EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2121 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the voluntary participation by organisat ions in a Community eco-management and 
audit scheme (EMAS) 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
  
{COM(2008) 402 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2122} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE  OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties .................................................... 5  
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 1.1.1.  Reference to the associated item in Agenda Planning or the Work Programme. ........ 5  
1.1.2.  Purpose of this Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 5  
1.1.3.  Chronology................................................................................................................... 5  
1.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 1.2.1.  External expertise and stakeholder consultation.......................................................... 6  
1.2.2.  Commission’s minimum standa rds on consultation .................................................. 10  
1.2.3.  Main results................................................................................................................ 10  
2. Problem definition............................................................................................................ 1 2 
2.1. Description of the problem......................................................................................... 12 2.1.1.  Background ................................................................................................................ 12  
2.1.2.  Main problem identified............................................................................................. 16  
2.2. The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 18 2.2.1.  Lack of clarity with regard to the legal requirements ................................................ 18  
2.2.2.  The system of reporting is not  harmonised or uniform.............................................. 18  
2.2.3.  Procedures for accreditation and supervis ion of verifiers are not harmonised .......... 18  
2.2.4.  Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme in Member States ......................... 19  
2.2.5.  Uneven support in the Member States of EMAS by way of financial, fiscal and 
market-related measures............................................................................................. 19  
2.2.6.  Organisational and financial barrie rs for implementation of EMAS......................... 21  
2.2.7.  Lack of clarity about th e benefits of EMAS .............................................................. 22  
2.2.8.  Coexistence of other environment management systems .......................................... 24  
2.2.9.  Insufficient integration with other community policies / instruments ....................... 25  
2.2.10.  Limited geographical scope of EMAS....................................................................... 25  
2.2.11.  Lack of clarity on how the system works................................................................... 25  
2.3. Affected parties .......................................................................................................... 25 
2.4. Evolvement of the problem in case no action will be taken ...................................... 25 
2.5. Community action...................................................................................................... 26 3. 
Objectives..................................................................................................................... .... 27  
3.1. Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 2 7 
3.2. Consistency of these objectives  with other EU policies ............................................ 27 
4. Policy options................................................................................................................. .. 29 
 
EN 3   EN 4.1. Policy option 1: continui ng with the present appro ach - (base scenario) .................. 29 
4.2. Policy option 2: phasing out the scheme.................................................................... 29 4.3. Policy option 3: substantially modifying the scheme ................................................ 29 4.3.1.  Measures aimed at ensuring that the sche me is the best indication for external 
stakeholders and national enforcement auth orities that EMAS organisations comply 
with all relevant environmental legi slation and continuously improve their 
environmental performances...................................................................................... 31  
4.3.1.1. Sub-option 1: legal compliance.................................................................................. 31 4.3.1.2. Sub-option 2: reporting – core  performance indicators ............................................. 31 
4.3.1.3. Sub-option 3: development of sectoral reference documents .................................... 31 
4.3.1.4. Sub-option 4: harmonising procedures  for accreditation and verification................. 32 
4.3.2.  Measures aimed at raising the attractiv eness of the scheme for participating 
organisations, particularly for SMEs and small public authorities, by reducing the 
administrative burden for participating orga nisations and by increa sing the visibility 
of participation in EMAS......................................................................................................................... 32  
4.3.2.1. Sub-option 5: promotion and support ........................................................................ 32 
4.3.2.2. Sub-option 6: reducing burdens  and creating incentives ........................................... 33 
4.3.2.3. Sub-option 7: clarifying links and co mplementarities with other schemes ............... 36 
4.3.2.4. Sub-option 8: links with other EU legislation/instruments........................................ 36 
4.3.2.5. Sub-option 9: EMAS global....................................................................................... 37 4.3.3.  Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly....................................... 37  
4.3.3.1. Sub-option 10: re-writi ng text Regulation ................................................................. 37 
4.3.3.2. Sub-option 11: integration of Gu idelines in the Regulation ...................................... 37 
4.4. Options discarded at an early stage............................................................................ 37 5. Analysis of impacts .......................................................................................................... 39  
5.1. Expected economic, social and environmen tal impacts of each of the short-listed 
options........................................................................................................................ 39 
5.1.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 39  
5.1.2.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 43  
5.1.3.  Social and employ ment impacts................................................................................. 47  
5.2. Positive and negative impacts of the different options .............................................. 48 5.2.1.  Option 1: continuing with the present approach ........................................................ 48  
5.2.2.  Option 2: phasing out the scheme .............................................................................. 49  
5.2.3.  Option 3: substantially modifying the scheme........................................................... 49  
5.3. Impacts in the EU and outside the EU ....................................................................... 53 5.4. Impacts likely to change over time ............................................................................ 53 5.5. Social groups, economic sectors or  particular regions affected................................. 53 
 
EN 4   EN 5.6. Potential obstacles to compliance .............................................................................. 53 
6. Comparing the options ..................................................................................................... 55  
7. Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................... 56  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives...................................... 56 7.2. Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation............................................... 56 
 
EN 5   EN 1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing  
1.1.1. Reference to the associated item in Agenda Planning or the Work Programme.  
Management plan – G2 – Sub-action 437.1 
1.1.2. Purpose of this Impact Assessment 
This Impact Assessment has been prepared by DG Environment of the Commission 
Services to inform the development of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 
of the European parliament and of th e council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary 
participation by organisati ons in a Community eco-management and audit scheme 
(EMAS)1. It follows the guidelines for an Impact Assessment produced by the 
Secretariat General of the Commission. It has been submitted to the Impact 
Assessment Board on 27 June 2007 and it has taken the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board of 4 July 2007 into  account by elaborating on and adding 
information on issues identified by the Im pact Assessment Board as not yet fully 
developed. 
The Impact Assessment presents an analys is of the situation under Regulation (EC) 
No 761/2001, identifies the main policy options  that have been considered in the 
context of the revision of the EMAS Regula tion, and assesses these options in terms 
of their environmental, social and economic impacts. 
The impact assessment also identifies the main players in the implementation of the 
scheme and some results expected from the revision, against which to measure the implementation and the effectiven ess of the proposed Regulation. 
1.1.3. Chronology 
Task Deadline Status 
External evaluation Dec 04 - Dec 05 Completed 
Selected stakeholder consultation Jan 06 – Dec 06 Completed 
Draft main direction revision May 06 – June 06 Completed 
Internal agreement main direction June 06 – Dec 06 Completed 
Draft text Regulation Dec 06 – May 07 Completed 
Impact assessment
(incl. stakeholders consultation) Dec 07 – June 07 Completed 
Revise draft text I July 07 – Feb 08 Completed 
Inter-service consultation March 08 – April 08 In process 
Revise draft text II April 08 To be completed 
                                                 
1 OJEC L 114 of 24/04/2001, p.1. 
 
EN 6   EN Commission adoption new Regulation May 08 To be completed 
EP – Council co-decision June 08 - End 09  To be completed 
Adoption new Legislation End 09 – Beg 10 To be completed 
An inter-service steering group has been formally created, following on from 
informal contacts and consultations w ith Units from DG ENV, DG TREN and DG 
ENTR, which started at the time of the ev aluation study of the EMAS and Eco-label 
schemes. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
1.2.1. External expertise and st akeholder consultation 
The EMAS scheme involves many stakeholde rs and attracts attention from many 
interested parties. The Commission serv ices already maintain a dialogue with 
representatives of the Member States and with the different stakeholders of the 
EMAS process, in order to follow the prac tical implementation of the scheme. This 
has made it possible to monitor the scheme's strengths and weaknesses. 
The use of external expertise and a fo rmal round of consultation with EMAS 
stakeholders (representatives from th e business community, including SMEs, and 
public organisations, EMAS verifiers, EMAS consultants, accreditation bodies, 
competent bodies, NGOs, national EMAS e xperts) was nevertheless felt to be 
necessary to provide the Commission with good grounds to conduct an effective 
revision process. 
(i) A large-scale evaluati on study on EMAS and Eco- label was carried out by a 
consortium of consultants led by Bocc oni University, known as the ‘EVER’ 
study2 
The EVER study was carried out on beha lf of DG Environment. It examined 
how European companies perceive the mo tives, success factors and benefits in 
relation to EMAS and it aimed at providing recommendations for the revision of both the EMAS scheme. The EVER study consisted of a desk research, 
consisting of a thorough review of existi ng literature and previous studies and 
surveys on the scheme and thee 'in-field'  research, carried out by way of direct 
interviews and case studies. The findings of that research phase were presented, 
discussed and enriched through a stakehol der engagement exercise, carried out 
within two workshops held in Se ptember 2005, that involved experts, 
institutions, companies, practitioners and NGO's. 
The EVER study showed that EMAS is considered as a mean to integrate 
environmental concerns in the organi sation's collective value system and 
improve the corporate image. EMAS is  not only perceived as a system to 
reduce costs from waste disposal, energy consumption etc.; it is also seen as a scheme that signals environmental friendliness to the internal and external stakeholders. 
Environmental improvements, enhan ced image and costs reductions are 
perceived as far the most important benefits from adopting EMAS. Even 
                                                 
2 For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/everfinalreport1_en.pdf  
 
EN 7   EN though almost half of the respondents in the EVER study be lieved that the 
monetary costs of EMAS outweighed the benefits, more than two third of the 
respondents considered EMAS as a succes s when comparing the financial as 
well as non-financial benefits and costs.3 
(ii) In parallel, the REMAS project4 a three-year project funded by the EU LIFE 
Environment Fund, and carried out by the UK Environment Agency, the 
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland, was concluded in May 2006. 
The objective of the REMAS project was to  determine the influence of different 
types of environmental management systems on site environmental management activities, and their subs equent impact on complian ce with legislation and 
performance against best available techniques.  
The REMAS report presents the results of a detailed statistical analysis of the 
relationship between environmental mana gement systems classification, site 
environmental management activities and environmental performance, using data that has been collected from a sa mple of over 300 sites, operating across 8 
industrial sectors in 14 European countries. 
The REMAS project compares a number of aspects of environmental 
management between organisations (a ) with no environment management 
system, (b) with a non-certified environment management system, (c) with a standard certified environm ent management system ISO 14001) and (d) with an 
enhanced certified environment management system (ISO 14001 "plus"
5 and 
EMAS). 
The report concludes that: 
• there is strong evidence that the adoption of an accredited certified 
environment management system improves site environmental management 
activities. 
• there is evidence that overall envir onmental management is better under 
EMAS than under ISO14001; driven largely by better performance for 
Performance Monitoring , Documentation Control  and Reporting 
Environmental Performance .6 
The main elements of which an environm ent management system consists are: 
                                                                                                                                                         
3 EVER study. "Perceptions of EMAS Registration – A summary report". p.3. 
4 For more information: http://remas.ewindows.eu.org/  
5 In practice there is no such sta ndard as ‘ISO14001 plus’. This is a nomenclature used only in the 
REMAS project to test the effect of the registration elements of EMAS . 
6 Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that even though environmental reports provide quantitative 
data on performance of EMAS organisations, there are a number of problems with the availability of 
these data, such as the lack of harmonisation (indicators), different reporting levels and insufficient information on output, etc. Combined with the fact that organisations not participating in EMAS usually 
have limited reporting obligations as regards environmental performance, comparison between EMAS, 
ISO 14001:2004 and non-EMAS organisations is difficult to make. 
 
EN 8   EN • the environmental policy 
• procedures and c ontrols ensuring: 
– operational and risk management, 
– monitoring of environmental performance, 
– compliance with legal requirements, 
• documentation control 
• management review procedures 
• reporting on environmental performance 
• commitment to training and awar eness raising of employees and 
• open communication culture. 
The table below gives the estimates for the individual aspects of environmental 
management. 
The values represent the differences in the expected scores for the respective 
environment management system relative to the “base class” of ISO 14001 (all 
other factors being equal). A highe r coefficient corresponds to better 
performance.  
Estimated impact of environment manag ement system classification on average 
environmental management acti vities, and on individual dimensions of environmental 
management activities  
  Estimated regression coefficients  
  EMAS ISO Plus ISO 14001 Informal None  
 Overall 0.09 0.03 0.00 -0.20 -0.38  
 Environmental policy 0.05 -0.03 0.00 -0.28 -0.53  
 Operational and risk 
management 0.08 0.24 0.00 -0.19 -0.27  
 Commitment to training 
and awareness 0.04 -0.10 0.00 -0.24 -0.46  
 Compliance and 
conformance control 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.32 -0.46  
 Performance monitoring 0. 11 0.11 0.00 -0.07 -0.26  
 Open communication 
culture 0.02 -0.29 0.00 -0.21 -0.58  
 Documentation control 0. 14 0.16 0.00 -0.09 -0.58  
 Management review 0.10 0.08 0.00 -0.26 -0.57  
 Reporting environmental 
performance 0.21 -0.01 0.00 -0.43 -0.45  
        
 Key + ve - ve Significance level     
    < 5%    
    5% - 10%    
    10% - 20%    
 
EN 9   EN     Not significant    
        
The REMAS report confirms that: 7 
• the results provide strong evidence that the adoption of a certified 
environment management system (i.e. ISO 14001 or above) improves the quality of site environmental manage ment activities; increasing the overall 
score of a site with no envir onment management system by 0.38-0.47 
(depending on the type of system adopted), and the score of a site with an informal environment management system by 0.20-0.29. The same is generally true for the individual dimensions of environmental management activities, although there is some va riation in the magnitudes of the 
impacts between the dimensions. Howeve r, there is no evidence that the 
quality of environmental management  under ISO14001 is any better than 
under an informal system for pe rformance monitoring or for 
documentation control. 
• the evidence is mixed re garding the benefits of adopting an enhanced 
certified EMS, compared to the standard ISO 14001. The sample provides 
no evidence that the additional featur es of ISO14001 Plus lead to better 
site environmental management. While there is some evidence that there 
may be improvements in relation to operational and risk management, it is not clear why this should be the case. In contrast the sample does provide evidence that site environmental ma nagement is better under EMAS than 
under ISO14001; with the 0.09 increas e on the overall EMA being 
significant at the 10% level. This is driven largely by be tter performance 
for performance monitoring, docume ntation control and reporting 
environmental performance. 
(iii) The Member States bodies running the EMAS scheme (Competent Bodies, 
Accreditation Bodies) or ganised a number of stakeholder meetings and 
seminars on the future of the scheme, producing recommendations for its revision in the future.
8 
(iv) Member States representatives to  the Article 14 committee of the EMAS 
Regulation (Comitology meeting) have also  been consulted at each stage of the 
revision process and have provided i nput into the revi sion work of the 
Commission on 20 June 2005 (Brussels), 22 November 2005 (Turin), 29-30 
June 2006 (Luxembourg) and 13-14 November 2006 (Athens).9 
(v) As part of the cons ultation process, the Commission organised 4 working 
group meetings with selected EMAS e xperts comprised of EMAS verifiers, 
consultants, accreditation bodies and co mpetent bodies on 17 May, 9 June, 20 
July and 27 July 2006, in order to anal yse in details the pros and cons and 
                                                 
7 REMAS final report p. 23. 
8 For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas.  
9 See Annex I: minutes of the Emas Article 14 meetings. 
 
EN 10   EN practical feasibility of specific opti ons proposed to revise the EMAS 
Regulation.10 
(vi) The Commission visited selected Member  States to gather their opinion on the 
revision of the Regulation, at which occasion Member States and other 
interested parties put forward their ideas for the future of the scheme. 
(vii) The Commission services organise d a revision workshop on 11-12 December 
2006 with a selected group of around 100 EMAS experts representing the different actors involved in the differ ent Member States, in order to gather 
feedback on the draft Commission proposal s for the revision of the scheme.
11 
(viii) Finally, as part of the Impact A ssessment, a public stak eholder consultation 
using the integrated policy making (IPM) internet consultation tool was launched in December 06 and ended on 26 February 2007. This on-line questionnaire enabled all t ypes of stakeholders and in terested parties to input 
their opinion on the different options fo r the EMAS revision. The results have 
been analysed and broadly confirm the main directions and revision options 
envisaged.
12. 
The inputs received were particularly useful  in helping the Commission services to 
clearly identify the needs and expectations of European organisations that are or may 
be interested in participating in the scheme. They also helped identify the potential practical implementation probl ems of the options investigated by the Commission 
and helped investigate alte rnative options and actions. 
Because of the varied nature and interest  of the different stakeholders, sometimes 
contradictory, it was not possible for the Commission to take on-board all of the 
suggestions. When this was the case, a ra tionale is included in the Commission's 
decision / options put forward as to why su ch ideas were considered, but not taken on 
board. 
1.2.2. Commission’s minimum standards on consultation 
The Commission’s minimum standards on consultation
13 have been met. The time 
allowed for stakeholders to reply to the in ternet stakeholders consultation was more 
than 8 weeks, the minimum standard for the Commission. Additionally, as outlined above, extensive stakeholde r consultation has been on- going with all types of 
stakeholders and interested parties duri ng the course of the entire year 2006 
1.2.3. Main results 
Both the EVER study and the REMAS showed that there is evidence that EMAS 
leads to better site environmental management activities than other existing environmental management systems. Indeed, EMAS not only defines an 
environmental management system for a given organisation, like ISO 14001, it also 
requires full legal compliance and conti nuous improvement of an organisations 
environmental performance by setting objectives and, through the definition of 
                                                
 
10 See Annex II: minutes of the working group meetings. 
11 See Annex III: minutes of the revisi on worksh op on 11-12 December 2006 . 
12 For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/consultation_en.htm .  
13 COM(2002)704: Communication from the Commission: Towards a reinforced culture of consultation 
and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the 
Commission. 
 
EN 11   EN environmental indicators, measurement and publication of the organisation's 
performance. 
On the other hand, EMAS has not reached its full potential in terms of diffusion, due 
to a wide range of reasons, amongst whic h the costs of EMAS, the low management 
commitment and the paperwork/bureaucracy were considered by the respondents in 
the EVER study as the three most impor tant barriers for adoption of EMAS. 
These conclusions were supported by most consulted stakeholders and were taken 
into account when the Commission services analysed the options identified for the 
revision of the scheme, and took a decisi on on its proposed future direction and on 
the changes that are needed to  the current EMAS Regulation. 
 
EN 12   EN 2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Description of the problem 
2.1.1. Background 
On 29 June 1993, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) N° 1836/93 allowing 
voluntary participation by companies in th e industrial sector in a Community eco-
management and audit scheme. This Regulation - known as the EMAS Regulation -entered into force on 13 July 1993 and was opened to industrial participation since April 1995.  
On 19 March 2001, the European Parliame nt and the Council adopted Regulation 
(EEC) No 761/2001, which revised and expand ed the scope of EMAS by allowing 
voluntary participation by any type of organi sation (not just industrial companies) in 
the scheme. 
When it entered into force the scheme represented, and still represents, a direct 
response to some of the key principles embodied in the 5
th and 6th Environmental 
Action Programme, in particular the concep t of broadening the range of instruments 
and of promoting an approach of shared responsibility wi th business in the area of 
environmental protection.  
The sixth Environmental Action Programme14 identifies the improvement of 
collaboration and partnership with enterpri ses as a strategic approach to meeting 
environmental objectives. Voluntary commit ments are an essential part thereof. 
Encouraging a wider uptake of the Community's eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) and the developmen t of initiatives to enc ourage companies to publish 
rigorous and independently verified envi ronmental or sustainable development 
performance reports is regarded as necessary in this context. 
The mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme
15 
recognises that there is a need to im prove the functioning of the voluntary 
instruments that have been designed for industry and that these tools have a great 
potential but have not been fully devel oped. It calls upon the Commission to revise 
these schemes in order to promote their uptake and reduce administrative burdens in 
their management. 
EMAS is part of the overall objective of promoting sustai nable production and 
consumption patterns, by provi ding a framework for the effective management of 
environmental impacts and for continuous  improvement in the environmental 
performance of  all organisations (small or large, fr om the private or public sector) in 
Europe. 
EMAS represents an alternative approach  to environmental protection through the 
use of market mechanisms and the integrat ion of environmental considerations into 
the core of company management. At the sa me time the scheme is complementary to 
the traditional command-and-control approach.  
                                                 
14 Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242 of 10/09/2002, p.1 
15 COM(2007) 225 final: Communication from the Commiss ion to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Mid-term 
review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, adopted by the Commission on 
30/04/2007; not yet published. 
 
EN 13   EN The scheme is a market-based instrument  which provides for voluntary participation. 
This means that rather than relying on traditional enforcement measures through 
national regulators it is intended to generate  peer pressure and supply chain pressure 
to encourage organisations to participat e. Even though particip ating in the EMAS 
Regulation is on a voluntary basis, once par ticipating in the syst em, an organisation 
must comply with all the requirements of the Regulation. This ensures a credible and 
rigorous approach to environmental management. 
The scheme is aimed to reconcile both economic and environmental concerns by 
allowing organisations to set their own e nvironmental objectives as a result of 
examining their environmental performance.  Participating organisations can thus 
address environmental issues within the fr amework of their economic considerations.  
EMAS also embodies the qualities of  credibility and transparency. The 
implementation of the scheme in organisa tions is independently verified by an 
accredited environmental verifier. This verifier  also checks the reliability of the data 
and information in the e nvironmental report which is used by participating 
organisations to communicate information about their environmental performance to 
stakeholders and the public. 
Article 15 of the Regulation provides for th e revision of the Regul ation to take place 
not more than five years after its entry into force: 
The Commission shall review EMAS in th e light of experience gained during its 
operation and international developments no later than five years af ter the entry into 
force of this Regulation, and shall, if nece ssary, propose to the European Parliament 
and Council the appropriate amendments. 
This provision reflects the dynamic nature of the scheme which, as a market-based 
instrument, needs to improve on the basi s of findings related to its practical 
implementation and in conjunction with th e evolving views of its stakeholders.  
European Union Environment Manageme nt and Audit scheme – an overview 
THE MAIN ELEMENTS  OF THE SCHEME  
THE ACTORS 
The Commission  develops and supervises the scheme at the EU  level. It co-ordinates also pan-European 
promotion activities, and has set up an EMAS Helpdesk  to support the Commission, in particular with 
requests from companies and the public. 
Member States  are responsible for establishing EMAS with in their country and have to provide the 
Commission with information on the implementation of the scheme. They designate and supervise the 
Competent Bodies and the Accreditation Bodies and develop guidelines for suspension and deletion of the 
registration of organisations. The Member States promote the participation of companies and other 
organisations in EMAS on a national level. 
Competent Bodies  are designated by the Member States and are independent and neutral bodies 
responsible for organising the registration process of organisations within their own territory. They issue 
registration numbers to organisations which have submitted a validated environmental statement, collect any payable registration fee, refuse, suspend and delete organisations from the register and respond to 
enquiries concerning organisations on the national EMAS register. 
The Article 14 Committee  is the Steering Committee of EMAS. Ch aired by the Commission, it represents 
the Member States, and interest groups such as indu stry, unions, environmental NGOs etc. The Committee 
meets several times a year to support the Commission in  practical issues concerning the implementation of 
 
EN 14   EN the EMAS Regulation. Areas in which the Committee has to be involved are defined by the Regulation. 
An Accreditation Body  is an independent, impartial institution or organisation responsible for the 
accreditation and superv ision of environmental verifiers and de signated by the Member State. It 
establishes, revises and updates a list of environmental verifiers and their scope of accreditation (according to NACE codes) in their Member State. Consistency of procedures relating to the verification process is 
ensured by a peer review process of all Accreditation Bo dies which meet at least once a year in the "Forum 
of Accreditation Bodies" (FAB) to exchange information and disseminate best practice. 
EMAS verifiers  are independent organisations or individuals with expert knowledge in the field of EMAS 
that have been accredited by their Accreditation Bodies . They have to ensure that organisations seeking 
registration are in compliance with the requirements of  the EMAS Regulation. Veri fiers are responsible for 
checking that an organisation is in legal compliance, has carried out an initial environmental review if 
appropriate, has a fully operational environmental management system which is audited in a systematic, 
objective and periodic way and that it has prepared an environmental statemen t in accordance with the 
EMAS Regulation. They also verify the reliability, cr edibility and correctness of the data and information 
in the environmental statement and other environmental information provided by organisations. 
THE PROCEDURES 
The core of the EMAS scheme is the so-called "con tinuous improvement circle". The elements of this 
circle are presented in the following diagramme: 
 
Development of an environmental policy 
As a first step, an organisation intending to participate in EMAS has to develop an environmental policy, 
describing it’s overall aims and principles of action with respect to the environment. The environmental 
policy, should address all significant environmental issues, should contain a commitment to comply with 
environmental legislation and should contain a commitment to achieve continuous improvements in its environmental performance. 
Initial environmental review 
Following the development of an environmental policy the organisation has to carry out an initial 
environmental review, which is an initial comprehensiv e analysis of the environmental problems caused by 
an organisation’s activities. The purpose of this revi ew is to identify the most significant environmental 
impacts - and therefore possible priorities to be set in the environmental programme - and to lay down a Corrective Actions Environmental Management 
System 
Internal Audit 
Environmental Statement Environmental Policy and 
Programme Initial Environmental Review 
Validation and Registration 
 
EN 15   EN benchmark to measure future succes s in reducing these impacts. 
Development of an en vironmental programme 
The organisation next has to develop an environmental programme, which translates the general objectives 
established in the environmental policy into specific targets, determining concrete measures, time frames, 
responsibilities, and the resources necessary in order to meet them. This environmental programme has to 
be updated regularly. 
Establishment of an environmental management system 
In order to ensure the successful implementation of the environmental programme,  the organisation has to 
establish an environmental management system, including: 
• the environmental policy 
• procedures and controls ensuring: 
– operational and risk management, 
– monitoring of environmental performance, 
– compliance with legal requirements, 
• documentation control 
• management review procedures 
• reporting on environmental performance 
• commitment to training and aw areness raising of employees 
• open communication culture, 
Carry out an internal environmental audit 
Once an environmental management system has been established, an internal audit has to be carried out in 
order to evaluate the organisation's the environmental performance based on the objectives spelled out in 
its environmental programme. The audit must be repeated regularly in order to guarantee continuous 
improvement. The outcome of the e nvironmental audit is a report in which possible corrective actions are 
suggested to guarantee continuous improvement of the company's environmental performance. 
Develop an environmental statement 
After the internal audit has been carried out, the organisation has to develop an environmental statement, 
that the organisation's its environmental efforts and achi evements describes, as we ll as the requirements for 
continuous environmental performance. 
Validation and Registration 
When all of the above has taken place, an inde pendent verifier certifies that the organisation’s 
environmental policy, its EMS, the environmental aud it and the environmental statement comply with the 
rules of the EMAS Regulation. After the validated statement is sent to the Competent Body it has to be 
made publicly available. Then the organisation is listed in the register of EMAS organisations and has the 
right to use the EMAS logo.  
In case an EMAS registered organisation no longer meets all requirements, the relevant competent body 
shall suspend or delete the registration as appropriate. 
THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The main instrument of the system is Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European parliament and of the 
                                                 
16 OJEC L 114 of 24/04/2001, p.1. 
 
EN 16   EN council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-
management and audit scheme (EMAS)16. Annex I of this Regulation has been amended17 and the 
Regulation has been complemented by a number of guidance documents18, parts of which are binding. 
2.1.2. Main problem identified 
It is in that context that a review of both the EMAS and the Eco-label schemes was 
carried out in 2005. This review identifie d the strengths and weaknesses of both 
schemes and proposed options to improve the effectiveness of both Regulations. 
The strength of the EMAS system, which is  the reason why the European Union and 
the Member States have tried to pos ition EMAS as the best standard for 
environmental management, is believed to be those features th at go beyond the other 
existing environment management systems. 
As described before on pages 7-10 of th is document, the EVER and REMAS studies 
confirmed that, compared to organisa tions having no or other environment 
management systems, organisations regist ered under EMAS are likely too reach the 
highest level on the aspects of envir onmental performance improvement and 
compliance with environmental legislation.  
The review shows that at micro-leve l, EMAS achieved its objectives as it 
significantly improves the environmenta l performances of participating 
organisations.19 
94% of the respondents in the EVER study stated to have experienced improvements 
in environmental performance over the recen t years, especially in the areas of: 
                                                                                                                                                         
17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 196/2006 of 3 February 2006 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) 
No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council taking account of the European Standard 
EN ISO 14001:2004. (OJEC L 32 of 4/02/2006, p.4). 
18 Decision 97/264/EC of 16 April 1997 on the recognitio n of certification procedur es in accordance with 
Art. 12 of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993, allowing voluntary participation 
by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco- management and audit scheme. (OJEC L 
104 of 22/04/1997, p.35). 
Recommendation (EC) 680/2001 of 7 September on guidance for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 
761/2001 (7/9/2001) of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by 
organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme. (OJEC L 247 of 17/09/2001, p.1) 
and 
Decision (EC) No 681/2001 of 7 September 2001 on guidance for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 
761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by 
organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme. (OJEC L 247 of 17/09/2001, p.24); 
Commission Recommendation (EC) No 2003/532/EC of 10 July 2003 gives guidance in the selection and use of 
environmental performance indicators in EMAS. Standard indicators enable benchmarking among 
organisations attributed to the same sector. (OJEC L 184 of 25/07/2003, p.19.); 
Commission Decision of 1 March 2006 laying down rules, under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, on the use of the EMAS logo in the exceptional cases of transport 
packaging and tertiary packaging (notified under document number C(2006) 306) (1) (OJEC L 70 of 9 
March 2006, p.63) 
19 General figures to what extent EMAS improves the general environmental performance of organisations 
are difficult to give because (1) performance improvement can be operationalised in different ways 
(often improvements on some indicators and worsening on others); (2) it is difficult to assess whether a 
change in performance is caused by EMAS or by other factors and (3) the quantitative data of the 
environmental statements of EMAS organisations  are difficult to compare due to the lack of 
harmonisation in reporting (different indicators, different reporting levels). 
Different case studies present the benefits of EMAS to individual organisation. See  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/casestudies/eltinter_en.htm . 
 
EN 17   EN • solid and hazardous waste (86% of the respondents); 
• resource and energy use (82% of the respondents); 
• incidents and accidents (76% of the respondents); 
• emissions to air (65% of the respondents) and 
• releases to water (67%  of the respondents) 
EMAS is therefore, in theory, an instrument  that enables the EU to take forward its 
environmental agenda, leading to environm entally beneficial changes in production 
and consumption patterns.  
However, the review also shows that at m acro-level, the scheme has not reached its 
full potential in terms of diffusion. Even  though EMAS registrations continue to 
grow steadily, with a total of more than 5,000 registered sites in  Europe in 2007, this 
still represents only a very small proportion of the number of orga nisations that could 
potentially use the scheme. 
The figure below gives an overview of the take-up of EMAS in the participating 
countries. The decline in numbers of regi strations after the revision of the first 
EMAS Regulation is due to the fact that  under the first Regulation each site was 
registered separately whereas under the current Regulation, organisations can be 
registered. One registration can therefore cove r different sites. Corrections have been 
made to the numbers later on. 
 
Despite the intention of the European Union and the Member States to position 
EMAS as the best standard for envi ronmental management, the EVER study 
revealed that even though EMAS is often c onsidered in literature as a standard of 
 
EN 18   EN excellence, 62% of all respondents in the EV ER study thinks that EMAS is regarded 
and used as "best practice" for environm ental management among industrial sectors 
or other types of organisations. Of the re spondents in the EVER study that are not 
participating in EMAS, this  percentage drops to 36%. 
2.2. The underlying drivers of the problem 
The evaluation study and stakeh older consultations have cl early identified several 
causes for the problem identified above:  
2.2.1. Lack of clarity with regard to the legal requirements 
In order to become or remain regi stered under EMAS, organisations must 
demonstrate that they fully comply with all requirements of environmental legislation. 
One of the most significant benefits of this requirement is that it improves an 
organisations capability to meet the applicable environmental legal and regulatory requirements. About 70% of the responde nts in the EVER study perceived the 
guarantee of legal compliance as one of the most significant benefits of EMAS. 
At the same time, organisations, especially  SMEs, making up a large part of Europe's 
economy, representing about 99% of all en terprises and 57% of economic value 
added, are often not fully aware of the envi ronmental impacts of their activities and 
are not always able to exactly define th e legal environmental requirements they are 
obliged to meet.
20 As a result, even though this requirement is perceived as one of the 
elements that makes EMAS a strong and re liable indication of legal compliance for 
stakeholders and enforcement authorities, the practical difficulties for organisations 
in the identification of relevant legal oblig ations may bring orga nisations to decide 
not to go for EMAS but rather for another environment management system that does not contain this requirement. 
2.2.2. The system of reporting is  not harmonised or uniform 
EMAS organisations are obliged to publis h annually a report, the environmental 
statement, that provides quantitative data on their environmental performance. Under 
the current Regulation, the reporting system is not harm onised between firms and as 
a result different organisati ons use different indicators for measurement of their 
environmental performance and may have diffe rent reporting levels . This reduces the 
benefits of EMAS as an effectiv e way of communicating environmental 
performance. 
Nevertheless, as indicated before on pages 8-10 of this document, the REMAS study 
confirmed that, compared to organisa tions having no or other environment 
management systems, organisations regist ered under EMAS are likely too reach the 
highest level on the aspects of envir onmental performance improvement and 
compliance with environmental legislation. 
2.2.3. Procedures for accreditation and superv ision of verifiers are not harmonised 
The current EMAS Regulation defines the principles which gove rn accreditation and 
supervision of environmental verifiers. The text of the Regulation is general and it 
                                                
 
20 COM(2007) 379 final: Communication from the Commi ssion to the Council, the European Parliament, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regi ons: Small, clean and 
competitive. A programme to help small and medium-sized enterprises. Not yet published. 
 
EN 19   EN requires Member States to set up the de tailed procedures through their national 
accreditation systems. Some Member States have introduced detailed and strict rules, whereas others have more lax rules. In th e Forum of Accreditati on Bodies efforts are 
constantly being undertaken to reach consistency and a harmonized approach 
through sharing of experience a nd through its supervisory role. 
Despite the gradual improvement and harm onisation of the implementation of the 
system, mainly due to efforts made in  the Forum of Accr editation bodies and 
Competent bodies, important differences still exist in Member States with regard to 
accreditation and verification. This may lead  to different "quality levels" of 
verification (especially with regard to th e legal compliance of an organisation) and 
control of verifiers activities, which potent ially undermines the credibility of EMAS.  
2.2.4. Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme in Member States  
Many observers have identified the lack of knowledge on EMAS (and therefore lack 
of reward for the market, the stakeholders  and the public institu tions) as one of the 
most relevant barriers for the developm ent of the scheme. Promotion activities, 
raising awareness of the scheme, have a pot ential of influencing the uptake of the 
scheme. 
When EMAS was introduced in the 90ties, some Member States, like Germany, 
Spain and Italy, strongly promoted the sc heme, whereas other Member States have 
hardly promoted EMAS at all. With the enlargement of the European Union, a new 
market for enlarging the potential for new registrations emerged in the new Member 
States.  
As a consequence, even after more than 10 years of existence, the scheme, including 
its characteristics and advant ages, is still not well know n by potential users in many 
Member States. 
2.2.5. Uneven support in the Member States of EMAS by way of financial, fiscal and 
market-related measures 
The heterogeneous diffusion of the scheme in  terms of number of registrations is 
linked to the efforts that each Member State (together with local and regional 
institutions) makes in defining and impl ementing different forms of external 
incentives. These incentives may be of financial, fiscal and market-related 
institutional measures.
21. When EMAS was introduced in the 90ties, some Member 
States like Germany, Italy and Spain, h eavily subsidized the scheme, mainly by 
direct funding provided by means of prom otion projects. Financial support has 
however been reduced over time and this is  seen by many observers as one of the 
reasons for stagnation of the participation. 
Participants in the EVER study identified the lack of extern al incentives as one of the 
main barriers for maintaining EMAS. 
                                                 
21 Document COM(2004)745: report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
incentives for EMAS registered organisations and the annex to this report, documents SEC(2004)1375 
confirm that practically all Member States apply measur es that provide some sort  of external incentives 
for EMAS-registered organisations. These incentives vary considerably and range from e.g. waiver of the obligation to nominate a waste or waste water representative for EMAS registered organisations; 
direct financial support for the training of employees of EMAS registered companies to the provision of 
reduced loans for EMAS registered industries. 
 
EN 20   EN There is a clear link between the number of support initiatives in the Member States 
and the uptake of the scheme in the indivi dual Member States, wi th high uptake in 
those Member States with a higher number of initiatives. 
The chart below shows the number of inform ation, financial, and technical assistance 
initiatives undertaken by Member States22 between 2001 and 2005.23 
 DE UK ES FI PL DK SV LA SL NL EL CZ PT CY HU LIT LU 
financial 30 2 14 5 0 6 0 1 0 5 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 
technical 6 11 22 7 14 7 3 7 9 6 6 2 1 2 2 1 0 
information 35 53 21 40 22 16 25 14 13 10 9 14 14 11 11 4 2 
total  71 66 57 52 36 29 28 22 22 21 20 18 16 14 14 5 2 
01020304050607080
GERUKSPAFIN
POLDKSWELAT
SLK NLGRE NOR
CZRPORCYP
HUN LITLUXinformation
technical
financial
 
The result of the uneven promotion and suppor t of the scheme in Member States is 
currently a very incoherent picture of EM AS uptake in the EU. Most organisations 
are registered in only a few Member Stat es (those who promoted the system, like 
Germany, Italy and Spain). The table belo w gives the number of EMAS registered 
organisations and sites per Memb er State at the end of May 2007. 
 organisations sites 
Germany 1464 1954 
Spain 905 1090 
Italy 755 1046 
Austria 252 488 
Denmark 96 249 
Sweden 71 72 
The UK 69 369 
Portugal 61 66 
Greece 56 59 
Finland 41 48 
Belgium 42 336 
                                                 
22 No information available on Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Malta and Slovenia. 
23 Overall analysis of EMAS promotions survey carried out by DG Environment in 2006. Not yet 
published. 
 
EN 21   EN Czech Republic 28 30 
France 13 13 
The Netherlands 11 15 
Ireland 6 6 
Hungary 13 16 
Poland 7 7 
Slovakia 5 5 
Estonia 2 2 
Slovenia 1 1 
Malta 1 1 
Luxembourg 0 0 
Lithuania 0 0 
Latvia 8 13 
Cyprus 0 0 
Bulgaria 0 0 
Romania 1 1 
TOTAL 3908 5887 
2.2.6. Organisational and financial barriers for implementation of EMAS 
The main organisational costs of impl ementation of EMAS are staff costs, 
verification and registration costs. In the ma jority of cases, considerable consultancy 
costs are incurred in the development of th e EMAS prior to verification. The studies 
identified that one of the main barriers to achieving the first EMAS registration are the total costs of implementation (includi ng consultancy costs). These costs vary 
according to the level of ambition of the specific EMAS to be developed and of the size of the organisation involved, which is  illustrated by the following examples. 
Kirklees Metropolitan Council (UK) w ith 400.000 inhabitants, 17.000 employees 
and a council area of over 40.000 hect ares spends abou t 157.000 € for operation 
costs including environmental auditing, environmental training, verification and 
salaries of two officials.
24 
Volkswagen spent up to 90.000 € on the internal  costs for the first implementation of 
EMAS within Volkswagen site at Wolfsburg (50.000 employees) in 1995.25 
The lack of resources other than financial on es is identified by both literature and the 
respondents in the EVER study as another in ternal barrier for the uptake of EMAS. 
Barriers are the insufficient availability of  management time, inadequacy of human 
resources such as personnel with the pr oper skills, expert ise and technical 
background. 
Especially for SMEs this is a relevant problem. A study carried out by the Strategic 
SME group in 200526 shows that the SME respondents identified as the most 
important barriers for implementing an environment management system: 
• lack of time (36% of the respondents) 
• lack of staff resources (31% of the respondents) 
                                                 
24 ECO management and audit scheme toolkit for local authorities –Global to local ltd. 2004 available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/local/pdf/la_toolkit_commission_020204_en.pdf  
25 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/emas/casestudies/vw_en.htm   
26 EVER: Evaluation of EMAS and Eco-label for their revision; report 2: research findings; p. 37. 
 
EN 22   EN • lack of know-how in the enterp rise (21% of the respondents) 
The cost of registration was also iden tified as a significant issue for smaller 
organisations, especially micro-organisati ons. Where a number of Member States do 
not require any fee for registration27, some of the fees required for the first 
registration in Member states28 may even have a prohibitive effect. 
The costs for external consulting and veri fication are identified as being a higher 
barrier for implementation of EMAS than the registration fees. The amount to be 
spent on consulting and verification vary considerably from organisation to organisation and depend on the number of da ys (which depends again on the tasks 
conferred upon the consultant or verifier) and the fees charged by the consultant or verifier.
29 
2.2.7. Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS 
Organisations can benefit in many ways from implementing EMAS. For example, 
more sustainable use of resources gives financial advantages; a better public image; reduced risk of non-compliance with envir onmental legislation; improved relations 
with environmental regulators and other stakeholders, and proper risk management, 
which in turn may prompt lenders and in surers to offer better financial terms. 
However, the benefits of participating in EMAS are difficult to measure and are therefore often based on subjective estimates. 
47% of the respondents in the EVER st udy believed that the monetary costs 
outweighed the monetary benefits, wher eas 24% believed it was the other way 
around. Still the majority of respondents in the EVER study (73%) considered EMAS a success; 64% of the respondents w ho believed that the monetary costs from 
adopting EMAS outweighed the benefits, considered that the financial and non-
financial benefits outweighed the costs.
30 
The over all benefits depend often on a wide  variety of both internal and external 
factors that can be different for each organisations, which is illustrated by the 
following examples. 
Volkswagen spent up to 90.000 € on the internal costs for the first 
implementation of EMAS within Vo lkswagen site at Wolfsburg (50.000 
employees). According to Volkswagen, th e costs of audits and man days used 
                                                 
27 Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France , Greece, Hungary, Italy (for public authorities), 
Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain. 
28 Different fees for first registration are required. These range from 18€ to 2234 € [Austria: 508,70 €; 
Denmark: 140 – 280 €;  Finland: 125 – 250 €; Ge rmany: 230 – 880 €; Ireland:  1350 €; Italy: 50 – 1500 
€; Poland: maximum of 250 €; Portugal: 750 – 2234 €; Slovakia: 54 – 1345 €; Slovenia 18 €; United 
Kingdom 1220 – 2160 €. No information available for Malta] 
29 For a medium-size organisation with about 50 empl oyees, average consulting costs are average about 
12.000 €, whereas the cost for verification range from about 500 to 8000 €. It is however difficult to 
give exact figures for consulting and verification cost s. Prices charged by cons ultants and verifiers are 
market-based and differ considerably: the fees in some  Member States are five times higher as in other 
Member states and vary between 250 and 1250 € per day. The number of days used for consulting and 
verification are also different from Member State to Member state as this depends to a large extent on 
"cultural" differences. 
30 Even though there is no systematic statistical information available on the reasons for leaving the 
EMAS system, companies mention as the most important reason the insufficient cost-benefit ratio. A 
considerable number of organisations leaving the EMAS system, maintain partly their environmental 
management system depending upon the needs of the organisation. 
 
EN 23   EN in EMAS implementation are covered on the one hand through savings due to 
improved waste separation and recover y, intensified measures for energy 
savings and reduced material input  through innovative production processes 
and on the other hand through savings as a result of reduce d fees (-30%) in 
permit procedures with re gard to the Federal Ambient Pollution Control Act 
in Lower Saxony and Hessen as well as savings as a result of application of an especially developed software “SEBU” to evaluate environmental impacts and better logistics
31. 
Kirklees Metropoli tan Council (UK) spent about 157.000 € on 
implementation of EMAS. It recognises th at these costs have  more than paid 
back not only through resource sa vings arising from environmental 
management activities, but also through the availability of additional external 
funding opportunities. 
Resource savings resulted from: 
• building energy savings (145.000 €), 
• fuel cost savings from 45 projects supported by the Council's Energy and 
Water Conservation fund (137.000€), 
• fuel cost savings from switching a nu mber of vehicles over to dual fuel 
(79.000 €), 
• waste disposal savings (15.800 €) in spite  of increased waste disposal taxes 
and savings in vehicle insurance and fuel consumption costs after 
employee training in improved driv er awareness and ECO driving 
techniques (31.700 €). 
Examples of the external f unding obtained relate to the: 
• establishment of a regional Energy Ag ency and Energy Efficiency Advice 
centre (332.400 €), 
• fitting a number of water conservati on devices in Council owned houses 
(292.900 €) and 
• funding for a "Food Futures" project aimed at encouraging the use of 
locally produced food in or der to reduce the amount of travel that food had 
to be transported.32 
A recent OECD study33 shows that environmental-commercial "win-win" situations 
exist, mainly at the level of the individual organisati on. These "win-wins" are not 
induced through public policy, but emerge as a consequence of incen tives internal to 
the organisation. Organisations are undertak ing initiatives to improve environmental 
performance which are in their private comm ercial interest (cost savings, reduced 
liabilities, etc.) and public au thorities are focusing only on  the measures that would 
otherwise not be undertaken. 
                                                                                                                                                         
31 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/emas/casestudies/vw_en.htm  
32 ECO management and audit scheme toolkit for local authorities –Global to local ltd. 2004 available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/local/pdf/la_toolkit_commission_020204_en.pdf  
33 Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour, Edited by N Johnstone; Empirical Policy Analysis 
Unit, OECD Environment Directorate, France; published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; © 
OECD, 2007. 
 
EN 24   EN The study also shows that most of the "win -win" opportunities rela te to supply-side 
factors (such as cost savings) rath er than demand-side opportunities.  
However the EVER study highlights that comp etitive advantages di rectly related to 
the market response, such as higher custom er satisfaction, incr ease in turnover or 
market share and better relations with stake holders, particularly with reference to the 
relation with institutional actors and with the local communities, are currently among 
the motivations that would drive potential new applicants to the participate in EMAS. The fact that these competitive advantages are currently limited, this might deter would-be participants, as well as not motivating existing participants to remain in the scheme. 
2.2.8. Coexistence of other envir onment management systems  
Different national environment management systems currently exist. 
The last years, alternative and simplifie d environment management systems have 
been developed in a number of countries. Mo st of them are limited territorially to the 
country or a specific region. A number of these management systems are set up as a 
"staged approach" and aim at offering a stepwise approach to ISO 14001 or EMAS. 
Other environment management systems presen t themselves as alternatives to EMAS 
or as systems for markets that are currently not covered by EMAS. These 
environment management systems are th erefore competing with EMAS and ISO 
14001.  
The standard ISO 14001 is currently the only international standard for 
environmental management systems. The requirements of ISO 14001 are integrated 
into the EMAS Regulation. The EMAS Regul ation contains a number of important 
additional requirements that go beyond the ISO 14001 standard.
34 
The existence of this variety of environmen t management systems leads to a lack of 
clarity about the added value of EMAS. 
Under most of the national systems, regist ration is easier to obtain than registration 
under EMAS. Also under ISO 14001 certification is easier to obtain than registration 
under EMAS. As a result, some of these environment management systems have achieved greater success and wider take-up than EMAS in the EU. Especially ISO 
14001, with some 35,000 certifications in Eu rope, has achieved greater success with 
organisations that have international presen ce or trade abroad, which is due both to 
the fact that certific ation under ISO 114001 is easier to obtain and to the fact that 
ISO 14001 is the only standard for enviro nmental management systems that is 
globally applicable. 
The existence of alternatives emphasises the effects of the other drivers of low 
uptake of EMAS, as organisations are bot h unclear about the differences between 
schemes and are more likely to choose an  alternative management scheme where 
they perceive disadvantages with EMAS. It  suggests that the added value and uptake 
of EMAS would increase if  it more clearly differentiated itself from other 
management schemes, particularly on geogra phic scope and quality as an indicator of 
performance. 
                                                
 
34 See section 4 (4) at p. 34-35. 
 
EN 25   EN 2.2.9. Insufficient integration with ot her community polic ies / instruments 
The evaluation studies have hi ghlighted that there is a request from virtually all 
stakeholders to better integrate EMAS with other legislation at EU and national level, 
in order to allow candidate  and participating organisa tions an easier and more 
effective implementation of these other pieces of legi slation. This would be an 
incentive for organisations to join the scheme which is presently not existing, or at 
least not clear. 
2.2.10. Limited geographical scope of EMAS  
Under the first EMAS Regulation, only i ndustry could participate in the scheme. 
The possibility for all "organisations" to pa rticipate in EMAS was introduced at the 
first revision of the EMAS Regulation. An  important number of public sector 
organisations, notably local authorities, ha ve since joined the scheme. However, the 
scope of EMAS remained limited to the Euro pean Union, which is one of the reasons 
that ISO14001 achieved greater success is because it is also  recognised outside of the 
EU, which appeals to organisations outside of  the EU, or EU organisations that have 
international presence or trade abroad. 
2.2.11. Lack of clarity on how the system works 
The current Regulation is complemented  by a number of different guidance 
documents. These documents are of quite a di fferent nature and the requirements for 
participating organisations and other actors are not always clearl y grouped together 
so that the entire process of registration fo r each actor is not described in a logical 
step-by-step approach.  
This makes it difficult for a considerable number of organisations, especially SMEs 
and small public authorities, to clearly identify the applicable procedures and requirements for implementing EMAS. 
2.3. Affected parties 
Participating organisations are affected by the current lack of rewards (institutional 
or market-related) when pa rticipating in EMAS and non- participating organisations 
are deterred by this negative aspect of  the scheme. In addition many companies 
simply do not know about the scheme. This impacts negatively on the overall environmental impact of EMAS, as the sc heme does not attract enough participants. 
The Commission and Member St ates have developed structures, bodies (competent 
bodies, accreditation bodies) and continue to invest in a scheme whose take-up in the 
market, albeit continuously increasing, is not enough to make a significant overall 
positive impact on the environment yet. Even the Member States that decided not to invest any means to support EMAS have had to  create and maintain structures so that 
the scheme can function properly. It can be argued that these fixed costs would be 
better used if the uptake of  the scheme were higher. 
2.4. Evolvement of the problem in case no action will be taken 
All things being equal, the scheme would c ontinue to run as it is, with its current 
problems. Even though there is an encouragi ng rise in annual re gistrations after the 
first revision of the Regulation, notably due to the registration of  local authorities, 
leaving the scheme as it is, would not pr ovide a chance for its much wider diffusion, 
especially by SMEs and small public authorities. Without some big 'push', the continued low take-up of the scheme in many Member States would likely 
 
EN 26   EN undermine its credibility and its overall environmental impact would remain low. 
The visibility of the scheme would not increase and continue d uneven distribution 
between the Member States is likely to pr evail. Member States would criticise the 
Commission for not taking positive action to support the scheme in the future. 
2.5. Community action 
The adoption of the current EMAS Regulation has been seen as necessary in order to 
ensure an equal implementation of EMAS  throughout the Community. The rationale 
for EMAS as a community wide management system is its ability to serve the single market, offering one accredited management system which a European firm can use in different Member States and allowi ng communication of improved environmental 
performance across Member State boundari es through use of the EU-wide EMAS 
brand. The effectiveness of EMAS in contributing to improved environmental 
performance of European organisations coul d be better achieved at Community level. 
In accordance with the princi ple of subsidiarity and pr oportionally enshrined in the 
Treaty, the Regulation provides common  rules, procedures and essential 
requirements regarding EMAS whilst the measures that can be adequately performed at national level are left  to the Member States. 
In the current situation however, EMAS has not reached its full potential in terms of 
number of registrations and thus has not reached its fu ll potential in terms of 
environmental performance improvement. The identification of the underlying 
drivers for the low uptake of the scheme make  clear that there is a need for further 
harmonisation on Community level. 
Most of the underlying drivers of the low upt ake of the scheme, as described above, 
are fundamental problems that lie within th e EMAS Regulation itself. To tackle these 
problems requires changes to the Regulation that cannot be dealt by Member States. 
Indeed, the right to act is already menti oned in Article 15 of the current Regulation, 
where it states: " the Commission shall review EMAS in light of the experience gained 
during it operation…and shall, if necessa ry, propose to the European Parliament 
and Council the appropriate amendments" . 
Even though the revision proposal contains more detailed rules, procedures and 
obligations, it continues to respect the princi ples of subsidiarity and proportionality 
by leaving the technical implementation of  the Regulation to the Member States 
through the functioning of the compet ent bodies and accreditation bodies. 
 
EN 27   EN 3. O BJECTIVES  
3.1. Policy objectives  
EMAS represents a direct response to some of the key principles embodied in the 6th 
Environmental Action Programme, in particul ar the concept of broadening the range 
of instruments and of promoting an appro ach of shared respons ibility with business 
in the area of environmental protection.  
Overall objectives 
The overall objective of EMAS is the promotion of sustai nable production and 
consumption patterns, by provi ding a framework for the effective management of 
environmental impacts and for continuous  improvement in the environmental 
performance of  all organisations (small or large, fr om the private or public sector) in 
Europe, above and beyond compliance with en vironmental legislation as a minimum. 
Operational objectives 
The general operational objective is to re vise the EMAS scheme, as required by 
Article 15 of the EMAS Regulation, in order to achieve a wider uptake of the scheme 
and to better encourage continuous improve ment in the environmental performance 
of all organisations.  
In addition, the Regulation s hould be in line with the st rategy on better Regulation, 
developed in the context of the renewe d Lisbon strategy aiming at simplifying and 
improving existing Regulation, to better desi gn new Regulation and to reinforce the 
respect and the effectiveness of the rule s while reducing administrative burdens. 
To achieve these objectives, the revision of the EMAS Regulation aims at 
essentially: 
(a) ensuring that it will be the best indicati on for external stakeholders and national 
enforcement authorities that EMAS orga nisations comply with all relevant 
environmental legislation and conti nuously improve their environmental 
performances. 
(b) raising its attractiveness for pa rticipating organisations and  
(c) increasing its user-friendliness, part icularly for SMEs and small public 
authorities. 
3.2. Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies  
EMAS has been primarily created as a tool to improve the environmental 
performance of all types of European organi sation. It therefore contributes mainly to 
the environmental pillar of the renewe d EU Sustainable Development Strategy. 
Indirectly, by improving the ove rall performance of partic ipating organisations and 
by raising awareness of environmental and health issues among their employees and 
workers, the scheme also contributes to th e economic and social pillar of the renewed 
Sustainable Development Strategy.  
In particular, the evaluati on study confirms that EMAS  organisations are better 
prepared to comply with environmental legislation, they professionalise and 
systematise their processes (especially the smaller orga nisations) and hence save 
costs and resources, and improve their image. This provides for a better competitive situation of particip ating organisations. 
 
EN 28   EN As outlined later, one of the objectives of  the EMAS revision will be to improve the 
synergies between the EMAS Regulation a nd other pieces of legislation at EU, 
international or Member State level, such as public procurement, integrated pollution 
prevention and control, environmental impact assessment, SEVESO, ETS, environmental liability, waste, water fram ework directives. This falls within the 
'better Regulation' exercise that the Comm ission has engaged itself into and equally 
contributes further to the r ealisation of the Lisbon st rategy for growth and jobs. 
 
EN 29   EN 4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Based on the results of existing studies and feedback from stakeh olders, three broad 
options have been analysed for the EMAS revision: 
1) continuing with the present approach, 2) phasing out the scheme, and  3) substantially modifying the scheme. 
4.1. Policy option 1: continuing with the present approach - (base scenario)  
This option aims at continuing with the curr ent approach, as set out in section 2 of 
this document. No substantive changes to the scheme's content and level of ambition will be introduced. Changes considered could only be of administrative / institutional 
nature, in order to just make the current scheme run better. 
Some Member States and interested par ties have expressed their preferences for 
continuing with the present approach. The rati onale is that after the last revision of 
the scheme -EMAS was introduced in 1995 a nd revised in 2001- it may be better to 
leave potential and current participants some time to accustom to EMAS as it currently is, especially as the number of re gistrations, especially from institutions and 
public authorities, is risi ng again and EMAS has high po litical support in several 
Member States.  
In this option, the only measure to be envisa ged is the re-writing of the text of the 
Regulation and the guidelines in a more  logical and easier-to-understand way. 
4.2. Policy option 2: phasing out the scheme 
This option aims at abolishing EMAS in the medium term. 
The rationale for this option is , as a limited number of stak eholders argued, that since 
the scheme has missed some of its targets (i.e.: broad diffusion), it should be phased 
out and other initiatives s hould be encouraged instead. 
Phasing out of EMAS requires the reduction of  all resources allocated to the scheme, 
so that the individual existing EMAS regist rations will remain valid for at least one 
life cycle of registration. With no further public support or visibility, the number of 
EMAS registrations will decline and even tually stop, after whic h the Regulation can 
be repealed. 
In practical terms, the Commission c ould start by reducing its own staff and 
abandoning any actions on EMAS (no furthe r promotion, pilot projects, helpdesk, 
etc). Member States could in  their turn gradually reduc e staff involvement in the 
implementation of the EMAS Regulation. 
4.3. Policy option 3: substantially modifying the scheme 
This option aims at achieving an optimal us e of the EMAS scheme in terms of its 
diffusion through a fundamental revision of the scheme aimed at: 
(d) ensuring that EMAS will be a stronger  guarantee towards external stakeholders 
and national enforcement authorities that  participating organisations comply 
with all relevant environmental legi slation and continuou sly improve their 
environmental performances, 
(e) raising its attractiveness for pa rticipating organisations and 
 
EN 30   EN (f) increasing its user-friendliness. 
Now the underlying drivers of the low upt ake of the scheme are known, this action 
would aim to introduce measures in order to remedy these underlying drivers and to 
improve the scheme. 
The table below shows the causes that have been identi fied as contributing to the low uptake of the scheme 
as well as the options for improvement th at are considered in this option. 
underlying drivers of the prob lem sub-options for improvement 
 Measures aimed at ensuring that the scheme is the best indication 
for external stakeholders and national enforcement authorities as 
regards performance improvement and legal compliance. 
Lack of clarity with regard to the applicable 
legal environmental requirements strenthening and ameliorating the rules on legal compliance 
The system of reporting is not harmonised or 
uniform harmonising and strenghtening reporting by the introduction of: 
core performance indicators and 
sectoral reference documents 
Procedures for accreditation and supervision of 
verifiers are not harmonised harmonising procedures for accr editation and supervision of 
verifiers 
 Measures aimed at raising the attractiveness of the scheme for 
participating organisations, particularly for small organisations, 
including SME and small public authorities, by reducing the 
administrative burden for participating organisations and by 
increasing the visibility of participation in EMAS. 
Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme 
in Member States 
Uneven support in the Me mber States of EMAS 
by way of financial, fiscal and market-related 
measures increasing promotion and support for the scheme  
Organisational and financial barriers for 
implementation of EMAS 
Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS reducing burdens an d creating incentives 
Coexistence of other environment management 
systems clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 
Insufficient integration with other community 
policies / instruments creating possibilities for operational links and sysnergies with other 
EU legislation/instruments 
Limited geographical scope of EMAS making EMAS global 
 Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly 
Lack of clarity on how the system works re-writing text Regulation 
 integration of Guidelines in the Regulation 
 
EN 31   EN 4.3.1. Measures aimed at ensuring that the sche me is the best indi cation for external 
stakeholders and national enforcement author ities that EMAS organisations comply 
with all relevant environmental legi slation and continuously improve their 
environmental performances. 
4.3.1.1. Sub-option 1: legal compliance 
The requirement of legal co mpliance is perceived as on e of the most significant 
benefits of EMAS as this requirement improves an organisations capability to meet the applicable environmental legal and re gulatory requirements. However it appears 
not always to be clear for organisations to exactly define the legal environmental 
requirements they are obliged to meet. 
This option should therefore aim at stre ngthening and clarifying the existing 
requirements for EMAS organisations to co mply with all relevant environmental 
legislation and at the same time ensuring th at organisations are able to identify all 
relevant legal environmental requirements at  an early stage. One of the possibilities 
to do so is to introduce in the new regulation a mechanism ensuring that organisations can seek advice from the bodi es charged by the Member States with 
the task of providing such assistance and that Member States Regulators can be 
involved in the process of identifying the applicable environmental legislation and 
defining the state of compliance of this legislation at an early stage before the first EMAS registration. This will  result in a dialogue betw een the organisation and the 
regulator and offers EMAS as a tool fo r Member States regul ators to reduce the 
administrative burden of re gistered organisations. 
4.3.1.2. Sub-option 2: reporting – co re performance indicators 
The lack of harmonisation with regard to  reporting on environmental performance of 
EMAS organisations makes it difficult to compare either performance of different 
organisations or performance of one organi sation over different re porting periods. As 
a result the (potential) benefits of EMAS partic ipation are often unclear. 
The option aims therefore to strengthen a nd clarify existing envi ronmental reporting 
requirements for EMAS organisations with the use of core performance indicators 
for measurement of the progress in the or ganisations environmental performance. 
This will help the scheme to better focu s on the current EU political priorities. 
"Generic" indicators, focusing on key environmental areas such as energy efficiency; material efficiency; waste; biodivers ity and emissions, in particular CO
2 emissions, 
would be introduced in the revised Re gulation. It should be mandatory for 
organisations to report on this core set of generic indicators. 
4.3.1.3. Sub-option 3: development of sectoral reference documents 
In addition to the introduction of core performance indicators on which reporting will 
be obligatory, the new regulation should also aim at introducing performance 
indicators for individual sectors on which reporting will be voluntary. A mechanism 
should be established that can lead to th e development of reference documents for 
specific sectors that include best practices , benchmarks and performance indicators 
for individual sectors that will be used by participating organisations as a guide in setting up their environment management system and evaluation of their environmental performance. This process should address the direct and indirect 
environmental aspects of the different ope ration / activities of the organisations. 
 
EN 32   EN 4.3.1.4. Sub-option 4: harmonising procedur es for accreditation and verification 
The fact that under the current system  the procedures for accreditation and 
verification are not harmonise d, results in the existence in uneven requirements for 
accreditation, verification and the control of  verifiers activities. This creates an 
unclear situation for organisations and may potentially undermine the credibility of 
EMAS. 
Regulation (EC) N° xxxx/2008 of the Europe an parliament and of the Council of 
[……………. date] setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products organises accreditation at the antioanl and European levels. This regula tion sets the over all framework for 
accreditation. Taking into account the specific ities of the voluntary EMAS scheme, 
the option aims to complement these rules, in so far as necessary and where appropriate, with more specific rules. 
In order to guarantee a high quality verifi cation and validation process for all EMAS 
registered organisations, clea r and specific rules for verifi cation and validation are to 
be defined in order to come to a harmoni zed and reliable system, which will improve 
the consistency in the implementation of the scheme.  
4.3.2. Measures aimed at raising the attrac tiveness of the scheme for participating 
organisations, particularly for SMEs and sm all public authorities, by reducing the 
administrative burden for participating organi sations and by increasing the visibility 
of participation in EMAS. 
4.3.2.1. Sub-option 5: promotion and support 
The lack of knowledge of EMAS and theref ore the lack of reward for the market, 
stakeholders and public institutions, is identified by the respondents in the EVER 
study as one of the main barriers for the growth of the scheme . Because EMAS and 
its logo has not become a "trade mark " to the public and the stakeholders, 
participants in the scheme do not see ma ny competitive reward s of taking up EMAS. 
In order to increase awareness of the act ors in the scheme, including the public at 
large, promotion and marketing of the scheme should be increased by different initiatives: 
• information and promotion campaigns by the European Commission and the 
Member States. If carried out on a regular basis, experience can be used and resources can be moderate. Examples are the participation in conferences and workshops, advertising on TV and radio, th e creation of a yearly European EMAS 
award event in order to promote th e EMAS Regulation by rewarding those 
organisations that have achieved an outstan ding performance of specific, yearly to 
be defined aspects of the environment ma nagement and audit system, etc. Studies 
confirm that the measures to encourag e improved environmental management 
should in most cases be restricted to  programmes involving the provision of 
technical assistance and information.
35 
                                                 
35 "The firm, Environmental Management and Environmental Measures: lessons from a Survey of 
European Manufacturing Firms". – N. Johnstone, P. Scapecchi, B. Ytterhus and R. Wolf in Journal of 
Environmental Planning and Management; vol. 47, N° 5. 685-707, September 2004.  
 
EN 33   EN • introduction in the revised regulation of  requirements for Member States to 
promote and carry out marketing camp aigns for EMAS on a regular basis 
• increased promotion activi ties by the European Commi ssion in order to better 
explain the benefits of the scheme . Allocation of a permanent budget for 
marketing activities for EMAS; making examples of "best practices" publicly accessible on the Europa website 
4.3.2.2. Sub-option 6: reducing burde ns and creating incentives 
The EVER study made it clear the promoti on and support measures have an impact 
on the uptake of the scheme. 
Practice in a number of Member States show s that the putting in  place of different 
incentives of different types, result in a considerable raise in EMAS registrations. 
Over the last years legislation has been put in place in Italy, on both national and 
regional level: 
• on legal requirements for air emission, water, waste and soil
36, including the 
following features  
– a higher score for EMAS registered or ganisations concerning release of 
permits for the use of water (rivers, lakes);  
– an EMAS registration replaces application for renewal of permits for 
waste management activities; 
– lower (up to 50%) financia l guarantees related to company’s liability in 
the waste treatment field for EM AS (and ISO 14001) registered 
organisations; 
• on IPPC37 (Directive 96/61/CE)  
– allowing EMAS registered organisati ons to use the EMAS registration 
for application for renewal of permits; 
– a renewal of permits at 8 years interval for EMAS registered 
organisations (instead of at th e normal interval of 5 years); 
• Landfills38 (Directive 99/31/CE): 
– a renewal of permits at 8 years interval for EMAS registered 
organisations (instead of at th e normal interval of 5 years); 
• Reduced time (max 120 days) for rele asing permits for EMAS registered 
organisations. (Regione Emilia-Romagna); 
• Reduction of regional taxes for EMAS re gistered organisations in Toscana, 
Veneto, Marche; 
• reduction of applicable fees for inspecti on activities in Regione Marche for EMAS 
registered organisations. 
Thus, over the last years legislation has b een put in place in Spain, on both national 
and regional level: 
                                                 
36 Law n. 152/2006. 
37 Decree 59/2005. 
38 Decree 36/2003 
 
EN 34   EN • on IPPC39 (Directive 96/61/CE) containing exemptions of inspections for EMAS 
registered organisations 
• on environmental liability40 (Directive Directive 2004/35/CE41): providing for 
reductions and exemptions for EM AS registered organisations 
• on financial support: most of Regional Gove rnments give financial support to new 
EMAS registrations every year in form of  lumps sums or a percentage of total 
costs incurred 
• providing that registration under EM AS is free of charge in Spain 
As the graphic shows, Italy and Spain show a considerable higher raise in uptake of the 
scheme than the average uptake throughout the European Union. 
 
Therefore the implementation of financial, fiscal and market-related institutional 
measures will be effective possibilities to increase the number of participants. 
Because the Competent Bodies and envi ronmental Ministries and authorities 
currently backing the scheme, usually do not offer significant dir ect support funding 
and are not able to establish long runni ng support mechanisms, the economic benefits 
connected with the scheme itself should be raised. 
In order to stimulate and endorse this op tion, different measures would be introduced 
into the new Regulation: 
• Introduction of obligations for Member States to: 
– consider EMAS as a favourable and preferential condition for access to 
public funds. Member states will  have a wide range of general 
economic support funds in which EMAS can be used as an assessment or selection criterion for the approval  of the applicants projects and in 
which, at the same time, organisation s have to commit to continue their 
EMAS participation / registration. 
                                                
 
39 Royal Decree 509/ of 20 April 
40 Law of 9/3/2007 
41 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on 
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage as 
modified by Directive 2006/21/EC. 
 
EN 35   EN – consider granting tax breaks for EM AS registered organisations and 
application of such measures where appropriate. It is up to the MS to 
identify the appropriate fiscal measures. These types of tax brakes are to be applied at direct ta xation, such as income taxes or similar taxes 
imposed on business revenue or envi ronmental taxes. Introduction of 
the obligation in the revised EMAS regulation will guarantee a level playing field for the national economic systems. 
– implement national provisions for su pporting the use of EMAS so that 
the "power" in the market of EMAS  organisations increases. Green 
purchasing procedures might be a wa y to do so as these incentives 
increase the market demand for EM AS registration and can be very 
effective. 
• Simplifying the procedures  for registration by intr oducing the registration of 
clusters of organisations a nd the possibility for corpor ate registration in addition 
to the existing registration for individua l organisation. These measures would aim 
to have a direct cost-saving effect a nd make participation more attractive. 
• Widen the use of the logo. Under the curr ent regulation, the use of the logo is 
restricted to a number of specific cases : on validated information, on validated 
environmental statements, on registered organisation's letterheads, on information advertising an organisation's particip ation in EMAS and, under even more 
restricted conditions, in or on adverts fo r products, activities and services. Its use 
is explicitly forbidden on products or their packaging and in conjunction with 
comparative claims concerning other products, activities and services. In addition, there exist two versions of the logo a nd the guidance document on the use of the 
logo is perceived by the pa rticipating organisations as  very complicated. The logo 
is therefore not very attractive for ma ny (potential) EMAS organisations. The 
option aims to simplify the use of the EMAS logo by using one version of the 
logo only and by allowing it to be used on information advertising an organization's participation in EMAS includi ng easier use on or in advert s for products, activities and 
services and also on products or their packaging, provided that there is no 
confusion with environmental product la bels. These measures would enable 
organisations to use the logo as a more  attractive communication and marketing 
tool, they would raise awar eness by customers and ther efore the attr activeness of 
the scheme for participating organisations; 
• Improve, facilitate and widen the use of  the environmental report. Under the 
current Regulation, the contents of envir onmental reports are not harmonised due 
to the fact that the environmental perf ormance measurement is not harmonised. 
The format of most environmental repo rts is often ineffective for external 
communication purposes. As a result, the environmental reports are nor used for communication purposes very much. 
The option aims at ensuring that the conten ts of the environmental report will be 
better harmonized throug h the use of core performance i ndicators and that the format 
will be improved so that it will be a bette r communication tool towards stakeholders 
This, the environmental report can beco me a more attractive communication and 
marketing tool for participating organi sations, which will raise awareness by 
customers. 
 
EN 36   EN 4.3.2.3. Sub-option 7: clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 
The link between EMAS and the ISO14001 environmental management system 
should be clarified in the Re gulation for organisations that  wish to opt for the latter 
as well as for EMAS. The text of the revise d Regulation should in particular enable 
organisations to identify the common re quirements and the differences between 
EMAS and ISO 14001. 
The new regulation therefore invites Memb er States to clarify the links and 
complementarities with other environment management schemes so that registration 
or participation in national environment management schemes can be taken into 
account when an organisation applie s for registration under EMAS and vice versa.  
4.3.2.4. Sub-option 8: links with othe r EU legislation/instruments 
The current EMAS regulation obliges Member States in its article 10(2) to consider 
how EMAS registration can be taken in to account in the implementation and 
enforcement of environmental legislation, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by both organisations and enforcement authorities. In its report to the Council and the European Parliament on incentives for EMAS registered 
organisations
42, the Commission emphasizes how EM AS can support Member States 
both in policy making and implementation in order to alleviate the burden of 
regulatory pressure and str eamlining their own resources. 
The aim of this option is to stimulat e further reduction of the regulatory and 
administrative burden by introducing elements that create synergies with, and allow for, closer operational links between EMAS and other EU legislation and 
instruments. 
At the same time, as part of the bette r Regulation initiatives in the Community, 
references to the revised EMAS Regulation should, where appropriate, be incorporated into other EU legislation. 
The introduction of core performance indi cators and the reinforcement of legal 
compliance will allow the environmental statements of EMAS registered organisations (performance reports) to be used as a reference point in the context of other EU legislation (e.g. in Green Pub lic Procurement, Integrated Pollution 
Prevention Control). This would then re duce the administrative burden for EMAS 
registered organisations by way of regulat ory flexibility. Regulatory flexibility may 
include both regulatory relief (substitution of  legal requirements without changes in 
environmental legislation as such) or dere gulation (changes in th e legislation itself).
43 
Examples of ways to apply regula tory flexibility are to use EMAS: 
• as a factor in risk assessment, with effects on site insp ections frequencies, 
insurance, governmental  fees and penalties;44 
                                                 
42 COM(2004)745 report to the Council and the European Parliament on incentives for EMAS registered 
organisations 
43 Till now, it has not been possible to identify and collect evidence on the effects of these measures 
because most of the measures intr oduced by member states are very re cent and in many cases not yet 
fully effective. 
44 Some of these measures are already no w applied in UK, DE, PT, NL, CZ and IT 
 
EN 37   EN • as a substitute for certain legal requi rements, such as periodical reporting, 
authorisation and perm it procedures etc. 45 
• a condition enabling for a longer du ration of environmental permits.46 
4.3.2.5. Sub-option 9: EMAS global 
One of the important reasons that organi sations chose for ISO 14001 rather than for 
EMAS is the fact that ISO 14001 is globa lly recognised and EMAS is limited to 
organisations in the EU. The option aims to make EMAS global. The same requirements will apply to outside EU or ganisations. Organisations outside the EU 
wishing to participate in EMAS have to apply for registration at a Competent Body 
in one of the EU Member States a nd be verified by an EU verifier. 
Making EMAS global will, by enhancing the visibility and raising awareness, raise 
the attractiveness of the scheme not only to organisations outside of the EU that have 
presence or trade with the EU, but also to organisations in the EU that have 
international presence or trade abroad. Organisations can then use EMAS as a communication tool to thei r international customers.  
4.3.3. Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly 
4.3.3.1. Sub-option 10: re-wri ting text Regulation 
Literature, the EVER study and the public co nsultation have confir med that currently 
organisations experience difficulties to exactly understand the requirements and the different steps in the EMAS system. This option consists therefore of the re-writing of the text of the Regulation in a more logical and easier-to-understand way to make it easier for candidate organi sations, notably SMEs and small public authorities, to 
apply, as they should more clearly understand what their exact requirements are under the scheme and what the different st eps in the EMAS re gistration procedure 
are. 
4.3.3.2. Sub-option 11: integration of Guidelines in the Regulation 
The EMAS-Regulation is complemented by a number of different guidelines that are 
of a different character.
47 Due to this situation, organi sations have expressed that 
they perceived it difficult to understand b ecause the exact obligations and mechanism 
under the current legal situation. This option consists of integrating into the new Regulation those elements of the differe nt existing non-binding EMAS Guidelines 
that have proved to be useful for im plementation and interpretation of the 
Regulation. These elements will, in the form of  annexes, form an integral part of the 
new Regulation and thus improve legal certainty and clarity of requirements.  
4.4. Options discarded at an early stage 
The option of making EMAS mandatory to al l, or even to only certain types, of 
specific organisations (e.g. very polluting co mpanies, very large local authorities), 
was discarded at an early-stage, as this would change the voluntary character of the 
instrument, which is spec ifically defined by the 6
th EAP as one of the elements of the 
strategic approaches to m eeting environmental objectives, especially within the 
                                                 
45 Already now applied in DE, AT, IT, SE, NL and LU. 
46 Already now applied in LU, SL, DE and IT. 
47 see before description of system and legal instruments in Section 2(1)(a). 
 
EN 38   EN context of improving collaboration a nd partnership with enterprises and 
organisations with a view to improving the environmental performance of these 
enterprises and organisations.48 
The option of lowering the standard of EMAS to make it easier so that more 
organisations would join was considered, but discarded at an early stage, as there are 
already many competing similar schemes with lower ambitions than EMAS and 
lowering the EU scheme to their level w ould mean that EMAS would become just 
another one of them, hence a dding no value to having EMAS. 
                                                 
48 Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme. Official Journal of the European Communities 
of 10/09/2002; L 242 p.1 
 
EN 39   EN 5. A NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Expected economic, social and environmen tal impacts of each of the short-listed 
options 
5.1.1. Environmental impact 
The evaluation study and the REMAS pr oject confirm that organisations 
participating in EMAS, already now, do im prove their environmental performances. 
As indicated before on pages 8-10 of this document, EMAS is even identified by the 
REMAS project as the best of all currentl y existing similar systems when it comes to 
overall environmental performance on the site. 
(i) The option of continuing with the pr esent approach will not increase the level 
of environmental performance im provement that individual EMAS 
organisations would achieve. This as such is not a problem, as the level 
environmental performance is alrea dy satisfactory and is continuously 
improving. However, perhaps more importantly, this option will not generate a significant increase in the number of or ganisations using the scheme. Currently 
there are about 5000 EMAS registered site s, with an annual growth of 500 per 
year over recent years. 
The overall environmental impact of the scheme, which results from the 
combined effect of the environmental performance of single EMAS organisations multiplied by the number of organisations participating in the scheme, will therefore remain at the current level, which does not use the full potential of the scheme. 
(ii) The option of phasing out the scheme
 will have a direct negative impact on 
the environmental performance of indivi dual organisations, as some, maybe a 
majority, of the organisations which are currently participating in the scheme 
will downgrade the higher level of e nvironmental performance that they 
needed to maintain in order to remain registered with the EMAS scheme. As the individual environmental performa nce of registered organisations under 
EMAS has been identified in the EVER st udy as being the best of all currently 
existing similar schemes, a negative imp act on the environment will also occur, 
though to a lesser extent, when organi sations move from EMAS to other 
systems, like the ISO 14001 standard. 
The discontinuation of EMAS will also have an indirect negative 
environmental impact on global level. The evaluation study confirms that, like 
other EU policies, EMAS tends to be  perceived as a benchmark for best 
practice. Thus, many organisations fo llow the principles of EMAS, even 
though they do not register with the sc heme for cost or other reasons. Many 
environmental programs or systems, including ISO14001, openly take EMAS 
as the highest reference, which they em ulate to some extent. Without EMAS it 
might be expected that those or ganisations will downgrade their 
environmental performance and that ex isting similar systems to EMAS will 
relax, rather than strengthen thei r environmental requirements.  
The phasing-out of EMAS will also  have a negative impact on the 
environment as some 5000 organisati ons will discontinue being EMAS 
registered, and about 500 annually expect ed additional registrations will not 
 
EN 40   EN be realised. 
Some stakeholders argued that because EMAS missed its objective in terms of 
diffusion in the market, it should be pha sed out and other in itiatives, namely 
ISO 14001, should be instead encouraged  and supported because the number 
of ISO14001 registrations largely exceed s the number of EMAS registrations. 
After careful analysis, this option has b een discarded. As indicated before at 
pages 8-10, EMAS has been identified in  the REMAS study as being the best 
of all currently existing similar sche mes with regard to the individual 
environmental performance improvement  of registered organisations.  
The strength of the EMAS system, wh ich is the reason why the European 
Union and the Member States have tr ied to position EM AS as the best 
standard for environmental management, is believed to be those features that go beyond the other existing environmen t management systems, being the 
following: 
• EMAS requires annual continual im provement of the environmental 
performance of the organisation, checked and verified by an independent 
environmental verifier, where ISO 14001 only requires continual 
improvement of the EMS;  
• EMAS requires legal compliance, checked and verified by an independent 
environmental verifier in the initial environmental review and in the 
environmental auditing (non-compliance leads to non-validation and non-registration), where ISO 14001 requires only that an organisation makes a 
commitment to be legal compliant; 
• EMAS requires an initial environmenta l review as part of the EMS as a 
basis for the definition of an appropr iate environmental policy and for the 
implementation of the EMS. This requires the collection of all significant environmental aspects of the organisati on in question and it s relevant legal 
requirements, where ISO 14001 does not include such requirement; 
• EMAS requires that all environmental aspects of the organisation have to 
be considered for the determination of  significant environmental aspects, 
where ISO 14001 requires only that a procedure is defined to identify all environmental aspects; 
• In EMAS the internal environmental auditing includes an environmental 
management system audit, an envi ronmental performance audit and an 
environmental compliance audit, wher e the internal audit under ISO 14001 
is an environmental management system audit; 
• EMAS requires an environmental statement, which is an additional 
element of the scheme that goes bey ond the establishment, implementation 
and maintenance of an EMS. This requirement ensures that organisations enter into an open dialogue with the public and other interested parties 
including local communities and customers with regard to the environmental impact of their activities, products and services in order to identify the public's and other intere sted parties' concerns. ISO 14001 does 
not include such requirement; 
• EMAS requires employee involvement in the development and 
 
EN 41   EN implementation of the system. It is generally recognise d that increased 
awareness and involvement of employ ees has the potential to drastically 
improve the environmental performance of an organisation . ISO 14001 does not include such requirement. 
(iii) The option of substantially modifying the scheme
 will need the introduction 
of a number of different measures. 
A number of these measures have a di rect positive environmental impact on 
the performance of indi vidual organisations. Th ese are the following 
measures: 
• The strengthening of the requirement of legal compliance  will improve an 
organisations capability to meet the applicable environmental legal and 
regulatory requirements. Th ere is evidence that organisations that are 
effectively legal compliant, have also  a high standard of environmental 
performance. 
• The reporting on generic and sectoral performance indicators  
corresponding to environmental priori ties such as energy efficiency; 
material efficiency; waste; biodiver sity and emissions, in particular CO 2 
emissions, should position EMAS not  only as a proc ess leading to 
environmental improvement, but as a performance-based scheme showing 
the concrete results obtaine d by the registered orga nisation in terms of key 
environmental performances. This s hould strengthen th e added-value of 
EMAS compared to other Environm ental Management Schemes, in 
particular for those organisations wh ich are willing to demonstrate their 
environmental performance on the basis of clear specifications based on agreed priorities. This will also allow the measurement of environmental improvements made individually, s ectorally and globally by EMAS 
registered organisations. 
Once this positive direct environmental impact is recognised by the market, 
this will also lead to an increase in the uptake of the scheme and this have an indirect positive environmental impact. 
Most of the measures have an indirect environmental im pact as they lead to an 
increased attractiveness of the scheme . These are the following measures: 
• laying down, more specific rules on accreditation 
for EMAS in addition to 
the system set up by Regulation (EC) N° xxxx/2008 of the European 
parliament and of the Council of [……………. date] setting out the requirements for accreditation and mark et surveillance relating to the 
marketing of products and harmonisi ng procedures for verification and 
validation  for EMAS improves the consistency in the implementation of 
the scheme. This will increase the strength of the scheme and will have a positive impact on the number of participating organisations. 
• Increasing awareness of the actors in the scheme, including the public at 
large, will increase market-demand and the competitive advantages of the 
scheme, thus raising the attractivene ss for organisations to participate. 
Promotion and support
 actions undertaken by national authorities and on 
Community level, will have an indir ect positive impact on the number of 
participating organisations, as the lack  of "reward" resu lting from the lack 
 
EN 42   EN of knowledge and demand for EMAS is  identified by the respondents in 
the EVER study as one of the main ba rriers for the growth of the scheme. 
• Making the system more attractiv e by reducing burdens and creating 
incentives through the implementation of  financial, fiscal and market-
related institutional measures, will be  a strong impulse for the number of 
EMAS participants, which could in itiate a snowball effect, leading go 
many more registrations, as these measures, described earlier in this 
document on pages 33-34, have been identified as the most desirable 
according to the organisations that are or consider implementation of the scheme. 
• Clarifying links and complementarit ies with other schemes so that 
registration or participat ion in national environment management schemes 
can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards EMAS, will have a positive impact on the number of organisations participating in EMAS. The uptake of EMAS will then not be a separate and isolated process, but is more a next step to  the system leading to the highest 
environmental performance.  
• linking EMAS with other EU legislation/instruments so that EMAS 
registration can be taken into account in the implementation and 
enforcement of environmental legislat ion, will equally make the system 
more attractive. The impact in terms of retaining registered organisations 
and attracting new applican ts is likely to be high. 
• Making EMAS global
 will have as result a considerable raise in uptake of 
the scheme, as the fact that EMAS is limited to the EU is one of the important reasons that organisations chose for ISO 14001 rather than for 
EMAS  
• Making EMAS global
 will lead to an additional increase in uptake of the 
scheme by many multinational export-b ased EU companies and also many 
companies based in third countries, e xporting to the EU. At the same time 
globalisation of EMAS will have an indirect environmental effect on the environmental performance through eas ier co-operation for environmental 
improvement within those supply chains  that include companies located or 
operating in third countries. 
• Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly
, such as the 
rewriting of the text of and the integr ation of Guidelines in the regulation 
will have a positive impact on the number of participating organisations, especially SMEs and small public author ities, as the difficulties in exactly 
understanding the requirements and the different steps in the EMAS system is identified as an obstacle by mainly SMEs and small public authorities. 
These factors will have a multiplie r effect on the already increased 
environmental performance of individual organisations and will thus result in 
an over all direct and strong positive environmental impact. 
The substantial modification of EMAS will also have other indirect positive 
environmental impacts on global level. Like numerous other EU policies, EMAS has been used as the model according to which a number of 
 
EN 43   EN environment management systems have  been developed, often with lower 
impact or requirements than the EU syst em. It can therefore be expected that 
national or international environment management systems will be influenced by the strengthened EMAS Regulation. In  addition, it can also be expected 
that organisations will follow the principl es of EMAS even in  case they do not 
register with the scheme. 
This option of substantially modify will therefore enable the EU to deliver 
better and more focused environmental be nefits, both directly and indirectly. 
The result of these positive impacts s hould drastically increase the overall 
environmental impact of the scheme. 
It is at this stage not possible to predict the exact increase in uptake of the 
scheme. Quantitative data on costs and the impact of the different measures 
are not available. Moreover, a number of options are interrelated or are market-based. 
This being said, the objective is in the long run (10 years after the entry into 
force of the revised EMAS Regulation) to have a number of registered organisations or sites that equals the number of organisations or sires 
currently certified under the ISO 14001:2004 standard on environmental 
management systems (35.000). As an inte rmediate objective (5 years) the aim 
is to reach a number of EMAS registered  sites that equals the average of the 
three Member States with currently the highest number of registered sites per million of inhabitants. This results in an envisaged total of 23.000 EMAS 
registered sites 5 years after the entry into force of the revised EMAS Regulation.
49 
5.1.2. Economic impact 
Confirmed by a number of respondents in the EVER study and a recent OECD 
study,50 environmental-commercial "win-win" situations exist for organisations 
participating in EMAS. This is also illustrated before on pages 21-23 of this document. Organisations, especially priv ate sector organisations, but also public 
sector organisations, undert ake initiatives to improve environmental performance 
which are in their private commercial interest. Indeed, by implementing a series of best available techniques and good environmen tal practices, savings are generated as 
a result of increased efficiency and produc tivity of the organi sation. In addition, 
indirect economic impacts can result from  EMAS, such as the availability or 
development of new markets, improved imag e of the organisation and better over-all 
performance as a result of increased wellb eing and motivation of an organisation's 
personnel through involvement in the scheme. 
                                                
 
49 2007 gives an average of 48,27 EMAS registered sties per million inhabitants in the three Member 
States with the highest number of EMAS registered sites per million inhabitants. These Member States 
are Austria (61,85 sites / million inhabitants), Denmark 50,60 sites / million inhabitants) and Belgium 
(32,37 sites / million inhabitants). On a total of 478,5 million inhabitants in the European Union, the 
total envisaged number of EMAS registered sites after 5 years after the entry into force of the revised 
EMAS Regulation will thus be 23.000. 
50 Environmental Policy and Corporate Behaviour, Edited by N Johnstone; Empirical Policy Analysis 
Unit, OECD Environment Directorate, France; published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; © 
OECD, 2007. 
 
EN 44   EN Therefore, it can be said that EMAS cont ributes to the developm ent of a profitable 
economic strategy both for the individua l organisations and on macro-level. 
(i) The option of continuing with the present approach  will not drastically 
change the current level of EMAS-rela ted spending by the Commission or the 
Member States. 
The total amount of spending by the Commission on EMAS51 is relatively 
small when compared to the overall budget of DG Enviro nment. Although it 
was not possible to collect precise in formation on the amount of financial 
resources spent on EMAS by Member States , it is expected that this amount is 
also relatively small when compared to their overall environmental budget. 
Because of the voluntary nature of EMAS, the scheme has no mandatory 
negative economic impact on organisations : only those that join the scheme 
are faced with the economic conseque nces (positive – cost reduction, better 
image, etc; and negative – cost of implementation, 3rd party verification and 
registration) of implementing and running it. As the system is voluntary, it can 
be assumed that most organisations will only join EMAS when the positive economic consequences outweigh the cost s involved with the first registration 
and the implementation (registration f ees, investment in cleaner technology 
etc.). Even where this might not immediately be so, the evaluation study 
confirms that all in all, EMAS pays itself  back in the long run, as participating 
organisations, especially the smaller ones, professionalise and systematise 
their processes and as a result, reduce their costs and improve their use of 
resources, as well as improve their im age and relationship with stakeholders. 
However, the study also highlights that the bureaucracy of the scheme and the 
fact that some of its requirement-related administrative set-up sometimes bear unnecessary costs to organisations, especia lly smaller ones. In that sense, the 
option of keeping EMAS as it is, does not provide the chance to improve the 
economic impact of the scheme on participating organisations. 
(ii) The option of phasing out the scheme
, although there will obviously be 
immediate savings of current running cost s, will have direct negative economic 
consequences for Member States which are running the EMAS scheme, 
especially for new ones that have recently invested in setting up the structures for running and promoting it (accr editation body, competent body, promotion 
and technical assistance activities, etc) . There will obviously be also direct 
negative economic consequences for the EMAS verifiers in the different Member States.
52 
It will also have dire ct negative economic conse quences on the 5,000 plus 
sites in the EU that have invested  in implementing and running a scheme 
which will no longer exist and whose benefits will disappear. 
For the Commission, the financial and human resources saved by 
discontinuing EMAS will be very small, and arguably, not worth the downgrading of the environmental level th at closing the scheme would cause. 
                                                
 
51 507.000 € for 2007, which includes limited promotion activities at EU level. 
52 Currently there are aroun d 300 EMAS-verifiers accredited, of which 200 are accredited in Germany. 
 
EN 45   EN (iii) The option of substantially modifying the scheme  requires the introduction of 
a number of different measures of which some have a direct positive economic impact for participating organisations . These are the following measures: 
• The introduction of core performance indicators
 will enable organisations 
to reach a higher level of conti nuous environmental and therefore 
economic improvement. 
• At the same time, a positive ec onomic impact for participating 
organisations will be the result of cost reduction through simplifying the 
procedure for registration  of clusters of organisations and the introduction 
of the possibility of corporate registrations. 
• The introduction of closer operationa l links between EMAS and other EU 
legislation and instruments  will result in direct cost-savings for 
participating organisations as th is will avoid duplicate reporting and 
verification. 
• The introduction of tax incentives  as a means to suppo rt the uptake of 
EMAS would have a negative impact on  MS tax revenues, but it can be 
expected that when Member States  are considering introduction of 
supporting tax measures, they would assess the impact of those tax measures and only introduce measures where they had a net benefit. 
Other measures, that create incentives a nd raise benefits of the scheme, have 
an indirect economic impact as they l ead to an increased attractiveness and a 
higher uptake of the scheme. These measures, also listed before as generating a higher environmental impact as result of the higher uptake  of the scheme, 
are the following: 
• further harmonising procedures for accreditation
 in addition to the system 
set up by Regulation (EC) N° xxxx/2008 of the European parliament and 
of the Council of [……………. date] setting out the requirements for 
accreditation and market surveillance re lating to the marketing of products 
and harmonising verification and valid ation requirements and procedures  
will increase the strength of the scheme and will have a positive impact on the number of participating organisations. 
• Increasing awareness of the actors in the scheme, including the public at 
large, by promotion and support ac tions both on Community and on 
Member state level, will raise the attractiveness for organisations to participate. Promotion and support
 actions undertaken by national 
authorities and on Community level, w ill have an indirect positive impact 
on the number of participating organi sations, as the lack of "reward" 
resulting from the lack of knowledge and demand for EMAS is identified 
by the respondents in the EVER study as  one of the main barriers for the 
growth of the scheme. 
The introduction such measures will be a strong impulse for the 
number of EMAS participants, but they cannot be implemented without considerable resource  deployment by the European 
Commission and the Member States. 
• Making the system more attractiv e by reducing burdens and creating 
 
EN 46   EN incentives  through the implementation of fi nancial, fiscal and market-
related institutional measures, will also result in a higher uptake of the scheme, as these measures, have been identified as the most desirable according to the organisations that are or consider implementation of the scheme. 
• Clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes
 so that 
registration or participat ion in national environment management schemes 
can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards EMAS, will have a positive impact on the number of organisations participating in EMAS. The uptake of EMAS will then not be a separate and isolated process, but is more a next step to  the system leading to the highest 
environmental performance.  
• linking EMAS with other EU legislation/instruments
 s o  t h a t  E M A S  
registration can be taken into account in the implementation and 
enforcement of environmental legislat ion, will equally make the system 
more attractive. The impact in terms of retaining registered organisations 
and attracting new applican ts is likely to be high. 
• Making EMAS global  will have as result a considerable raise in uptake of 
the scheme, as the fact that EMAS is limited to the EU is one of the important reasons that organisations chose for ISO 14001 rather than for 
EMAS. Making EMAS global will lead to  an additional increase in uptake 
of the scheme by many multinational export-based EU companies and also many companies based in third countries,  exporting to the EU. At the same 
time globalisation of EMAS will have an indirect environmental effect on the environmental performance through easier co-operation for 
environmental improvement within those supply chains that include 
companies located or oper ating in third countries. 
Making EMAS global will imply an increase in the economic 
resources to run the scheme, such as promotion activities in third 
countries. This option also implies a raise in the co sts for Member 
States in case the registration ha s to be done in one of the EU 
Member States. As the systems in the Member sates are already in 
place, the economic impact may be rather moderate. 
• Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly
, such as the 
rewriting of the text of and the integr ation of Guidelines in the regulation 
will have a positive impact on the number of participating organisations, especially SME and small public authoritie, as the difficulties in exactly understanding the requirements and the different steps in the EMAS 
system is identified as an obstacle by mainly SMEs. 
It should be born in mind that EMAS is a voluntary scheme and that two 
different types of organisations can pa rticipate: private sector and public 
sector organisations. 
It can be expected that the motivation of  private sector organisations to join 
the scheme will primarily be of an economic nature and that these 
organisations will therefore join the scheme only if the total economic benefits outweigh the costs – as a wa y of improving the s ituation of their 
business. In the private sector, this d ecision will include indirect monetary 
 
EN 47   EN benefits of the system – for example the reputational benefits  – and these are a 
driver for uptake of EMAS. It depends  therefore also on the perception of 
these indirect benefits how many private sector organisations  will decide to 
join the scheme. As the measures fo r the substantial m odification of the 
scheme will increase these indirect be nefits, the rise in  uptake should be 
considerable. (84% of the respondents in the EVER study considered the 
competitive advantage of the "improved image" an important factor in the decision to join the scheme. 
The decision for public sector orga nisations is not primarily based on 
economic considerations, but can bri ng economic gains. Main reason for 
public sector organisations for imple menting EMAS is contributing to 
environmental protection and improvemen t and the intention to set the good 
example. Introduction of the measures  aimed at making EMAS the best 
system, will therefore have a high imp act on the uptake by public authorities. 
Constraint by budgetary limits, the intr oduction of measures reducing costs or 
enabling cost savings on other fields, will equally have a positive impact on the uptake of EMAS by local authorities. 
Re-launching the EMAS scheme, as well as putting in place the structures to 
implement the changes proposed to the new Regulation will require some up-
front investment both by the Com mission and the Member States. 
Particular attention has been put to  minimise as much as possible the 
additional cost of new measures to be  introduced into the revised scheme. 
However, some of these investments are inevitable during the communication 
campaign associated with the launch of a new scheme, and some other investments will be the price to pay for a higher positive environmental contribution of the scheme, at singl e organisation level, or overall. 
5.1.3. Social and employment impacts 
The EMAS has not been aimed at, or designe d to provide a significant positive social 
impact in Europe. However, the evaluation study confirms that EMAS has a positive 
social impact on participating organisati ons, as the specific EMAS requirement to 
involve employees and workers in the implementation process of the scheme 
increase their work satisfaction and morale , as well as knowledge of environmental 
issues, which they can replicate in, a nd outside of their work environment. 
(i) The option of continuing with the present approach
 will not change the 
requirement to involve employees and workers in the EMAS implementation, 
and running process. It will therefore not have any positive or negative impact 
on the current positive social impact of the scheme. 
(ii) The option of phasing out the scheme  will have a small negative social 
impact, as some, maybe even a major ity of the organisations which are 
currently participating in the scheme will downgrade the higher level of employee information and participation that  they needed to maintain to remain 
registered with the scheme. 
(iii) The option of substantially modifying the scheme
 will not change the 
requirement to involve employees and workers in the EMAS implementation, 
and running process. It can however be expected that the satisfaction and 
morale of the employees and workers wi ll rise with the improvement of the 
 
EN 48   EN environmental and economic performance of the organisation. In addition, the 
expected significant increased uptake of  EMAS in the market will in turn 
increase the overall positive so cial impact of the scheme. 
5.2. Positive and negative impact s of the different options 
5.2.1. Option 1: continuing with the present approach 
Pros  This option will provide stability for New Member States which just started 
implementing the scheme and current users. No significant extra effort will be required by the Commission or by the Member States at the different 
organisational and co-ordination levels . By maintaining EMAS as a voluntary 
tool, the Community still has at its disposal an instrument based on an 
approach of shared responsibility with  business in the area of environmental 
protection, as one of the essential elements laid down in the sixth 
Environmental Action Programme
53 as a means to improve collaboration and 
partnership with enterprises as a strate gic approach to meeting environmental 
objectives. Voluntary commitments ar e an essential part thereof. 
Cons This option will not provide the opportunity of improving and strengthening 
the system and thereby its much wider diffusion, especially outside the EU and 
towards SMEs and small public author ities. Slightly expanding EMAS 
expenditures will still require a management effort by the Commission and the Member States. Without some bigger 'pus h', the continued low take-up of the 
scheme in many Member States will unde rmine its credibility and its overall 
positive impact, both environmental, economic and social, will remain modest and below the full potential of the scheme. 
The visibility of the scheme will not increase and uneven distribution between 
the Member States is likely to preva il. Member States would criticise the 
Commission for not taking positive action to  support the scheme in the future. 
As a result, the obstacles for a higher upt ake of EMAS will continue to exist. 
When the present approach will simply be maintained, it will be difficult to 
encouraging a wider uptake of the Community's eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), as pointed out by th e sixth Environmen t Action Programme 
as one of the actions to be undertaken. In addition, recognising that there is a 
need to improve the functioning of the voluntary instruments that have been 
designed for industry, that these tools have  a great potential but have not been 
fully developed, the mid-term review of the sixth Community Environment 
Action Programme
54 called upon the Commission to revise these schemes in 
order to promote their uptake and reduce administrative burdens in their management. When continuing the present approach, these actions will not be 
undertaken and it will be impossi ble to meet these objectives. 
                                                
 
53 Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242 of 10/09/2002, p.1. 
54 COM(2007) 225 final: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions on the Mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, adopted by 
the Commission on 30/04/2007; not yet published. 
 
EN 49   EN 5.2.2. Option 2: phasing out the scheme  
Pros Gradual phase-out means a less evident loss of credibility for the Commission 
and lower level of conflict with some Member States than if it terminated abruptly the scheme. Financial and huma n resources would be set free for new 
initiatives in the field of the environment. 
Cons This option will have negative environmen tal and economic impacts. This will 
be the case for those organisations th at will abandon the scheme, but it will 
have equally an upstream and a downs tream effect of the organisations 
applying EMAS as these generally take into account environmental 
considerations when selecting thei r suppliers and service providers. 
Phasing out of the scheme that is curre ntly regarded as the scheme with the 
potential entails the risk of having significant negative influence on the 
overall perception of EU environmenta l policy, as phasing out the scheme 
would send the signal that the Commi ssion is downgrading its environmental 
policy.  The Community would loose an envir onmental instrument in its policy 
mix. It would also loose an opportunity  to influence and raise the level-
playing field for private similar volunt ary initiatives to deliver meaningful 
environmental improvements to participating organisations.  
Terminating EMAS, one of the two EU voluntary instruments (EMAS and 
Eco-label) might also be interpreted as a move towards more command-and-
control policies. Several Member States and other EU institutions would likely criticise the Commission heavily and relevant communities which have been involved with the implementation of the scheme and want it to continue would also likely attack the Commission for letting them down. 
As set out above the objectives defi ned by the sixth Environmental Action 
Programme and confirmed by the mid-te rm review of the sixth Community 
Environment Action Programme, can not be met when the scheme will be 
abandoned. 
Finally, there would also be a loss of opportunity to turn EMAS into a 
successful instrument. 
5.2.3. Option 3: substantiall y modifying the scheme 
As the obstacles for a highe r uptake of EMAS are now well understood, this option 
of substantially modify the scheme offers an opportunity to co rrect the weak points 
identified by the studies that have been  carried out and confirmed by stakeholders. 
Through introduction of a number of substant ive changes, EMAS can become what it 
was originally designed to be: a sizeable  voluntary alternative to traditional 
command and control legislation, which addr esses all types of organisations, which 
is business friendly and which helps the EU achieve its overall environmental 
objectives and priorities. 
It might be difficult to reach agreement on some of the suggested changes, 
particularly related to providing incentiv es to EMAS organisations. A number of 
radical changes will also require some up-front investment by the Commission and/or the Member States. It  is however felt that, even where the measures have 
budgetary implications for Co mmission or Member States , the benefits of the 
measures proposed outweigh these negative cost-aspects. Thus, negative impacts on 
 
EN 50   EN member state tax revenues might be compensated for example by an increase of 
taxes on the most polluting companies. 
To mitigate the budgetary implications, a  smooth transition is needed towards the 
revised Regulation. 
The substantial modification of the scheme  implies the introduction of a number of 
changes and measures, that are set out in Section 4 of this document. The pro's and 
con's of each of these measures is considered below. 
Sub-option 1: clarifying, improving an d strengthening the legal compliance 
mechanism. 
pros • improves an organisations capabil ity to meet the applicable 
environmental legal and regulatory requirements 
• ensuring that organisations seek advice and opinion from the Member 
State Regulators in the process of identifying the applicable 
environmental legislation and on th e state of compliance of this 
legislation at an early stage be fore the first EMAS registration 
• result in a dialogue be tween the organisation and the regulator and 
offers EMAS as a tool for Member  States regulators to reduce the 
administrative burden of registered organisations.  
cons  • implication of Member state regulat ors creating budgetary implications 
Sub-option 2 and 3: reporting – core performance indicators and sectoral 
reference documents 
pros  • harmonisation with regard to repo rting on environmental performance 
• compare either performance of diffe rent organisations or performance 
of one organisation over di fferent reporting periods 
• more clarity on the (potential) benefits of EMAS 
• can lead to the development of best practices, benchmarks and 
performance indicators for individual sectors 
cons  • none 
Sub-option 4: further harmonising procedur es for accreditation, verification and 
validation 
pros  • improve the consistency in the implementation of the scheme 
throughout Europe  
cons  • none 
Sub-option 5: increase of promotion and support 
pros  • raises awareness of all stakeholders, including not only the actors in the 
scheme and the public at large 
 
EN 51   EN • experience can be used and resources can be moderate  
cons  • allocation of a permanent budget for marketing activities for EMAS is 
necessary 
Sub-option 6: reducing burdens and creating incentives 
pros  • raises attractiveness of the scheme  for participating organisations 
• positive impact on the uptake of the scheme 
a Introduction of obligations for Member States to: 
- consider EMAS as a favourable  and preferential condition for 
access to public funds. 
pros  • creates market-related advantage 
• cons • adds complexity to award of public funds 
- consider granting tax breaks for EMAS registered organisations 
and application of such measures where appropriate. 
pros  • creates market-related advantage 
• increases attractiveness of the scheme 
• guarantees a level playi ng field for the national 
economic systems 
cons  • budgetary implications for Member states tax 
revenues 
- implement national provisions fo r supporting the use of EMAS  
pros  • increases market power of EMAS organisations 
cons  • budgetary implications for Member states 
b Simplifying the procedures for registration by introducing the 
registration of clusters of organ isations and the possibility for 
corporate registration  
pros  • direct cost-saving e ffect for organisations  
• makes participation in EMAS more attractive  
cons  • decrease in income for Member States as result of 
combined (cluster/corporate) registration, but at the same 
time this will be compensated by increase in uptake from EMAS and more registrations 
c Widen the use of the logo.  
 
EN 52   EN pros  • allowing use of logo on information advertising an 
organization's participation in EMAS 
• easier use on or in adverts for products, activities and 
services 
• use of logo also on products or their packaging  
• EMAS more attractive for organisations  
cons  • maybe difficult to ensure that no confusion with 
environmental product labels wi ll be created with use of 
EMAS logo on products and their packaging 
d Improve, facilitate and widen the use of the environmental report.  
pros  • better harmonized through the use of core performance 
indicators 
• format will be improved so that it will be a better 
communication tool towards stakeholders 
• become a more attractive communication and marketing 
tool for participating organisations 
• raise awareness by customers  
cons  • none 
Sub-option 7: clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 
pros  • registration or participation in national environment management 
schemes can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards 
EMAS 
• uptake of EMAS will then not be a separate and isolated process, but is 
more a next step to the system l eading to the highest environmental 
performance 
• positive impact on the number of organisations participating in EMAS 
cons  • none 
Sub-option 8: links with othe r EU legislation/instruments 
pros  • reduction of regulatory and administrative burden 
• clear incentive for hi gher uptake of EMAS 
• Regulatory flexibility possible by way of regulatory relief or 
deregulation (EMAS as a factor in risk assessment; as a substitute for 
certain legal requirement or as a condition enabling longer duration of 
environmental permits) 
cons  • none 
 
EN 53   EN Sub-option9: EMAS global 
pros  • enhance the visibility  and raise awareness 
• raise the attractiveness of the scheme to organisations outside of the EU 
that have presence or trade with the EU 
• raise the attractiveness of the scheme  to organisations in the EU that 
have international presence or trade abroad  
cons • none 
Sub-options 10 and 11: re-writing text Regu lation and integration of Guidelines in 
the Regulation 
pros  • system easier to understand for organisations, notably SMEs 
• improve legal certainty and clarity of requirements 
cons • moderate budgetary imp lications for Commission 
5.3. Impacts in the EU and outside the EU 
The current scope of applica tion of the EMAS Regulation is  limited to the EU and its 
impact on organisations outside the EU is  therefore minimal. Opening EMAS to 
organisations outside the EU will enable those that have expressed an interest in the scheme, to participate. This presents an opportunity to increase the overall environmental impact of the scheme, through a higher overall number of 
organisations participating in the scheme. 
5.4. Impacts likely to change over time 
As experience showed, most strikingly in Germany, Italy and Spain with the current 
Regulation, initial investment (financia lly, politically, or technically) from the 
Member State created a positive atmosphere for the development of the scheme, whose gradual higher up-take in the market  created higher interest by other candidate 
organisations, and in turn higher number of  organisations joining the scheme. It is 
expected that with the new measures in troduced in the revised EMAS Regulation, 
which will make it more attractive for candi date organisations, the same 'snow ball' 
effect will be replicated to a larger scale,  this time also in other Member States. 
5.5. Social groups, economic sectors or particular re gions affected 
The very concept of the current  scheme is that any type of  organisation, big or small, 
from the private or public sector from  any region in the EU, can participate 
voluntarily in the scheme as long as they meet its strict  environmental performance 
improvement requirements over and a bove compliance with environmental 
legislation as a minimum requirement. 
With the proposed measure to open EMAS re gistration to organi sations outside of 
the EU, the geographical impact would be extended. 
5.6. Potential obstacles to compliance 
Member States are currently the main actors in the proper functioning and 
development of the EMAS scheme in th e EU. They run EMAS accreditation bodies, 
Competent Bodies, promote the scheme, pa rticularly to SMEs and small public 
 
EN 54   EN authorities, and provide incen tives to EMAS organisations . As the evaluation study 
has shown, the scheme currently receives ve ry uneven support from Member States 
governments, even though this is an ob ligation under the cu rrent Regulation.  
Even more than in the current Regulation, Member States will be asked to support 
and promote the scheme, and in particular, provide significant incentives to EMAS 
organisations, which, if they implement the new EMAS, will be implementing the best available environmental performance improvement scheme. 
If Member States do not play their part  in the running of the revised EMAS 
Regulation, the revised strategy to increase the number of EMAS organisations to 
significantly increase the r obustness of the scheme and at the same time provide 
more incentives to organisations so that they join the scheme, will not work.
55 
                                                 
55 Even though COM(2004)745: report from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament 
on incentives for EMAS registered organisations  confirms that Member States apply measures 
providing some sort of external incentives for EMAS registered organisations, there is demand and potential for improvement The decision on what (combination of) incentives will be applied, needs to 
be designed in such a way that they meet the aspirations of the organisations concerned and the needs of 
national regulators. 
 
EN 55   EN 6. C OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The positive and negative impacts of each of the short listed options have been analysed, 
mainly from the point of view of th eir economic and environmental impact. 
In terms of economic impacts, the criteria taken into account were: 
(1) the financial and administrative effo rt needed by the Commission and the 
Member States to implement a nd run the proposed changes, and 
(2) the efforts needed by the participat ing and candidate organisations to 
implement and run the proposed changes. 
In terms of environmental impact, the criteria taken into account were: 
(1) the impact on the environmental performance of single organisations 
participating in the scheme, and 
(2) the impact on the number of organisa tions participating to the scheme. 
All options have been studied and discussed in details within the Commission and with 
stakeholders and interested parties. After cons ideration of the pros and cons of each three 
options raised by all parties consulted (see before for analysis of the environmental, economic and social impact of each option) that option of substantially modify  the EMAS scheme was 
selected. 
This substantial modification of the EMAS scheme appears to be the best means to remedy 
the difficulties that currently exist and to  provide the market with an environment 
management scheme that is the most robust and strict. In order for such  initiative to become 
effective, it needs to be accompanied by the ne cessary incentives to encourage organisations 
to join the scheme. 
This option of substantial modification would th erefore enable the EU to deliver better and 
more focused environmental benefits, both directly and indirectly. The result of these positive impacts should drastically increase the overa ll environmental impact of the scheme. 
 
EN 56   EN 7. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress to wards meeting the objectives 
The overall objective of the EMAS scheme is to provide a sizeable positive overall 
contribution to the state of the environmen t in Europe - and if EMAS is extended 
globally - to the rest of the world. This  contribution can be broken down in two 
separate components: the increase in the environmental performance of participating 
organisations, multiplied by the increase in the number of organisations using the scheme. These two components need to be followed, in order to monitor the progress 
of the scheme towards meeting its objectives. 
The introduction in the revised Regulation of mandatory reporting of environmental 
performance, using pre-defined Core performance indicators will also allow for a better monitoring and evaluation of envir onmental performances improvements by 
EMAS organisations. These core performan ce indicators would appl y to all types of 
organisation and should focus on performance in a number of key environmental areas, such as energy efficiency, materi al efficiency, waste, biodiversity and 
emissions. It should be mandatory for orga nisations to report on  the core set of 
generic indicators. These indicators should also address the best available operation 
and maintenance, and also establish be nchmarking for each specific type of 
activities. 
7.2. Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation 
Monitoring and evaluation of the successful  implementation of the revised EMAS 
scheme is expected to continue to take place, as it currently does under the existing 
EMAS Regulation, under the form of regul ar meetings with all Member States. 
Twice a year minimum, Member States m eet with the Commission in Comitology 
meetings (so called article 14 meeting of the EMAS Regulation) to discuss their 
EMAS achievements, problems, share experience and decide on the future direction of the scheme.  
Additionally, the Commission cont racts out an EMAS helpdes k. One of its tasks is to 
collect and publish monthly statistics on the number of EMAS registrations, per 
sector and per country.