EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2125  
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Public procurement for a better environment  
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
{COM(2008) 400 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2124} {SEC(2008) 2126} 
 
EN 2   EN SUMMARY 
Our current consumption in the EU causes environmental damage at rates that are 
unsustainable. If the wo rld as a whole followed traditiona l patterns of consumption, global 
resource use might quadruple within 20 years. It is necessary therefore to stimulate the faster 
development and diffusion of environmentally beneficial products. 
Public authorities yearly spend a sum which equa ls 16 % of EU GDP, particularly in sectors 
with relatively high environmental impact s and at the same time serious scope for 
improvement (transport, buildings  and building fittings..). For instance, buildings account for 
approximately 40 % of the final energy consump tion in Europe. For most  public authorities, 
construction and renovation works, and running co sts of buildings represent a major share of 
annual expenditure, in some cases over 50 %. By  using GPP in the implementation of these 
works, stricter environmental standards would be applied, which could importantly reduce the 
overall energy consumption of these public buildings. 
Green public procurement (GPP) is  defined as a process where by public authorities seek to 
procure goods, services and works with a reduc ed environmental impact throughout their life 
cycle when compared to goods, services and work s with the same primary function that would 
otherwise be procured. It is a process that promotes, but not n ecessarily leads to, the purchase 
of a "green" product and which fully respects the EU legislation on public procurement.  
The purchase of more resource efficient products can bring direct benefits to the purchasers 
and significantly cut costs for users, even where the initial expenditure is higher. Examples are office equipment, lighting, vehicles, buildings.  
GPP furthermore rewards firms that develop such  goods and provides incentives for the future 
development of technologies, promoting innov ation that supports the EU economy. This 
increased demand will lead to economies of scal e, allowing products to move into mainstream 
markets. GPP may stimulate greater and fast er technological innovati on or breakthrough that 
will ultimately lead to lower unit co sts and mass market availability.  
Where GPP leads to the purchase of greener pr oducts, the reduced environmental impact from 
those products will contribute to achieving existing environmental goals – and could do so 
more cheaply than other av ailable policy instruments. 
Considering this huge potential, GPP has received  growing political atte ntion in recent years, 
starting with the Communicatio n on Integrated Product Policy of 2003 in which Member 
States have been strongly recommended to a dopt national action plans on GPP. Also outside 
Europe, green or sustainable procurement policie s have been launched in most important trade 
partner countries, such as the USA, Japan, Ca nada, Australia, followe d by rapidly developing 
countries such as China, South Korea, Tha iland, Philippines. The OE CD Council has -already 
in 2002- adopted a Recommendation on green pub lic procurement. As a follow-up of the 
Johannesburg summit on Sustainable Development of September 2002, a Marrakech Task force on sustainable procurement was created w ith the aim of spreading sustainable (green) 
public procurement practices in pa rticular in developing countries. 
Most recently, the EU leaders have, in their renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy 
adopted June 2006, set forth an EU wide target for GPP, stating that, by the year 2010, the 
average level of EU GPP up to the standard  currently achieved by the best performing 
member states. 
 
EN 3   EN Research carried out in 2006 has shown that only 7 Member  States were practising a 
significant amount of GPP and that in the re maining 20 Member States, GPP was applied 
much less, or not at all.  
The EU Commission's Directorat e-General for the Environmen t has prepared an impact 
assessment as a basis for the adoption of a new initiative on GPP, aimed at increasing the 
quantity and quality of GPP in the EU. The various  options analysed in th e light of the impact 
assessment have been discussed with stakeh olders, at a meeting on 25 June 2007, and through 
subsequent contacts in writing. The memb ers of the Advisory Committee on Public 
Procurement have also been invited to comment upon various policy options. 
Following problems have been identified as hindering EU wide uptake of GPP: 
(1) Lack of awareness of benef its, misperception of the extent  of costs, and lack of 
political support for GPP 
(2) Lack of legal clarity 
(3) Lack of information and tools for GPP, inadequate training structures, lack of 
knowledge of priority areas and abse nce of easy to apply GPP criteria 
(4) Lack of similarity between GPP procedur es and criteria across the EU, which also 
results in increased administrative costs in particular for SMEs and hindering the 
internal market  
The Commission services have identified a series  of actions and measures aimed at radically 
increasing the quantity and quality  of GPP in the EU 27. Those actions can be bundled into 
different policy options.  
Option 1  relates to "Business as usual": the Co mmission would continue to provide guidance 
on its GPP website, including relevant stud ies and the GPP Handbook, and hold regular 
meetings with national GPP expert s to exchange best practice.  
Option 2  would consist of a package of support measures providing guidance, formulating 
recommendations and laying the basis for actions  to increase and improve GPP in the EU, 
some of which would be de livered through a Communication. This option would allow to 
address all 4 problems through various measures/actions: 
• set an EU-wide –voluntary- target for G PP, based on a quantification of the SDS 
target; 
• highlight existing and provide addi tional operational guidance on GPP; 
• provide legal clarit y on certain issues; 
• identify priority product and service gr oups and kick-off a process of increased 
co-operation with the Member States and re levant stakeholders to establish core 
and comprehensive common GPP criteria for those product groups;  
• stimulate GPP awareness raising and training through dissemination of GPP 
training toolkit, creation of plate-form s of regional and local co-operation and 
recommending use of GPP in the impl ementation of EU funded projects; 
 
EN 4   EN • identify indicators for GPP and ensure  regular monitoring and benchmarking 
based on these indicators. 
Option 3  would consist of mandatory targets for GPP, through a legal instrument; various 
alternative sub-options for ta rgets could be envisaged: 
• mandatory targets for basic GPP  
• mandatory targets for "outcome-based" GPP  
• mandatory targets for life cycle costing 
Option 4  would consist of various forms of mandato ry GPP, through a legal instrument or a 
modification of an existing legal instrumen t; various alternative sub-options could be 
envisaged: 
• mandatory GPP for certain types of contr acting authorities (central government) 
when purchasing certain types of products or services (yet to be identified); 
• mandatory GPP for all contra cts above the thresholds of the public procurement 
Directives 
• mandatory implementation of an environmental management scheme for all 
service and works contracts above certain thresholds. 
• mandatory use of GPP in the implemen tation of EU funded projects, where 
appropriate 
Option 5  would consist of a proposal to modify the Standard forms on GPP, through the 
modification of a legal instrument, in view of facilitating monitoring of GPP, as an essential 
element of any voluntary or mandatory GPP policy. 
The impact assessment has shown that: Only minor improvements may be expected under th e "business as usual" scenario (Option 1) 
because the underlying problems will not be properly addressed. Furthermore, as the uptake of GPP slowly rises, differences between the pr actices of Member States  are likely to create 
increased market distortions and additional admi nistrative costs for suppliers and only provide 
very limited stimulus for eco-innovation. 
Option 2 which presents a package including sup port, guidance, recommendations and actions 
for increased GPP, some of which will be delivered through a Communication, is –at this moment in time- the preferred option. It is ind eed the most effective option for addressing the 
problems related to the lack of information on co sts and benefits, the lack  of legal clarity and 
the overall lack on harmonised information and tools for GPP.  
A clear target, even voluntary, would act as a po litical driver for Member States to step up 
their efforts in the field of GPP. It is likely to encourage the establishment and use of central 
guidance on GPP, coupled to internal targets a nd/or to political or legal instructions to 
selected (or all) regional and lo cal authorities. The existence of  a political target would also 
provide an indication to industry of the likely direction of demand for greener products in 
coming decades, allowing them to early respond to this new demand and plan innovation. 
 
EN 5   EN Providing operational guidance on GPP may help Member States to build up their own GPP 
strategies and increase GPP. It could substantially re duce the costs typically associated with 
setting up and implementing GPP processes. It ma y also lead authorities to other ways to 
reduce their costs and increase the effectiveness of their GPP. For instance, joint procurement 
(combining the procurement actions of two or mo re public authorities) may lead to economies 
of scale through bundled demand and reduce admi nistrative costs by exchanging experience 
on GPP criteria and on new products available on other than local markets. Guidance on the 
inclusion of whole-life-costing as an award criterion will also encourage purchasers to apply 
GPP, as it will show that GPP is in many cases  nothing else than efficient procurement, 
allowing to save money in the long run. 
Contacts with stakeholders have made clear that, notwithstanding the new public procurement 
Directives of 2004 which expressly allow for the inclusion of envi ronmental criteria in 
tendering procedures, there still is legal uncertainty. Indeed, Me mber States and contracting 
authorities have raised the need to clarify the pos sibility to define the product to be purchased, 
by reference to environmental criteria related to the production process of the relevant product. There also is uncerta inty over evidence which may be  requested from bidders to 
demonstrate compliance with technical specificati ons or selection criter ia. The provision of 
core-criteria would remove one of the greate st hindrances to GPP, removing one of the 
greatest costs and causes of difficulty for practi tioners. It would be lik ely to prov ide greater 
consistency in the product characteristics asked for by authorities and give greater 
transparency to producers and so better si gnalling of rewarding i nnovation opportunities, 
whilst also reducing their administrative costs from having to provide environmental product 
information in different procurement processes. 
The creation of plate-forms of co-operati on and the recommendation to use GPP when 
implementing EU funded projects would be partic ularly effective at in itiating the uptake of 
GPP by local authorities, who are traditionally more difficult to reach in view of raising 
awareness on GPP, providing politic al support, guidance and training.  
As regards the costs for implementing GPP,  GPP would in principle lead to better 
consideration of the life cycle costs of the product. In partic ular in cases of resource efficient 
products, buying "green" products can also mean  buying "cheaper" products for the purchaser 
over their lifetime. A recent study on the costs a nd benefits of GPP has concluded that the 
administrative costs for setting-up and implemen ting GPP in a local authority in Europe are 
somewhat higher than for standa rd procurement. The biggest co st driver is the continuous 
awareness raising, training and support for procur ers. Costs for setting up the policy are low 
compared to the overall procurement budgets. Th ere may be some additional costs resulting 
from the search of environmental criteria in  procurement. The GPP criteria and guidance 
proposed by the Commission would signifi cantly reduce those additional costs.  
The costs for providing additional guidance to fill the gaps will be negligible compared to the 
sums involved in GPP, and borne by the Co mmission. The costs for dissemination through 
regional and local networks would fall mainly on the Commission, through the administration 
of programmes offering support a nd through grants for relevant  projects. The Commission 
will also bear the costs for developing appropr iate calculation methods and monitoring GPP. 
In the absence of legally binding rules, there will be no particular monitoring obligation for the Member States. 
In conclusion, all sub-options under option 2 can be implemented without great additional 
costs for contracting authorities, or for the Member States.  
 
EN 6   EN However, the impact assessment has also shown that, to maximize the aggregate benefits of 
all complementary sub-options under option 2, in creased political support is imperative. The 
most effective way of raising pol itical support is through the adoption of mandatory measures. 
The impact assessment has already identified a se ries of mandatory optio ns which would have 
the effect of raising political support to vary ing degrees, ranging from  mandatory targets for 
GPP to mandatory GPP for all contracts co vered by the public procurement Directives, 
including a modification of th e standard forms for public pr ocurement to ease monitoring. 
Since all mandatory options would call for the a doption of a legal instru ment or a proposal to 
modify an existing legal instrument, a separate , additional impact assessment would need to 
be carried out, in order to identify the best solution(s).  
This additional impact assessment will be carried out at  a later stage, in view of adopting –
possibly- the appropriate lega l instrument to complement the guidance provided in the 
proposed Communication.  
In view of monitoring, the Commission w ould propose indicators and announce continued 
support for establishing methods fo r calculating those indicators.