label. 
— Labels are awarded in respect of individual products 
and services and, in particular, contracts for the use 
of markings are concluded solely on the basis of 
these criteria, with the Commission being respon­
sible for verifying the uniformity of award pro­
cedures. The Committee thinks that decisions 
should involve a purely technical assessment of 
whether specific products or services satisfy the 
relevant eligibility criteria. 
2.8. The proposed legal basis for the Regulation, 
namely Article 130 S of the EEC Treaty, is acceptable. 
The Committee also thinks that the chosen legal form 
(Regulation) will, in particular, prevent the prohibited 
or improper use of the label. To be able to withstand 
legal argument, however, the text must be made more 
specific in content and worded more precisely. 3. Comments on individual provisions 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. The Commission draft does not indicate 
whether the Community Eco-label scheme will apply 
solely to products for private consumption or to goods 
used in the public sector and industry as well. The 
Committee thinks that mass-produced goods used 
mainly in the public sector and industry should also be 
eligible for the award. 
3.1.2. Even if the emphasis will largely be on mass-
produced goods in practice, the scheme should not 
systematically exclude the provision of particularly 
environmentally-friendly services. A decision to this 
effect should be taken forthwith. There is no reason 
for delaying the gradual introduction of this possibility 
until a later date. 
3.1.3. Products and services covered by the award 
must satisfy stringent requirements, not only with 
regard to environmental acceptability but also in 
relation to other quality criteria, of which safety is the 
most important. It is not sufficient for products bearing 
the Community Eco-label merely not to compromise 
'product or workers' safety' [Article 1(2)]. In addition 
to (technical) reliability, they must not threaten the 
health of consumers and workers. 
The Committee assumes that compliance with health 
and safety requirements will be assessed on the basis 
of intended use and that suitability for use may not be 
questioned. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. In Article 2 the scope of the Regulation—prod­
ucts and services—should first be defined positively. 
3.3. Article 3 
As regards Article 3(d), the Committee thinks that when 
evaluating production (manufacturing) account must 
also be taken of the environmental effects of raw 
materials and other substances used. 
3.4. Article 4 
It should be stated that the Regulation must be without 
prejudice to other Community provisions. 
3.5. Article 5 
The establishment of product groups represents the first 
important decision in the entire award process. The 
definition of individual groups is therefore extremely 
important. A group should cover all types of products 
and services catering for a particular need. The Com­
mittee prefers the definition given in Article 3(c) to that 
in Article 5. For the sake of legal precision, if for 
No C 339/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
no other reason, both Articles should use the same 
terminology (1). 
3.5.1. A board made up of representatives of econ­
omic and social interest groups should decide on the 
composition and scope of the product groups on a 
proposal for the competent national authorities or the 
Commission (see points 2.7.2 and 3.9.2). The Com­
mission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, 
should conduct a preliminary examination of all pro­
posals. 
3.6. Article 6 
3.6.1. The Committee interprets Article 6(3) to mean 
that the products or manufacturing process must cause 
no significant injury or damage to man and/or the 
environment, regardless of whether dangerous sub­
stances or preparations are involved. 
3.6.2. Furthermore, the entire Article should be 
reworded to ensure greater clarity. 
3.7. Article 7 
The specific environmental criteria applicable to a 
group of products or services must be both clearly 
defined and stringent. In establishing these criteria, 
account must be taken of all the factors mentioned in 
the assessment matrix (Annex I) in order to conform 
to the 'cradle to grave' approach and ensure that all 
aspects of environmental protection are covered as 
intended. 
In using the assessment matrix (Annex I), the 'specific 
environment criteria' applicable to the individual prod­
uct and service groups must be defined and explained in 
detail. In this connection, the use of clean technologies 
should be mandatory and not simply required where 
applicable. 
3.8. Article 8 
The board representing economic and social interests 
should be responsible for adopting the specific criteria applicable to the individual groups of products and 
services (see points 2.7.2 and 3.9.2). 
3.9. Article 9 
3.9.1. The Advisory Committee is unnecessary in the 
context of the procedure proposed by the Committee 
(see points 2.7.2 and 3.9.2). The Commission should 
be responsible for the preliminary examination of all 
proposals (see point 3.5.1). 
3.9.2. In accordance with the voluntary nature of the 
Community scheme, the economic and social interest 
groups should have sole responsibility for major 
decisions (see point 2.7.2). The Committee proposes 
the establishment of a board comprising three members 
for each of the following: industry, commerce, con­
sumer organizations, environmental organizations and 
workers' organizations. The Commission proposal on 
the composition of the Jury, on which there is a similar 
involvement of socio-economic groupings, also men­
tions the media, but the ESC doubts whether the media 
should be represented on the board, given the latter's 
purely technical nature. The board's Chairman should 
be elected by the members rather than being appointed 
by the Commission, and decisions should be taken by 
a simple majority. The Commission will be responsible 
for examining the compatibility of these decisions with 
the provisions of the Regulation. If it finds fault with 
a decision, the board will reconvene. If the objection 
remains after this referral back, the Commission will 
propose appropriate measures to the Council which 
will take its decision by a qualified majority [Article 
148(2) of the EEC Treaty]. 
The ESC envisages that it will be responsible for 
appointing the representatives of the above-mentioned 
associations and organizations to the board. 
3.10. Article 10 
3.10.1. All products and services which satisfy the 
specific environmental criteria applicable to their 
groups must be eligible for the award of the Community 
Eco-label (see point 2.6). The Committee thus rejects 
the idea contained in the Commission proposal that 
the most eligible of the proposed products should be 
determined by a sort of 'competition'. 
(*) This is already the case in some versions. 3.10.2. As regards the design of the Community Eco-
label, the Committee suggests that a competition be 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/33 
held with a view to ensuring optimum awareness of the 
purpose of the label amongst consumers (purchasers, 
procurement officials). The Committee doubts whether 
this objective can be achieved with the label proposed 
by the Commission. 
3.10.3. The reasons for making the award should be 
stated either on the label itself or in its immediate 
vicinity. The Committee appreciates the difficulties of 
incorporating wording in the label given the multilingu­
al nature of the Community. 
At all events, the code-form proposed by the Com­
mission is not well-suited to the indication of why an 
award was made. Pictograms would be more appropri­
ate, though these would first have to be devised or 
found via the above-mentioned competition; it must be 
possible to combine the Community Eco-label with 
pictograms. 
3.10.4. The provisions contained in Article 10(5) 
and (6) of the draft should be transferred to Article 19. 
3.11. Article 12 
3.11.1. It should be made clear that 'specific perform­
ance criteria' means the specific environmental criteria 
mentioned in Article 7. 
3.11.2. The Committee does not understand why the 
Commission proposal requires undertakings to notify 
the Competent Body in advance if they do not intend 
to use an existing label. 
3.12. Article 13 
3.12.1. Labels are to be awarded to individual prod­
ucts and services which comply with the relevant eligi­
bility criteria, the competent body having no discretion­
ary powers in this connection. These decisions should 
also cover responsibility for the conclusion of contracts 
governing terms of use. To ensure uniformity of appli­
cation, the competent bodies (Article 11 of the Com­
mission proposal) should involve the Commission in 
the procedure before concluding such contracts. The 
Commission could then have a right of veto. 
3.12.2. The Committee is opposed to the proposal 
in Article 13 that only products which 'best meet' the 
stated requirements are to be considered eligible for the 
award of the label. The label should be awarded to all 
products which satisfy these requirements. Article 13 does not provide for legal recourse where 
applications are rejected. It should at least make refer­
ence to national legislation. The Committee also con­
siders it advisable to entitle the parties to request a 
review of the decision if it transpires that the conditions 
governing the award of the label were not satisfied or 
that the label is being used improperly. 
3.13. Article 14 
The Committee welcomes the proposed involvement of 
the European Environment Agency (still to be estab­
lished) in the preparatory work on the definition of the 
specific environmental criteria. Nevertheless, it remains 
unclear which specialized scientific and technical bodies 
the Agency is to consult and how this consultation 
is to be ensured. The Community would take this 
opportunity to express its concern at the delay in estab­
lishing the European Environment Agency. 
3.14. Article 19 
3.14.1. The Committee recommends that Article 
10(5) and (6) be transferred to Article 19 and that the 
latter be retitled 'Use of the label; advertising'. 
3.14.2. The proposed Regulation can apply only to 
advertising in which the Community Eco-label is used 
and not that using eco-labels adopted at national level 
or by private organizations. This makes it important 
to prohibit labels which could be confused with the 
Community Eco-label. 
3.14.3. In order to preclude markings which could 
give rise to such confusion, the Regulation must provide 
for appropriate sanctions or expressly require the Mem­
ber States to adopt provisions to this effect. The Regu­
lation should require, or at least allow, prohibitions to 
be adopted on the basis of national provisions. 
3.15. Article 21 
The Committee welcomes this clear statement of the 
voluntary nature of the Community scheme, which not 
only justifies but actually requires a change in the line 
taken in the present proposals. 
No C 339/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
3.16. Article 22 
3.16.1. It is clear that the Commission can consider 
and, if necessary, propose amendments to the Regu­
lation at any time—and not just after five years. The 
provisions of the first two paragraphs of this Article 
are therefore unnecessary; a statement to this effect 
could be included in a Council Resolution when the 
Regulation is adopted. 
Nor would it appear advisable to stress one conceivable 
reason for the amendment of the Regulation, namely 
the co-existence of national and Community eco-labels; 
this could be interpreted as an announcement of the 
lapsing of the national labels, thereby reducing interest 
in their award before the Community label had become 
fully established. This would be unlikely to promote 
environmentally-friendly behaviour. After all, there are 
doubts as to legality of prohibiting private, unofficial 
labels which use environmental criteria to advertise. 
The prohibition of official national labels alone would 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1991. therefore not help to establish a single form of environ­
mental labelling. 
3.16.2. The transfer to the Agency of responsibility 
for establishing environmental criteria as provided for 
by the third paragraph of Article 22 would not be in line 
with the Committee's approach. If this responsibility is 
assigned to the above-mentioned board (point 3.9.2), 
the Agency will merely be required to examine appli­
cations from the technical standpoint. 
3.17. Annex I 
The assessment must also cover health protection; in 
this connection reference should be made to point 3.7 
of this Opinion. 
3.18. Annex II 
Reference should be made to point 3.10.2 of this 
Opinion. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fran?ois STAEDELIN