EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
Brussels, 21.12.2009 
SEC(2009)1707 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying  
 
the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions 
 
On the State of Implementation of Integrated Product Policy 
COM(2009)693 final 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying 
 
the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions 
 
On the State of Implementation of Integrated Product Policy 
ANNEX I-G LOSSARY -MAIN ACRONYMS  
CSD: UN Commission on Su stainable Development 
EIPRO : Environmental Impact of PROducts (JRC Study) ELCD: European Reference Life Cycle Database ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles Directive EMAS: Environmental Management and Audit Scheme ETAP: Environmental Tec hnologies Action Programme 
EU: European Union GPP: Green Public Procurement  ILCD: International Reference Life Cycle Data System IMPRO: IMprovement of PROducts (JRC Study) IPP: Integrated Product Policy ISO: International Standard Organization JRC-IES: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability JRC-IPTS: Joint Research Centre, Institu te for Prospective Technological Studies 
LCA: Life Cycle Assessment LCIA: Life Cycle Impact Assessment MBIs: Market Based Instruments ROHS: Restriction of the use of certa in Hazardous Substances Directive 
REACH: Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances  
SCP/SIP: Sustainable Consumption and Production/Sustainabl e Industrial Policy 
EN 3   EN SDS: Sustainable Development Strategy 
SME: Small and Medium Enterprise WEEE: Waste Electrical and El ectronic Equipment Directive 
EN 4   EN  
ANNEX II 
INTRODUCTION  
On 7th February 2001, the European Commis sion adopted a Green Paper on Integrated 
Product Policy (IPP)1 with the objective of launching a debate on the role and possible 
measures that could be taken at European Union level. Based on its Green Paper and the 
following stakeholder consultations, the Eur opean Commission published the Communication 
on IPP in June 2003.2 IPP seeks to minimise the environm entally negative im pacts of products 
by looking at all phases of a produc t’s life-cycle and taking acti on where those impacts can be 
reduced best and most cost–effectively. In accor dance with five key pr inciples, and taking 
into account the wide variety of available products and stakeholde rs involved, the IPP 
approach calls for the use of a combin ation of different policy instruments. 
Many concerns have been raised -both internat ionally and at the Euro pean level- about the 
increasing unsustainable consumption and producti on patterns, which are at  the roots of many 
environmental problems through excessive quantiti es of natural resources consumed and the 
ensuing degradation of water, air, soil and bi o-systems. Unnecessarily high rates of waste 
generated, greenhouse gas emissions and loss of biodiversity result from this. These 
increasing trends stand in the way of sustainabl e development, threatening to compromise the 
needs of less developed regions and future ge nerations. To achieve su stainable development -
one of the fundamental objectiv es of the European Union- economic growth needs to be 
decoupled from further environmental degr adation. The European Commission has been 
working actively to develop i nnovative policies in this field, and IPP is one of the key 
initiatives, being an integral part of  the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. 
In its conclusion the Council we lcomed the IPP Communication, supporting its principles and 
the European Commission "intention to encourage relevant actors to include in their policies 
objectives to reduce environmental impacts of all products aiming at a continuous 
improvement of products and services produced in their respective sectors" .3 The European 
Parliament, in its resolution,4 welcomed as well the IPP Co mmunication but regretted that "it 
provides only limited guidance on how to move society in the direction of truly sustainable 
systems of product development and design." 
In its Communication the Europ ean Commission undertook to “ ... prepare a report on 
progress being made in implementing IPP and submit it to the European Parliament and 
Council ”. The present staff working document accompanies and completes the 
Communication containing the report, providing a more complete overview of IPP 
implementation not only at the EU level, but also in Member States, and by stakeholders, 
including industry and civil soci ety organizations. It is base d on information collected under 
the study "Reporting on the Implementati on of Integrated Product Policy",5 commissioned by 
                                                 
1 COM (2001) 68. 
2 COM (2003) 302. 
3 Council Conclusions of 27 October 2003. 
4 European Parliament Resolution (2004) 0349. 
5 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/studiesevents.htm  
EN 5   EN the European Commission in 2008, which has taken into consideration th e list of potential IPP 
policies, actions, and measures outlined in the final report by the Working Group on IPP 
Reporting Formats, submitted to the Commis sion in December 2006  (WGRF, 2006). It 
furthermore gives account of subsequent  related achievements at EU level. 
In particular, the European Commission pr esented, in July 2008, an Action Plan on 
Sustainable Consumption and Production an d Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP),6 which 
at its core establishes an integrated framework to improve the energy and environmental performance of products and foster  their uptake by consumers. 
The structure of this working document follo ws the recommendations of the Working Group 
on IPP reporting formats and is based on th e structure of the IPP Communication: 
(1) IPP approach 
(2) EU IPP strategy 
(3) Establishing the framework conditions fo r continuous environmental improvement 
(4) Developing a focus on particular products 
(5) Co-ordination and integration 
1. IPP
 APPROACH  
IPP is based on five key principles, which are:  a) life-cycle thinking, b) working with the 
market, c) stakeholder involvement, d) contin uous improvement and e) a variety of policy 
instruments. This section analyses the integr ation of these guiding principles by different 
stakeholders in recent years. 
(a) Life-cycle thinking 
Life-cycle thinking is the consid eration of the supply chains, us e, as well as the end of life 
management associated the provision of goods a nd services (collectively termed products) – 
sometimes called "from cradle to grave". Th e environmental impacts and the resources 
consumed associated with a product’s life cycle are assessed. Life Cycl e Assessment (LCA) is 
one tool, standardised in IS O14040/44, that quantita tively supports life -cycle thinking. By 
taking a life-cycle approach, the aim is to help avoid the shifting of burdens – from one stage 
in the life-cycle such as "use " to another such as "production" , from one country to another 
(possibly outside of the EU), as well as from one impact category such as climate change to 
another such as increased land use or  emissions of carcinogenic substances. 
Various policies and legal instruments at the EU  level in 2003 already integrated life-cycle 
thinking to a varying extent, e.g. the Ec o-label Regulation, the EMAS Regulation, the 
Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
(WEEE) Directive, the End-of-Lif e Vehicles Directive (ELV), the Batteries Directive and the 
RoHS Directive.7 Following the IPP Communication, life-c ycle thinking has been taken up as 
                                                 
6 COM (2008) 397. 
7 Regulation (EC) 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a revised Community 
eco-label award and scheme; Regulation (EC) 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
EN 6   EN a core element in the Thematic Strategies on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.8 
Subsequently, it was carried further as a centr al component of the SC P/SIP Action Plan and 
the proposed integrated and dynamic policy fr amework for smarter consumption and better 
products. In particular, it is a basic principl e of the Ecodesign Directive, which has recently 
been extended to energy-related products,9 and it has been taken up in the revised Ecolabel 
Regulation, the revised Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings,10 and the revised 
Waste Framework Directive. Through the “Imp act Assessment” process life-cycle thinking 
has become a central consideration of new European Commission initiatives on 
environmental product, resources and waste policy and legislation. 
An important initiative directly resulting from the IPP Communication is the “European 
Platform on Life Cycle Assessment”,11 which is managed by the European Commission’s 
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environmen t and Sustainability (J RC-IES) together with 
the DG Environment, as explained in paragra ph 3) (b). This helps support the scientific 
robustness, consistency, and qua lity-assurance of data, methods, and assessments required to 
support life-cycle thinking and assessment in policy. 
The life-cycle thinking is also applied increasi ngly in the national policies and measures of 
different Member States, but each Member Stat es has a different way of integrating this 
aspect. Collected evidence indicat es that product policies and re lated actions currently being 
implemented (or planned) in most of the Me mber States integrate a life-cycle approach. 
Some European consumer organisations have  acknowledged the importance of informing 
consumers about products' impacts during their whole life-cycle and different stakeholders 
from the industry (manufacturers, retailers, trade organisations, recy clers, waste manager 
associations, etc.) support an approach that takes account of competitiveness issues and looks 
at reducing environmental impacts where they ar e most appropriate and effective in the life-
cycle of a product. As far as industry is concer ned, awareness regarding life-cycle thinking in 
certain SMEs is less advanced, even though there are large differences depending on the 
specific position of the enterprise in the product supply chain, sector, product group, and 
country. 
(b) Working with the market 
The IPP Communication calls for se tting appropriate incentives so that the market moves in a 
more sustainable direction by encouraging th e supply and demand of greener products. The 
European Commission has promoted and impl emented measures targeting both the supply 
side (development of more ener gy and resource efficient products  by means of directives such 
as the Ecodesign Directive) and the demand si de (mandatory Energy Labelling, and voluntary 
                                                                                                                                                         
allowing voluntary participation by organizations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme 
(EMAS); Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Pa ckaging Waste; Directive 2002/96/EC of the 
European Parliament and the Council on Waste Electrical and Electroni c Equipment; Directive 
2000/53/EC on End-of life vehicl es; Directive 91/157/EEC on batteri es and accumulators containing 
certain dangerous substances; Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the use of certain hazardous 
substances in electrical a nd electronic equipment ;  
8 COM (2005) 670. 
9 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the 
setting of Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products  
10 Directive 2002/91/EC of the Euro pean parliament and of the Coun cil of 16 December 2002, on the 
energy performance of buildings. O.J. L 1/65 of 4.1.2003). 
11 See http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eplca  
EN 7   EN Ecolabel to support consumer choice for gr eener products, addressing public demand by 
promoting Green Public Procurement - GPP), largely building on the principle of working 
with the market. The SCP/SIP Action Plan integr ates this approach fu rther by providing for, 
on one hand, measures to promote the supply of  more energy and resource efficient products 
and, on the other hand, to support demand through im proved availability of  green products to 
better informed consumers (via Energy Label, Ec olabel and the Retail Forum, for instance) 
and GPP. The European Commission also propose d to harmonise at which performance level 
Member States would grant financial incen tives for environmentally highly performing 
products or provide for 'green' public procuremen t, so as to fully us e the potential of the 
Internal Market. So far, it seems that the fo cus –both at Member States and EU level- has 
been on the supply side and the public demand side, as well as on labelling as an instrument to 
address private demand. Further promoting "green" private demand appears to offer 
significant additional potential. 
Most Member States implement the “working w ith the market” principle to some extent. 
Some Member States such as France or the United Kingdom take st ronger action to drive 
demand for greener products and by doing so prom ote greater efficiency of products. To 
increase demand, Member States can either use product policy, procurement policy, financial 
incentives for greener products or fiscal policy to increase the price of energy or resources - 
and so increase the savings from more effi cient products. The European Commission is 
investigating the benefits of the use of fina ncial incentives for pro ducts, an area where 
common actions across Member States would dr ive the market. In addi tion, the use of price-
mechanisms could be bette r coordinated through IPP. 
(c) Stakeholder involvement 
Another important principle present in EU polic y developments and also included in the IPP 
Communication is to involve all stakeholders during the different stages of policy 
development and implementation as well as to encourage co-operation among stakeholders in 
general. Stakeholder involvement has been im portant during the implementation of the IPP 
Communication. For instance, the IPP Regular  Meetings, organise d bi-annually by the 
European Commission with the Member States representatives and key stakeholders, provide 
a forum to report and inform the Member States and stakeholders on the IPP related activities of the European Commission. It al so serves for an exchange of information on the actions 
taken by the Member States and other stakeholde rs in this direction. Furthermore, active 
stakeholder participation was also observed during the identification and execution of 
voluntary pilot projects to demonstrate how IPP can work in practice. 
Another example is the elaboration of the handbook of technical guidance documents for 
LCA as part of the European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment, both of which were 
foreseen in the IPP Communication as deliver ables. The developments involve regular 
stakeholder dialogue and input including 16 formal agreements with key European Industry 
Associations, Memorandum of U nderstanding with several key trade partners (China, Japan, 
Brazil, among others), and 2 in ternational advisory groups (tool  and database developers, and 
life cycle impact assessme nt methodology providers). 
Most Member States consider that the level of involvement of stakeholders in relevant 
national policies and measures is generally good. In some Member States (i.e. Germany), 
stakeholders consultation dates back to the 70s , and this experience has been replicated in 
many Member States with the establishment of  national dialogue proc esses or platforms on 
SCP with all relevant stakeholder groups (Fra nce, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden). In the 
EN 8   EN United Kingdom, different stakeholder group s are involved in the design of policy 
instruments and systematic database of stak eholders in the context of SCP has been 
developed. 
(d) Continuous improvement 
Improvements can often be made to decrease a product’s environmental impact across its life-
cycle, whether in design, manufacture, use or disposal, taking into account the parameters set by the market. This philosophy underpins the IP P Communication and many of the initiatives 
undertaken by the European Commission in this c ontext, such as the Ecodesign Directive, the 
Ecolabel, the EMAS Regulations  (regarding the improvement of  organizations' environmental 
management), the Green Public Procurement Comm unication as well as other elements of the 
SCP/SIP Action Plan. 
The continuous improvement principle is embe dded in the Ecodesign Di rective and -in line 
with the SCP/SIP Action Plan- is further stre ssed in its application by the definition of 
voluntary benchmarks to complete binding re quirements in its implementing measures. 
Furthermore, some Member States have instituti onalised the principle, which has become part 
of the national Sustainable Development Strate gies, such as for instance in Finland and 
France. 
Furthermore, the European Commission is seeking to identify and stimulate actions on 
products with the greatest potential for envi ronmental improvement. To this end, two IPP 
initiatives, the EIPRO and the environmenta l IMprovement of PROducts (IMPRO) studies 
coordinated by the Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS),
12 aim to identify products having the great est environmental impact from a life-
cycle perspective and possible ways in which the life-cycle environm ental impacts can be 
reduced for some of these products. Based on the results, the European Commission is developing policy measures for the products iden tified to have the gr eatest potential for 
environmental improvement. 
(e) A variety of policy instruments 
The IPP approach requires a number of differe nt instruments in reason of the variety of 
products available in th e market and the variety of stakeh olders involved. These instruments 
range from voluntary initiatives to  regulations and from the local to the international scale. 
The tendency is to work with a combination of  voluntary approaches (s uch as Eco-label and 
EMAS Regulations) and mandatory measures (s uch as Ecodesign, Energy Labelling, Energy 
Performance of Buildings, RoHS and WEEE Di rectives). As some tools for promoting 
greener production and consumption existed prio r to the formulation of IPP, such as the 
European Eco-label, the real challenge of IPP implementation was to use a coherent and mutually-enforcing set of existing and new tools to achieve the policy objectives. This challenge has been taken up by the SCP/SI P Action Plan, which provides a coherent 
framework integrating different policy instru ments and initiatives (both mandatory and 
voluntary) to promote resource  efficient and eco-friendly products and raise consumer 
awareness. 
The Member States apply different instrume nts to implement IPP and to support product, 
technology, and systems level innovations. Gr een public procurement is the most popular 
                                                
 
12 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/identifying.htm  
EN 9   EN instrument used in Member States, followed by labelling and other info rmative instruments. 
Life-cycle thinking, research and awareness of Ecodesign are not equally developed in the 
Member States assessed, while Environmen tal Management Systems (ISO 14000 and EMAS) 
seem to be lagging behind.  
2. THE EU IPP  STRATEGY  
The EU IPP primary aim is to reduce the environmental impacts from products throughout 
their life-cycle, harnessing, wh ere possible, a market driv en approach, within which 
competitiveness concerns are integrated. To achieve this objective, the EU IPP is contributing to addressing the environmental challenges identified in both the Sustainable Development Strategy and the Sixth Envir onment Action Programme. Wit hout a product dimension the 
chances of meeting them will be smaller. IPP is  also a key part of the implementing measures 
for the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources and that on Prevention and 
Recycling of Waste and closely linked to th e Environmental Technologies Action Programme 
(ETAP). The IPP principles have been taken up and carried over by th e SCP/SIP Action Plan. 
Internationally, IPP and in partic ular the SCP/SIP Action Plan c onstitutes a major input to the 
ten-year framework of program mes on sustainable production and consumption agreed to be 
developed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in  Johannesburg in September 
2002, and which will be develope d in consultation with regions  and stakeholders throughout 
the CSD 18-19 cycle.
13 
In implementing the IPP strategy, the Europe an Commission has increasingly focussed on 
strengthening co-ordin ation and coherence between exis ting environment-related product 
policy instruments to fully exploit the potentia l synergies and to encourage their integrated 
development, as documented through the adoptio n and approach of the SCP/SIP Action Plan. 
At the national level, only some Member Stat es (Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and Poland) have 
specific national strategies for IPP and onl y two of them (Poland and Belgium) use 
specifically the term IPP.  Most Member States include IPP pr inciples in their national (or sub-
national) programmes on SCP and only two Me mber States (Portugal and UK) have 
developed plans for a specific I PP strategy. Some Member States , considered frontrunners in 
environmental product policy such as Denmark (which had a specific IPP strategy until 2001) and Sweden have progressively shifted their approaches: the specific IPP strategy is now 
integrated or being integrated in other fram ework approaches addressing SCP (Denmark), or 
in other strategies, for instance the Swedish Sustainable Development, Governmental Bills 
and Communications Strategy. 
In some Member States, regions sometimes go ah ead of the national policies as concerns IPP. 
This is the case of the Basque government in Spain, where efforts have been put during the 
last years to develop several act ions in the key areas of IPP such as eco-design, LCA, and 
GPP with the aim of promoting these new e nvironmental issues among all economic actors. 
Another good example is the Fede ral State of Bavaria, in Germ any, where an IPP unit exists 
since 2000 in the Bavarian St ate Ministry of the Environment, Health, and Consumer 
Protection (StMUGV). IPP became a separate field of activity in the Environmental Pact of 
Bavaria, between this state and the business community. The main object ive of the IPP related 
activities is to develop and test  IPP methodology and instruments. 
                                                
 
13 Paragraph 14 of the WSSD – Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and paragraph 8 of the General 
Affairs and External Relations Co uncil’s conclusions of 30.10.2002 
EN 10   EN Several companies and industrial federations ar e committed to reduce the impact of their 
operation and products. The relate d activities usually include the application of instruments 
such as Environmental Managements Systems,  the adoption of voluntary agreements and 
sustainable development strategies aiming at improving product stewardship. Some recyclers 
and waste managers are involve d in voluntary agreements and the elaboration of guidelines 
for the optimal use of waste. 
In consumers associations, the IPP related st rategies usually aim at increasing consumer 
awareness about the impact of consumption on the environment and to induce changes 
towards sustainable consumption patterns. 
3. ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUOUS ENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPROVEMENT  
(a) Tools for creating the Right Economic and Legal Framework 
The 2003 IPP Communication requires the European  Commission to continue to promote and 
encourage the use of fiscal measures, such as environmental taxes and incentives. The use of 
Market Based Instruments (MBIs) in environmen tal policy is continuously taken up in EU 
policy such as the Sixth Environment Acti on Programme, the renewed EU Sustainable 
Development Strategy, and the Lisbon Strategy. Furthermore, in 2007 the European 
Commission adopted a Green Paper on the use of  MBIs in environment policies, and launched 
a broad consultation on their use in  various fields. Nevertheless, the EU’s role in practice has 
been rather small to date and IPP does not s eem to have been a driver for any recent 
developments in the field of environmental- related taxes and incentives at the European 
Union level. 
There is a wide variety of pr oduct-related taxes and incentives  used in different Member 
States. Better and most extended examples are re lated to waste management charges laying in 
regulatory requirements for produ cers (producers’ responsibility) such as the ELV Directive, 
WEEE Directive, and the Directive on Packag ing and Packaging waste. Most recent 
developments include eco-taxes on cars and fuels, and also tax incentives to promote the 
purchase of greener products such as en ergy efficient appliances and equipment. 
Concerning voluntary agreements, the most notable  development at EU level was the setting 
up of a Retail Forum, as one element of th e SCP/SIP Action Plan, aiming to reduce the 
environmental footprint of the re tail sector and its supply chai n, to promote more sustainable 
products and to better inform consumers. In parallel, the food industr y established the EU 
Food SCP roundtable to develop a common met hodology to assess the environmental impacts 
of food and drink products. In the context of implementing the Ecodesign Directive, voluntary 
agreements can play a role as an alternativ e to mandatory requirements being set through an 
implementing measure.  
As regards standardisation, implementation of  the Ecodesign Directive is linked with a 
number of mandates being given to European st andardisation bodies, in particular in relation 
to testing and verification of  compliance. A consortium of European environmental NGOs 
named ECOS was established in 2002 to ensure the in tegration of environm ental aspects into 
standardisation ("greeni ng standardisation"). 
Member States such as Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and France have 
been quite active setting voluntary agreements  with the industry. In  most cases, active 
EN 11   EN dialogues between governments and different sector al associations have been established in 
order to agree on specific actions  and targets to be achieved. 
(b) Promoting the Application of Life Cycle Thinking 
Notably, as a result of the IPP Communicati on, the European Commission has created a 
platform to facilitate communication and exchange of information regarding life cycle assessment (LCA) in business and public aut horities, by providing reference data and 
recommended methods for LCA studies. The “European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment” is a project of the European Commission, managed by the JRC-IES together with DG 
Environment. Its main deliverables to date are: 
• a technical guidance handbook on LCA fores een in the IPP Communication, to 
become the basis for an International Re ference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD); 
• the European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD), with over 350 quality-
assured Life Cycle emission/resource c onsumption (Inventory) data sets with 
European market scope for core materials,  energy carriers and services primarily 
provided by working together with industry associations; 
• the Recommended Life Cycle Impact A ssessment (LCIA) methods and an LCA 
information hub to ease the access to data and methods and to facilitate 
knowledge exchange. 
Having its foundation in the I PP Communication, the European Platform on LCA supports 
also the implementation of the Thematic Strate gies on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste 
and on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resour ces, as well as the implementation of the 
SCP/SIP Action Plan and life cycle thinking in a growing number of ot her policies. It is 
worthwhile noting the significan t participation of European industry associations in the 
European Platform on LCA.
14 
Furthermore, the IPP working group on enviro nmental product information examined the 
issue of life-cycle information throughout th e product chain. The final report builds up a 
practical vision of what actions governments an d stakeholders can take to make life-cycle-
based product information a real force for environmental improvement, working in combination with the toolbox of ot her IPP measures and activities.
15 
Member States such as the Netherlands, Finl and, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and France can 
be considered as frontrunners in the implementation of life-cycle thinking, based on the variety of measures implemented and tools de veloped to promote the application of this 
principle. Italy, Belgium, the Un ited Kingdom, and Poland are also quite active. In the rest of 
the Member States related activities are very limited or not existing. In some Member States 
                                                
 
14 Some 16 industry associations ar e member of the platform Advisory Group, which mainly focuses on 
advice on the development of the recommended LCA methods of the ILCD Handbook, the 
development of the ILCD data set documentation form at, the list of reference elementary flows, and of 
the recommended LCIA methods and factors. The members of the gr oup commit to pr ovide life cycle 
inventory (LCI) data sets of their key products (goods or services) and/or processes for publication in 
the ELCD database. See http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/index.vm . 
15 To access the final report : http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/ipp/pdf/2 0070115_report.pdf 
EN 12   EN (Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Sweden or Germany), LCA research centres ha ve been created to 
develop LCA databases and development of specific tools.16 
In general, the life-cycle thinking is well kno wn in many industries such as packaging, 
chemical, plastics or the metal industry, a nd large companies. Fo r instance, Plastics Europe  
promotes the use of LCA to take more info rmed decisions through a better understanding of 
the human health and environmental impacts of products, processes, and activities relating to 
plastics.17 Nevertheless, the practical a pplication of this principle is  still limited and it can be 
particularly challenging for certain SMEs. The results of LCA studies are mainly used internally for product improvement (eco-des ign) and in some cases for external 
communication. 
Concerning Environmental Managements Systems, there are certain actions presented in the 
IPP Communication to be carried out by the Comm ission that refer specifically to EMAS, the 
EU voluntary instrument which acknowledges orga nisations that improve their environmental 
performance on a continuous basis. As part  of the SCP/SIP Action Plan, the EMAS 
Regulation has been revised, with  the objective of increasing th e uptake of the scheme, and 
hence overall increasing its pos itive environmental impact. 
All Member States have measures in place to  promote EMAS. Particularly active in the 
implementation of activities on a national level to promote the EMAS scheme are Austria, 
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, and Spain. EMAS proved to be less popular 
with business. Some companies apply Envi ronmental Managements Systems according to 
both the ISO 14001 standard and the EMAS, while others have develope d their EMS at site 
level and carry out site certifications accord ing to ISO 14001 (in some cases also EMAS 
verifications). In general, due to EMAS impos ing stricter requirements and ISO providing for 
global application, the uptake of ISO 14001 certi fication is higher, es pecially for global 
companies. 
As regards to product design obligations, a number of policies and initiatives of the European 
Commission have close relevanc e and direct influence on the improvement of product design. 
Adding to those adopted prior to th e 2003 IPP Communication (e.g. ELV, Energy 
Performance in Buildings, WEEE and RoHS Directives, EU Ecolab el Regulation and the 
Directive on batteries and accumulators) poli cies devised in the following include the 
Ecodesign Directive and the REACH Regulati on. Regarding the Ecodesign Directive, a 
number of implementing measures have been adopted in 2008 and 2009 to lay down 
Ecodesign requirements for energy using product s, from standby over domestic lighting, to 
televisions. The Ecodesign Directive can be co nsidered the legislative cornerstone of the 
SCP/SIP Action Plan and its sc ope has been extended from en ergy using products to energy 
related products. A possible further extens ion beyond energy-rela ted products will be 
considered at its review in 2012. 
Certain environmental organisations are engaged in contributing and supporting the 
implementation of the Ecodesign Directive, as it is a high priority in most NGOs working in related areas, due to its high potential beneficial impact. Bu siness Association as well are 
contributing to the implementation of the Ecodesign Directive (e.g. CECED, Orgalime, 
EICTA, Digital Europe and CELMA). 
                                                
 
16 See for instance the Swedish CPM (L CA-competence-centra) at Chalmers www.cpm.chalmers.se , co-
financed by the government and the indust ry, with major Swedish companies involved. 
17 See Eco-profiles, http://www.plasticseurope.org/Co ntent/Default.asp?PageID=1170 . 
EN 13   EN Product design is also a priority for certain retailers (e.g. IKEA and H&M) and business 
associations (e.g. CEFIC, ACE, CITPA, CEPI , EuRP, and RREUSE). In the electrical and 
electronic sector, an increased awareness is  observed resulting from the related EC 
legislations mentioned (RoHS, Ecodesign, WEEE, etc.) and also from the awareness raising 
efforts made by the European Commission in th is direction. 
(c) Giving Consumers the Information to Decide 
Consumers, whether private, public or individua l, play a key role for the commercial success 
of greener products. Since the adoption of the IPP Communicati on, the European Commission 
has developed and encouraged EU-wide tools and frameworks to provide consumers with 
product information and raise their awareness. 
Public purchasers spend 17% of annual Europe an Gross Domestic Product on supply/services 
and works contracts. Green Public Procur ement (GPP) has received growing political 
attention and, the renewed EU SDS of June 2006 includes the goal of bringing the average 
level of EU GPP, by 2010, up to the standard achieved by the best performing member states 
in 2006. Based on indications resulting from a 2005-2006 study, the Communication on GPP 
presented by the European Commission in 2008 as  part of the SCP/SIP Action Plan package 
proposes a general indicative ta rget of 50 % of GPP by 2010. Furthermore, it establishes a 
process for setting common voluntary GPP criteria in cooperation with the Member States and 
relevant stakeholders for "priority" produc t and service groups, and develops guidance on 
GPP.18 
The latest study on the collecti on of statistical information on GPP (2008) gives an overview 
of the level of GPP in 2006 and 2007 in the 7 best performing Member States: Austria, 
Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Efforts undertaken by the so-calle d Green 7 have led to an average overall level for all countries of 
45% GPP of the total procurement value and 55% GPP of the total number of contracts. By buying green products and services, their efforts lead to an average reduction of 25% of CO
2 
emissions. Furthermore, it was found that buying 'green' has led to an  average decrease in 
costs of 1%, taking into account th e Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of a product or service. Overall, 
electricity, paper, office IT and furniture are the product groups where GPP is most practised; 
construction, gardening and transport are the lowest-scoring product groups. 
National Action Plans (NAPs) on GPP as called for in the IPP Communication have so far 
been adopted in Cyprus (2007), Denmark (1994) , Finland (2008), France  (2007), Italy (2008), 
Lithuania (2007), Poland (2007), Portugal (200 7), Slovakia (2007), Slovenia (2009), Spain 
(2008), Sweden (2007), United Ki ngdom (2007). In the remaini ng Member States, NAPs are 
either in the process of adopti on, or in preparation. The Neth erlands is one of the Member 
States with most ambitious targets and expect  to achieve 100% sustainable procurement by 
central government in 2010; they have furthe rmore developed GPP criteria for 80 product 
groups and services. The French national action plan is the more ambitious one in terms of 
                                                 
18 The guide, Training Toolkit on GPP consists of 3 Modules (strategic, legal and operational) and can be 
downloaded from the EU GPP website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/toolkit_en.htm . Member 
States are asked to formally endorse and implemen t the 10 voluntary GPP criteria: criteria have been 
translated into all EU languages. The 10 priority product and service groups for which GPP criteria 
have been developed: Construction, Food and catering services, Transport, Electricity, Office IT 
equipment, Textiles, Paper, Furniture, Cleaning produ cts and services, Gardening products and services. 
EN 14   EN approach, as it refers to the sust ainability of the public procurem ent. Therefore, besides "pure" 
environmental criteria, it makes use of social and ethical criteria as well. 
Some recent legislative initiatives at Europe an level integrate environmental mandatory 
requirements for public procurement: 
• the Energy Star Regulati on 106/2008, which obliges central government and EU 
institutions to purchase IT equipment complying at least with the energy 
efficiency requirements set unde r the Energy Star Regulation; 
• Directive 2009/33 on the promotion of clean  and energy efficient road transport 
vehicles, which obliges public authorities a nd public service provi ders to take into 
account energy and other environmental as pects when purchasing road transport 
vehicles; 
• Directive 2006/32 on energy end-use effici ency and energy services, which calls 
Member States to ensure that the public sector fulfils an exemplary role and ensure that energy efficiency improve ment measures are taken by the public 
sector; 
• Under the SCP/SIP Action Plan and as part  of the proposed recast of the Energy 
Labelling Directive, the European Co mmission has proposed that one of the 
labelling classes defined under the Energy La belling Directive is used as a level 
below which products would not be pr ocured by public bodies and granted 
financial incentives by Member States. Th e proposal also ali gns the scope with 
that of the Ecodesign Directive to apply to energy related products. 
The primary function of the voluntary EU Ecol abel is to stimulate both the supply and 
demand of products with a reduced environmenta l impact. The EU Ecolabel is currently used 
by participants in the scheme as a tool to he lp improve environmental performance and also 
induce an improvement in the performance of other companies in the supply chain. As part of the SCP/SIP proposals, the scheme is being st rengthened. This involves widening the number 
of products and services covere d, focusing on those with the mo st significant environmental 
impacts and the highest potential for improvement . This broader scope in cludes the possibility 
to develop criteria fo r food and drink products.
19 The EU Ecolabel cr iteria for a product group 
should be achievable by the top 10-20% of th e best products on the market. The revised EU 
Ecolabel also reduces bureaucracy and simplifies criteria for companies applying for the label. 
In the EU around half of the Member States ha ve their own national ecolabel schemes, such 
as the well-known "Nordic Swan", widely used  in Scandinavian countries and the German 
‘Blue Angel’, the first official national ecolabe lling scheme worldwide, which now covers 80 
products categories with over 10,000 licensed products. Concern has been expressed on the 
growing number of national ecolabels, which may create confusion for the consumers and 
constitute a barrier to intra-EU trade. In addition, it should be noted that further complexity 
could result from the increasi ng number of carbon and climat e labels, which are currently 
under development in certain Member States on the basis of private-public partnerships. 
These developments seem to suggest the necess ity of a more coordinated approach at EU 
                                                 
19 Subject to the results of a study to be undertaken by the Commission "… exploring the feasibility of 
establishing reliable criteria covering environmenta l performance during the whole life-cycle of such 
products, including the products of fishing and aquaculture." 
EN 15   EN level, to avoid confusion for the consumers a nd prevent disruptions to  the smooth functioning 
of the internal market. 
4. DEVELOPING A FOCUS ON PARTICULAR PRODUCTS  
(a) Voluntary Pilot Projects 
Two voluntary pilot projects were  established in 2004 to demonstrate how IPP can work in 
practice. The chosen products were mobile phones (project lead by Nokia) and tropical 
wooden garden chairs (lead by Carrefour). In line with the IPP principle of stakeholder 
involvement, both projects registered an ac tive participation by ke y stakeholders, ranging 
from producers to research institutes, from consumers and environmental organizations to 
governmental authorities. 
On the basis of the analysis of the environmen tal impacts of the produc ts throughout their life-
cycle, options to improve th ese environmental impacts were identified, followed by the 
analysis of the potential social and economic  effects of the improvement options. Finally, 
viable options for improvement were select ed and both project co ncluded in concrete 
commitments by stakeholders to improve the environmental impacts of the products in 
September 2006.20 
Some voluntary pilot projects ar e also been carried out in different Member States. For 
instance, the projects for developing and tes ting IPP methodologies an d instruments carried 
out in the Federal State of Bavaria can be considered as an example of good practice in 
Europe.21 
(b) Identifying which products have the greatest potential for environmental 
improvement 
The European Commission is seeking to identi fy and stimulate actions on products with the 
greatest potential for environmental improvement. This work has been carried out in subsequent phases. 
(1) "Study on external environmental effects related to the life cycle of products 
and services". This first study consisted in the elaboration and 
implementation of a life-cycle methodology to help policy makers in defining 
priorities regarding products and servi ces constituting the European economy. 
An assessment of life-cycle environmen tal impacts and life-cycle external 
costs of about 30 product or  service groups was perfor med in order to identify 
those with the greatest environmental impact. 
(2) "EIPRO – Environmental Impact of PROducts". This study identifying 
products consumed in the EU having th e greatest environmental impact from 
a life-cycle perspective wa s completed in May 2006. It grouped consumption 
of the society into almost three hun dred product categories (sectors), which 
were assessed in relation to different environmental impact categories, such 
                                                
 
20 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pilot.htm. 
21 16 IPP R&D-projects have been developed, aiming at showing the ecologic and economic win-win 
situation for all stakeholders when using the IPP approach. See www.ipp-bayern.de 
EN 16   EN as acidification, toxicity, global warm ing, ozone depletion, etc. Results 
suggest that three areas of  the economically most important sectors - food and 
drink, private transportation, and housing - together are responsible for 70-80 
percent of environmental imp acts of private consumption. 
(3) "IMPRO - environmental IMprovemen t of PROducts". The project was 
carried out in 2006-2007, focusing on produc ts that are among those with the 
greatest environmental impacts, as emerged from the EIPRO study. The work was intended to help identify possible ways in which the life-cycle environmental impacts can be reduced for some of these products. The main aims of the studies were: estimate and compare the environmental impacts of 
the products under a life-cycle perspectiv e; identify the main environmental 
improvement options related to the pr oduct, addressing all the different life-
cycle stages and estimate the size of the environmental improvement potentials; and assess the main im provement options regarding their 
feasibility and potential social and economic impacts. Results are available 
for three of the product groups: passenger cars, meat products, and 
buildings.
22 
All Member States have reported  on product groups that have b een previously identified for 
action. In many cases, the results of the EIPR O, commissioned by the European Commission, 
was used, among other studies to selecting ne w product groups. Product panels have been 
established in several count ries. In Denmark, between 1998 and 2005, different product 
panels were running with members from the w hole product supply chain (as far as possible) 
with the purpose of co-operating on activities to get greener products on the market. There 
have been product panels for textiles, el ectronics, goods transpor tation, buildings, and 
agricultural products. In Finland,  two product panels were esta blished: a textile panel (2001-
2003) and furniture panel (2004-continuing). Swed en has initiated two dialogues: one in the 
retail sector (Future Trade, 1998- 2007) and the other in the build ing sector (Building-Living 
Dialogue, 1998-2009).23 The aim of the product panel on the furniture sector is to focus on the 
environmental load of furniture throughout the life-cycle of each piece and to promote sustainable development in the furniture i ndustry. The United Kingdom has been running the 
'Market Transformation Programme' (MTP), wh ich comprised a number of different product 
panels in different sectors. The main aim of MTP was to identify and develop ideas on how to 
address the whole supply chain of a product. 
5. C
O-ORDINATION AND INTEGRATION  
In order to enhance coordina tion, the European Commissi on is organising IPP Regular 
Meetings bi-annually with Member States repres entatives and key stakeholders to provide a 
forum for the European Commissi on and Member States and stakeholders to exchange best 
practices/information on IPP related activities. W ithin this forum, two working groups were 
set up to discuss and find solutions for specific  subjects relevant for th e development of IPP. 
The Working Group on Reporting Formats reviewed  the type of information that could be 
reported to the European Parliament and Council  as stipulated in th e IPP Communication and 
to propose to the European Commission an appr oach for collecting the necessary information 
for reporting from Member States and stakehol ders. Its conclusions have provided guidance to 
                                                 
22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/identifying.htm  
23 See www.framtidahandel.se  and www.byggabodialogen.se  
EN 17   EN the drafting of the present re port. The Working Group on Environmental Product Information 
examined the issue of life-cycle informati on throughout the product chain. It identified the 
needs, examined the tools, identified the gaps and opportunities, and proposed how the 
situation should be improved. Both working gr oups finalised their work at the end of 2006. 
Many stakeholders have highlighted the need to  further exploit synerg ies between the various 
instruments (both voluntary and mandatory), as required by the IPP Communication. In this 
regard, the SCP/SIP Action Plan has contribute d to clarifying the links and to enhance the 
coherence between the different IPP instrument s, providing a single fr amework for a variety 
of interlinked activities and instruments. In the implementation of the Action Plan, synergies 
will be further exploited and constrains betw een different instrument and tools removed. 
In order to increase coordination and coheren ce, Member States have adopted different 
approaches. Some have established inter-min isterial working group s (Germany, Finland, 
Belgium, Sweden and Italy), while others ha ve decided to supervise and coordinate IPP 
related measures by means of a working group in the specific organism responsible for the 
implementation of this policy (such as in Denm ark). Others, such as Romania, have created 
committees with members for the national authorities and stakeholders. In the United Kingdom, the government has established a dedi cated “Sustainable Pr oducts and Materials” 
division to develop strategies a nd to take forward the ‘product roadmap’ approach. In France, 
it is the MEEDDM that specifically supervises and ensures the implementation of the measures related to sustainable consumption, supported by the ADEME. 
An example of coordination between different Member States on IPP is the Nordic working 
groups consisting of representatives from De nmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. 
This initiative further proves that Nordic countries have been frontrunners in Europe 
regarding IPP issues. 
Different business associations, retailers, and en vironmental organisations are also engaged in 
various projects to support sustainable produc tion. For example, in 2005 with the support of 
the European Commission (DG Ente rprise and Industry), ACE carri ed out a project related to 
"Evaluation of Environmental Management Syst ems and their role with respect to product 
related environmental informati on". Another example is IKEA, where resources are allocated 
into environmental projects related to IPP such as forestry-projects, the cotton-project, the low-emission-project, the EcoBuild-project, and the Greenchem-project. Some of these 
projects are carried out in co-operation with R&D (universities, institutes), specialists and 
NGOs (e.g. WWF). 
6. T
HE FUTURE OF IPP  – INTEGRATION WITH THE SCP/SIP  AGENDA  
The 2003 IPP Communication undoubtedly had the e ffect of opening a fruitful debate on the 
role and possible measures that could be ta ken at European Union and national level by 
different actors, from public authorities to i ndustries and civil societ y organizations, in the 
attempt to minimise the impacts of products through a combination of policy and legislative tools. It also provided a con ceptual framework -based on the life-cycle thinking- which has 
been successful in strengthening the coor dination and coherence between different 
environment-related product policy instruments. 
In the last 6 years, the IPP approach -based on  the 5 five principles of life-cycle thinking; 
working with the market; stakeholder involveme nt; continuous improvement of products; and 
the use of a variety of policy inst ruments- has been successfully integrated in the activities of 
EN 18   EN the regulators and the relevant stakeholders. Thes e principles are also the pillars of the 2008 
SCP/SIP Action Plan, which has become the natural extension and logical prosecution of the 
process started with the IPP Communication. 
The life-cycle thinking is widely applied in  EC environmental legi slation (i.e. Ecodesign 
Directive) and commonly used in national policies and measures by Member States. 
Industries make use of the princi ple as well, not only to comply with the legislation in force, 
but also to better understand the impact of th e products they produce on human health and the 
environment. For certain SMEs and consumers, li fe-cycle thinking might not be easy to adopt, 
despite the efforts made by some European cons umer organizations to inform citizens on the 
environmental impact of product from cradle to grave. In this context, the LCA instruments 
developed by JRC are of crucial importan ce, and JRC on-going work  should be further 
supported to develop a common, authoritative EU  reference methodology/data basis for LCA. 
Setting appropriate incentives to move the ma rket towards sustainability is one of the 
objectives of the Communication. To  achieve this, it is necessary to work with the market and 
this principle has been implemented both at EU  and national level. Working with the market 
is also part of the SCP/SIP Action Plan, which makes specific provisions for linking incentives and public procurement with the envi ronmental performance of products. With the 
notable exception of labelling in struments, it seems, however, that so far the focus – both at 
Member States and EU level- has been on the supply side and the public demand side, and more could be done to further promote "green " private demand, to reward sustainable product 
with a wider consumers' demand. Similarly, the EU's  role in the promotion of fiscal measures 
for sustainability has been  rather small to date. 
Stakeholder involvement was one of the most im portant elements in th e implementation of the 
IPP Communication at EU and na tional level. The systematic involvement of stakeholders 
during the design phase of legi slative and non-legislative initiatives has been extremely 
positive, strengthening the initiatives themselves  and increasing their legitimacy and their 
effectiveness. For instance, the IPP Regular Meetings provided a forum for the European 
Commission, Member States and key stakeholders to report and inform on relevant IPP 
activities. This positive experi ence will be continued and exte nded, to cover the wider scope 
of SCP/SIP issues. There are other valuable examples of stakeholder involvement worth 
mentioning, such as the Ecodesign Consultation  Forum, the Retail Forum, the BUILD-UP 
initiative
24 and the EU SCP Food roundtable. 
Continuous improvement of products' performance is a clear guiding principle of IPP, which 
has been taken up by the SCP/SIP Action Pla n. Following the ground- breaking studies by 
JRC (EIPRO and IMPRO), the European Comm ission has been developing policy measures 
for the products identified to have the greates t potential for environm ental improvement. The 
principle is extremely useful and pragmatic, in  particular because it keeps the IPP-SCP tools 
updated in face of quick technology change and it allows industry to focus on the most cost-
effective improvements. The brightest example is  the Ecodesign Directive, with its system of 
moving benchmark to stimulate progress while providing predictability to the industries 
concerned. 
The IPP approach requires the combination of a number of different tools in reason of the 
variety of the products marketed and the stakeh olders involved, from vo luntary instruments to 
                                                 
24 See http://www.buildup.eu/ . 
EN 19   EN mandatory measures. As some tools for pr omoting greener production and consumption 
existed prior to the formulation of IPP, such as  the European Eco-label, the real challenge of 
IPP implementation was to use a coherent an d mutually-enforcing set of existing and new 
tools to achieve the policy obj ectives. This challenge has been taken up by the SCP/SIP 
Action Plan, which provides a coherent fram ework for different policy instruments and 
initiatives designed to promote resource effi cient and eco-friendly products, while raising 
consumer awareness. Even though it is not alwa ys easy to understand how this wide set of 
initiatives correlate to the IPP Communication, it is fair to say that the Communication has 
served as an important platform and refere nce for the ongoing nece ssary shift from the 
"punctual" regulation of producti on to initiatives and measures to decrease environmental 
impact in all phases of the lif e-cycle, including consumpti on. In this regard, the work 
undertaken by JRC has provided important fi gures and methodology for calculation of the 
environmental impacts from different product groups. 
On the basis of these considerations, what is the fu ture for IPP in the EU? It is fair to say that 
by promoting the continuous improvement of th e environmental performance of products and 
organisations, IPP has fulfilled its promise and contributed to promoting the perception that 
the environment is an opportunity - also in te rms of cost reduction and marketing - and not 
any longer an obstacle. This is for instance the case for the re-usability of packaging for 
logistic and the spectacular increase in green cl aims in advertising registered in recent years. 
As this working paper demonstrates, the SCP/SI P Action Plan is carrying forward the process 
initiated with the IPP Communicat ion with the aim of further unl ocking market potentials for 
more sustainable products and promoting smar ter consumption. At this stage -and looking 
ahead- it seems appropriate to further integrat e the two processes and make IPP a significant 
element of the SCP/SIP agenda. This new, strengthened and coordinated process will need to be integrated also with the implementation of  the Thematic Strategy on sustainable use of 
natural resources, including the related issues of managing ecosystem services. The challenge 
towards the 2012 review of the SCP/SIP Ac tion Plan is coordinated and effective 
implementation, with the view of  addressing broader sustaina bility aspects if suitable 
methodologies for assessment will eventually became available. 
EN 20   EN ANNEX III:  LIST OF IPP  REGULAR MEETINGS  
• 24 February 2004  
• 20 September 2004  
• 2 March 2005  
• 23 November 2005  
• 6 June 2006  
• 15 November 2006  
• 2 October 2007 
• 21 April 2008 
• 2 December 2008 
• 6 June 2009  
 
EN 21   EN ANNEX IV: LIST OF ADOPTED EUP IMPLEMENTING MEASURES  
 
 Eco-design and Labelling 
measures   
Type of 
measure Final 
Adoption 
(by EC)  
Revision  
Others 
1 Standby and off mode 
losses  Ecodesign YES 
18 December 2008 6 years 
(18 December 
2014) - Standardisation mandate : power consumption measurement 
 
2 Simple Set top boxes  Ecodesign YES 
26 February 2009 5 years 
(26 February 2014)  
3 Tertiary sector 
Lighting (street & 
office) Ecodesign YES 
18 March 2009 5 years 
(18 March 2014)  
4 Domestic Lighting25 
(non-directional 
households lamps) Ecodesign YES 
18 March 2009 5 years 
(18 March 2014) - During the revision, remove CFL UV radiation requirem ents from Table 4 provided the related standards are updated 
and harmonised by then 
 Amendment on 
ultraviolet radiation  Ecodesign September 2009  - Mandate SCENIHR to examine scientific evidence on the health impact of UV radiation from artificial light 
- Introduce UV radiation limits into CFL and LED safety standards - Update existing UV radiation limits in halogen lamp safety standards 
5 External Power 
Supplies (battery 
chargers, etc.) Ecodesign YES 
7 April 2009 4 years 
(7 April 2013) - Standardisation mandate:  measurements of no-load condition electric  power consumption and average active 
efficiency of EPS 
                                                 
25 Ecolabel exists  
 
EN 22   EN 6 Electric Motors  Ecodesign July 2009 7 years - Standardisation mandate : variable speed drives  
- The review will include resource efficiency, re-use and recycling and the level of measurement uncertainty  
7 Domestic 
Refrigerators/Freezers
* Ecodesign July 2009 5 years 
(2 years - wine 
storage appliances)  - Standardisation mandate: procedures and methods for measuring the energy and water consumption, washing 
efficiency, spin-drying efficiency, programme time, spin s peed, noise emissions, product specific low power modes, 
left-on mode duration and rated capacity   
- The review shall in particular assess the verification tolerances of Annex V and the possibilities for removing or 
reducing the values of the correction factors of Annex IV. 
- Adopt specific ecodesign requirements for wine storage appliances no later than in two years . 
  Labelling    
8 TVs*  Ecodesign July 2009 3 years  
  Labelling    
9 Circulators   July 2009 1 January 2017 
(cca 8 years) 
 - The review will include the assessment of design options that can facilitate re-use and recycling.  
- Review the methodology for calculating the energy efficient  index (Annex II) for glandless circulators integrated in 
products before 1 January 2012