NoC332/44 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)allowingvoluntaryparticipation
bycompanies intheindustrialsectorinaCommunity eco-auditscheme(*)
(92/C332/15
On26March1992,theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomic andSocialCommittee ,
underArticle130softheTreatyestablishing theEuropean Economic Community ,onthe
abovementioned proposal .
TheSectionforProtection oftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumer Affairs,which
wasresponsible forpreparingtheCommittee 'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
29September 1992.TheRapporteur wasMrBoisseree .
Atits300thPlenarySession (meetingof22October1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyalargemajoritywith8abstentions .
rulesandrequirements ,andmore.TheAppendix con­
tainsframework conditions fortheaudit,tobefleshed
outbystandardssetbyEuropeanstandardsbodies.
1.3.Thesecompanies 'credibility vis-a-visthe
environmental protection systemandtheauditistobe
ensuredbyanenvironmental statementdrawnupon
thebasisoftheauditandsenttobodiesappointed by
Member States.Ashorterversionwillbeissuedto
thegeneralpublic.Theenvironmental statement will
describeafirm'sperformance andintentions inenviron­
mentalpolicies;itistobeformallycorroborated byan
officially-appointed independent 'environmental verifi­
er'.Inreturnformeetingtherequirements oftheeco­
auditsystem,firmsaretobeallowedtouseaneco­
auditlogotoenhancetheirpublicimage.Theaudit
logowillnotbeusedon,orinrelationto,productsso
astoavoidconfusionwiththeproducteco-label (3).1.ContentoftheDraftRegulation
1.1.Theproposal ,basedonArticle130softheEC
Treatyandannounced intheEuropean actionpro­
grammeonenvironmental protection (2),seeksto
improveenvironmental behaviour inindustry .Thepro­
posaltosetupsucharrangements wasinstigated by
majorindustrial firmsandassociations ,initiallyin
Anglo-Saxon countries ;theyhadproposedaneco-audit
procedure followingonfromthewidespread arrange­
mentsforensuringproductquality,aspartofacode
ofpracticeforindustry .Thesystematic approachof
thedraftRegulation 'sexplanatory memorandum is
basedonaproposalbytheInternational Chamberof
Commerce (ICC);thedraftRegulation does,however ,
gobeyondtheICCproposal,particularly asregards
information forthegeneralpublicandtheinvolvement
ofbodiesappointed byMemberStates.
2.GeneralComments 1.2.Basicallythedraftregulation enablesallindus­
trialfirmstoparticipate voluntarily intheeco-audit
system(whichincludestheactualaudit,i.e.theassess­
ment).Companies doingsoundertake (a)tosetup
an'environmental protection system'(=in-company
environment monitoring arrangements )foragivenpro­
ductionsiteand(b)tocarryoutregular,systematic
assessments ofthecompany'senvironmental perform­
ance.Theenvironmental protection systemincludes (a)
submission ofawritteninternalenvironment policy
(strategy),supplemented byaprogramme ofmeasures
coveringallactivitiesontheproduction site(b)an
environmental management systemcoveringorganiza­
tionalmeasuresandworkingprocedures andstructures
neededforimplementing thecompanyenvironment
policyandenvironment programmes .In-company
environmental protection systemsaretobeassessed
periodically (everyonetothreeyears)byanaudit
initiatedbythecompany .Theauditwillcoverthe
conclusions ofthepreviousenvironmental assessment ,
thelevelofcompliance withstatutoryenvironmental2.1.RemarksontheaimoftheplannedCommunity
framework fortheeco-auditsystem
2.1.1.TheaimofthedraftRegulation istwo-fold :
—toimprovecompanyenvironmental protection ,and
—toenhancetransparency asregardsindustrialfirms'
performance andintentions vis-a-visthepublic.
Thesetwoobjectives donotinanywayconstitute a
contradiction interms;onthecontrary,astheCom­
missionproposalshows,theytieintogetherverywell.
2.1.2.TheCommittee agreesthattheenvironmental
auditsystemshouldnotbeviewedasaparalleladminis­
trativesystemforCommunity andnationalenviron­
(1)OJNoC76,27.3.1992,p.2.
(2)COM(92 )23. (3)OJNoL99,11.4.1992,p.1.

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/45
mentalprotection legislation .Itshouldnotbeasubsti­
tutefor.:
—anextendedenvironmental impactassessment (as
theCommission suggestsinitsactionprogramme )
(cf.footnote2,p.44);
—issuingtechnicalrulesonenvironmental protection
integrated intotheproduction process (alsopro­
posedintheEuropeanactionprogramme );
—rulesoncompanyemissionregisters .
2.1.3.TheCommittee alsoagreesthatunderthe
environmental auditsystem,statutoryenvironmental
protection standardsshouldbeminimumrequirements ;
therealpointofthesystemishowever (a)toassessin­
companymeasuresforimplementing officialenviron­
mentalprotection requirements andtheeffortsand
results(environmental protection performance )which
gobeyondthat,and(b)tomakethisunderstandable
tothegeneralpublic.
2.1.4.TheCommittee welcomes theproposed 'sys­
tem'forimproving environmental protection ,particu­
larlysincetheenvironmental policyobjectives areto
beachievedwithcompanyresources ,incentives for
carefulhandlingandimprovedinformation .Thismakes
theeco-auditsystemaneconomicenvironment policy
tool.levelandparticularly MemberStatelevel.Conse­
quently,theCommittee considersthat:
—Theeco-audit isnotsynonymous withthestatutory
environmental impactassessment ;itinvolvesmore
thanjustmeetingstatutoryrequirements .
—TheCommittee assumesthatthe'competent bodies'
inMemberStateswhich,according tothedraft
Regulation ,aretoreceivethe'environmental state­
ment'andappointenvironmental protection inspec­
tors,arenottobethesameasStatesupervisory
authorities ;theauditsystemwouldotherwise bean
administrative procedure paralleltoofficial
environmental policyandthiswouldconstitute
pointlessduplication .
—Asasupplementary ,voluntaryenvironmental pro­
tectiontool,theauditsystemshouldneitherfully
norpartiallyreplacestateenvironmental monitor­
ing(cf.alsopoint3.8.2).
2.3.TheCommittee agreesthatthemattershould
bedealtwithinRegulation formatunderArticle130s
oftheECTreaty.
2.3.1.TheCommittee hasconsidered whether,in
viewoftheauditsystem'svoluntarynature,itsobjec­
tivescouldnotbeachievedjustaswellbyincorporating
itinanindustrialcodeofpracticeorinafutureEuros­
tandard (ISOstandard),ratherthanbystatutorylegis­
lation.
2.3.2.ApartfromthefactthatnoEurostandard (ISO
standard )hasyetbeenadoptedonthismatter,the
Committee hasconcluded ,inlinewiththeCommission ,
thatstatutoryarrangements arelogicalandnecessary
—cf.therecentRegulation ontheeco-label0)—so
astoachievethefollowingaims:
—useoftheenvironmental auditinan'environmental
statement',tobecheckedbyindependent experts
andusedtoinformthecompetent bodiesandthe
generalpublic;
—useofan'environmental logo'byfirmshaving
successfully completed theabove-mentioned pro­
cedure;
—participation ofworkersandtheirorganizations in
in-company auditsystemsandinvolvement ofthese
organizations andenvironmental groupsinappoint­
ingenvironmental verifiers (expertstocorroborate
theenvironmental statement )inaccordance with
theprocedure laiddowninArticle7;
—alignment ofprocedures forassessingin-company
environmental protection intheCommunity .
2.4.Although thisissueisbeingdealtwithina
Regulation ,theCommission proposesthatfirmsbe
allowedtoparticipate intheeco-audit systemona
voluntary basis.TheCommittee endorses this
approach .2.2.Inspiteofitsgenerallypositiveassessment ,the
Committee wouldpointoutanumberofambiguities
inthedraftRegulation .
2.2.1.Theeco-audit isdesignedtoassessenviron­
mentalprotection programmes offirmsandin-com­
panyenvironmental systemsinparticular .Wherethere
arenoenvironmental protection legislation orstan­
dards,orwhereprogrammes andmanagement systems
gobeyondexistingrules,thedraftRegulation doesnot
provideguidelines forassessment .TheEurostandards
(ISOstandards )referredtointhedraftRegulation are
gearedtoproduct-quality guarantees (andindirectlyto
theassessment ofproduction andmanagement issues)
andarenotnecessarily applicable toenvironmental
policyobjectives .TheRegulation providesforthecom­
missioning ofadditional specificstandards (Article4).
TheCommittee wouldpointoutthatinordertostan­
dardizetheeco-audit withintheCommunity andto
developyardsticks fortheenvironmental statement vis­
a-visthepublic,thecorresponding standardsmustbe
drawnupbythetimetheRegulation entersintoforce
(1July1994).
2.2.2.TheCommittee understands fromtheDraft
Regulation thattheeco-auditsystem,ascontained in
theCommission proposal ,isseparatefromofficial
environmental protection enforcement atCommunity (')OJNoL99,11.4.1992,p.1.

NoC332/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
areasonastaggered basis,sothattheauditcanbe
introduced forthwith inthoseareaswherestandards
exist.2.4.1.TheRegulation formatisnotincompatible
withthevoluntarynatureofthearrangements ;thiswas
alsothecasewiththeeco-labelRegulation .
2.4.2.TheCommittee welcomesthevoluntarynatu­
reofthearrangements becauseof:
—theirindependence fromofficial,(statutory )
environmental protection procedures ;
—themotivation associated withtheauditsystemfor
achievinggoodenvironmental performance going
beyondminimum legalrequirements ;
—thepublicityfortheauditsystemwhichencourages
competition betweenfirms;
—thepracticalexperience tobegainedinusingthe
newinstrument ,onthebasisofwhichthecasefor
theintroduction ofamandatory 'blanket'system,
withinthecontextofthereviewprovidedforunder
Article13,canbeconsidered .
2.4.3.Inanycase,theCommittee feelsthatconsider­
ationshouldbegiventodecidingwhetheramandatory
auditsystemshouldbeincorporated inthespecific
provisions applicable tofirmswhoseproduction
involves particularly highenvironmental risks,
especially sincetheCommission isworkingoncorre­
spondingproposals inconnection withtheamendment
tothe'SevesoDirective'(1).3.2.Article3
3.2.1.TheCommission proposalstipulatesthatan
'initialenvironmental review'shouldprecedetheestab­
lishmentofanenvironmental protection system;the
Committee wouldaskwhatcriteriathisreviewwould
havetofollow.
3.2.2.TheCommittee viewsparticipation bywork­
ersandtheirorganizations asaparticularly important
component oftheeco-audit system.TheCommittee
thereforehasmisgivings aboutrestricting thispartici­
pation('appropriate cases').
3.2.3.TheCommittee callsforamoreprecisedefi­
nitionoftheaimoftheenvironmental statement tobe
senttocompetent bodiesappointed byMemberStates;
theCommittee assumesthatthereisnointentiontolink
theauditsystemtoofficialenvironmental protection
monitoring .
3.3.Article4
HeretheCommission instructstheEuropeanstandards
bodiestoestablishcriteriaforprogressive environmen­
talmanagement .Thecomment madein3.1.2also
applieshere.
3.4.Article5
Theenvironmental statement istobemadeavailable
forpublicinformation 'inaconcise,non-technical
form'.TheCommittee fearsthatthelevelofpublic
information willfallbelowthestandardsstipulated in
thedirective onfreedomofaccesstoinformation on
theenvironment (2).TheCommittee feelsthattheeco­
auditmustbepublishedonthesamebasisasisstipu­
latedforreportsontheeconomicsituationofcertain
firms.Inanycasethefindingsoftheeco-auditshould
beforwarded toshareholders .3.Comments onIndividual Provisions oftheDraft
Regulation
3.1.Article 1inconjunction withArticle2jofthe
Draft(scope)
3.1.1.Theindustrial statisticsquotedherecover
almosttheentirerangeofindustrialproduction ,plus
wastemanagement technologies .Inordertoidentify
Community criteriaandnormsforestablishing the
auditandenvironmental statement ,theRegulation 's
scopeshouldbefairlyextensive .Thereisacasefor
introducing theRegulation graduallyinindividual are­
as,depending ontheavailability ofgenerallyacknowl­
edgedcriteriaforassessingacompany'senvironmental
performance .
3.1.2.ThedraftRegulation includesacallforthe
adoptionofnormsforenvironmental management sys­
tems(Article4)forthewholeareacoveredbythe
Regulation ;wemustassumethatthesestandardswill
notbeoperativeforquitesometime,andthattheaudit
systemwillinitiallyhavetooperateonaprovisional
basis.Itisdoubtfulwhetherthisisinkeepingwiththe
hoped-forconfidence-building effect.Thus,onepossi­
bilitywouldbetointroducetheregulation inindividual3.5.Article6
3.5.1.ThedraftRegulation leavesitopenasto
whethertheeco-audit istobecarriedoutbyin-com­
pany(internal)orexternalauditors .Ingeneralthe
Committee prefersanexternalaudit.
3.5.2.Inanycase,stepsmustbetakentoensure
thattheauditorsarenotthesamepeopleasthe
(*)CouncilDirectiveof24June1982onthemajor-accident
hazardsofcertainindustrial activities (82/501/EEC),OJNo
L230,p.1. (2)OJNoL158,23.6.1990,p.56.

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/47
environmental verifierswhovalidate (corroborate )the
audit.
3.5.3.Thecomments onArticle4abovealsoapply
toArticle6(3).isnotprovidedforinthedraftRegulation andwould
beincompatible withthespiritoftheinstrument .
3.8.3.FinallytheCommission intendstosubmitpro­
posalsforextending theauditsystemandcompiling
information thereon,afterconsulting the'twosidesof
industry'.Nomentionismadehereofenvironmental
conservation bodies.TheESC'srolehereisalsotobe
clarified)3.6.Article7
3.9.Article13ThedraftRegulation containsnoprovisions on
environmental verifiers'specialistqualifications .The
Committee suggeststhatitbestipulatedthatappointees
shouldbeconfinedtopeoplewhoseknowledge and
professional experience guaranteethatthefindingsof
theirworkwillberecognized notonlybythecompetent
bodiesbutalsobythepublic.TheCommittee assumes
thattheverifiersmustbeproficient inthesubjectareas
(industries )theyareinspecting .Moreover ,arrange­
mentsforaccrediting environmental verifiersinvolve
considerable redtape,particularly Article7(2).Itis
debatable whetherthearrangements arecompatible
withtheprincipleofsubsidiarity :theywouldentaila
'hybrid'EC-Member Stateadministration .Ofcourseafterthetrialperiodiscompleted itmustbe
possibletoamendtheRegulation ,eventotheextent
ofintroducing acomprehensive orpartialmandatory
audit,astheCommission itselfpointsoutinthe
explanatory memorandum .TheCommittee categori­
callyendorsestheCommission 'sproposaltoinvoke
Article130s(2)oftheEECTreaty(qualifiedmajority
votinginCouncilofMinisters ).
3.10.Annex1A
3.7.Article11TheEurostandard 29000referredtoheredealsonly
withqualitysafeguardprocedures andthusmakesno
specificstatementontheenvironmental protection sys­
tem.Standardsforthismachinery shouldtakeaccount
ofthedifferentsizesoffirms,withparticularconcern
forthecircumstances ofsmallandmedium-sized
enterprises (SMEs)(cf.point3.8.1.).Itisnotclearwhetherthelegitimate useoftheeco­
auditlogoistobemonitored bynationalauthorities .
Thisquestiondoesarisebecausepermission touse
thelogocanbewithdrawn intheeventofnational
environmental provisions beinginfringed .Onepossi­
bilitywouldbetoleavethemonitoring ofproperor
improperuseofthelogotoMemberStates'competition
law,withoutinvolvingtheauthorities . 3.11.AnnexIB
3.8.Article12'Materials balancesheet':shouldbeaddedtothethird
indent.
Article12raisesawholeseriesofquestions :
3.12.Annex1C
3.8.1.Thepromotion oradvertising oftheeco-audit
systemvis-a-vissmallandmedium-sized firmsmightbe
amatterfortradeorganizations ratherthannational
bodiesinthefirstinstance,especially sinceitisa
voluntary scheme.Ontheotherhand,itcouldbethe
taskofnationalbodiestoensurethattheappropriate
sectorssetuporganizations andestablishments capable
ofassistingsmallandmedium-sized companies withthe
preparation andimplementation oftheaudit.Efforts
shouldalsobemadetoensurethatthespecialcircum­
stancesofsmall-andmedium-sized firmsareproperly
takenintoconsideration inpreparingandcarryingout
theaudit.
3.8.2.Problems couldariseifMember Stateswere
empowered toexemptindividual auditschemeusers
fromStatemonitoring oftheenvironmental rulesorto
relaxsuchmonitoring [Article12(lb)].Thiswould
entaildovetailing theauditsystemandnational
environment lawandenvironment administration ;this3.12.1.TheCommittee welcomes thereference to
thebestavailabletechnologies .NotonlyCommunity ,
butalsoMemberStates'environmental legislation
shouldbetakenintoaccount intheenvironmental
protection systemandtheeco-audit .
3.12.2.TheCommittee alsohasreservations about
C11.Thepointofproviding thegeneralpublicwith
information isnotmerely'tounderstand 'potential
environmental impact.Tomeetpublicconcern,infor­
mationshouldfocusonprecautionary measureswhich
companies aretakingtopreventanypotentialimpact
ontheenvironment .
3.12.3.C13requiresmanagement toensurethat
contractors workingonthecompany'sbehalf'apply
environmental standards equivalent tothecompany's
own'.TheCommittee assumesthattheenvironmental

NoC332/48 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
standardsreferredtoarenotjust'catchall'provisions
butareenshrined inspecificrulesonconductand
procedure .Ifthisisthecase,thecodeofstandards
applyingtogivenproduction plantspecifications can­
notpossiblybeappliedtosuppliersorproductusers.
Theprovisioncouldthereforebeformulated soasto
requirethecontractors workingforthecompanyto
meetalltheenvironmental protection requirements
applyingtothem.
3.13.AnnexIE
3.13.1.TheCommittee doubtswhethertheISOstan­dard10011,whichcoversqualityguarantees ,issuf­
ficientforimplementing theRegulation .
3.13.2.TheCommittee makesthefollowing com­
mentsregardingthecontentoftheaudit:
—wheneverpossible,itshouldsuggestalternative pro­
ductionmethods/procedures andshouldcompare
thesetotheprocedures chosen;
—shouldalsoincludeareviewofin-company infor­
mationsystems,particularly ofhowworkers
involvedintheproduction processarebriefed.
DoneatBrussels,22October1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
APPENDIX
totheopinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
Amendments rejected
Thefollowingamendments werediscussedandrejectedduringthedebate,butreceivedmorethan25%of
thevotescast.
Point2.3.2
Replacethethirdindentbythefollowing :
'—appropriate involvement ofworkers'representatives inin-company decisionsonenvironmental protec­
tion;'
Reasons
Self-explanatory .
Voting
For:19,against :42,abstentions :4.
Point2.4.3
Omitthisparagraph .
Reason
TheCommittee welcomesthevoluntarynatureoftheECO-Audit scheme,andgivesseveralgoodreasons
forthisinparagraph 2.4.2.Amongthereasonsgivenisthatavoluntarysystemgeneratesmotivation for
firmstoachievegoodenvironmental performance exceedingminimumlegalrequirements .Itwould,therefore ,
becounterproductive tomaketheschememandatory forfirmswhoseproduction involvesparticularly high
environmental risks,especiallythesefirmswhichbenefitfromthemotivation generated byavoluntary
system.Inanycase,itwouldbeextremelydifficulttodefineandidentifythosefirmswhoseproduction
involvesparticularly highenvironmental risks(thereisnoconnection withthe'SevesoDirective').

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/49
Voting
For:30,against:53,abstentions :1.
Point3.5.1
Replacethelastsentenceby:
'TheCommittee recognizes theadvantages ofin-company auditteams(knowledge ofprocessesbeingaudited,
motivation toacceptimprovements ,thelearningprocess)ifthecompanypossessesthenecessaryresources ;
atleastonememberoftheauditteam,however,shouldbeindependent oftheparticularunitbeingaudited.
Ifthenecessaryresourcesarenotavailable (asmaybethecasewithsomeSMEs)thenexternalauditors
shouldbeusedtheCommittee recognizesthat,inanycase,externalverification wouldensuretheadequacy
andcredibility oftheaudit.'
Reasons
Experience teachesthatin-company auditinghasmanyadvantages leadingtobetterprotection ofthe
environment ,asmentioned above.Toavoid'blindnessduetofamiliarity 'atleastonememberofthein­
companyauditteamshouldbeindependent oftheunitbeingaudited .
Ofcourse,whenevertheresourcesofthecompanyconcerned arenotadequatetocarryoutaproperaudit,
thenexternalauditors (consultants )mustbeused.Finally,shouldtherebeafeelingofdistrustintheconcept
ofcompanies conducting aself-audit ,thentheexternalverification whichhasbeenintroduced intothe
Regulation willensurethatthisdistrustisnotjustified .
Voting
For:32,against:55,abstentions :8.
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheincineration ofhazardouswaste(1)
(92/C332/16
On7April1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomic andSocialCommittee ,
underArticle100aoftheTreatyestablishing theEuropeanEconomic Community ,onthe
abovementioned proposal .
TheSectionforProtection oftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumer Affairs,which
wasresponsible forpreparingtheCommittee 'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
29September 1992.TheRapporteur wasMrColombo .
Atits300thPlenarySession (meetingof22October1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionbyalargemajoritywithfiveabstentions .
1.Generalcomments
1.1.Giventhathazardous wasteincinerators must
minimizetherisksofpollutionfromsuchsubstances ,
(!)OJNoC130,21.5.1992,p.1.theCommittee endorsesthepurposeoftheproposal ,
whichismainlydesignedtopreventandthusreduce
pollutionofair,soil,surfaceandgroundwater caused
bytheincineration ofhazardous waste.Ithopesthat
therigorousenvironmental protection measuresbeing
proposedwillhelptoincreasethepublicacceptability
ofincineration insuitablelocations .