EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2122 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the voluntary participation by organisat ions in a Community eco-management and 
audit scheme (EMAS) 
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
{COM(2008) 402 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2121} 
 
EN 2   EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
Regulation (EC) N° 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 
2001 allows voluntary participation by organisa tions in a Community Eco-management and 
audit scheme (EMAS). EMAS s hould be the highest standard for environmental management 
especially by setting the following requirements: 
• compliance with environmental Regulations, 
• environmental statement (= performance report), 
• employee involvement and  
• setting up and maintaining a validation procedure. 
These requirements can provide guarantees of  continuous improvement in environmental 
performance by participating organisations. They al so offer the possibility to use participation 
to demonstrate compliance with environmental legislation.  
Regulation (EC) N° 761/2001 requir es the Commission to review the scheme in the light of 
the experience gained during it s 12 years of operation and propose appropriate amendments to 
the Regulations. 
The EMAS regulation is revised with a view  to meeting the objectives of the Better 
Regulation initiative, developed in the contex t of the renewed Lisbon strategy aiming at 
simplifying and improving exis ting Regulation, to better de sign new Regulation and to 
reinforce the respect and the effectiveness of th e rules while reducing administrative burdens. 
The revision process began in 2005, with the launching of a large-scal e external evaluation 
study on EMAS and Eco-label including a broad stakeholder consultation. 
The evaluation shows that at micro-level, EMAS is currently already achieving its objectives 
as it improves the environmental performa nce of participatin g organisations.  
However, at macro-level, the scheme has not reached its full potential in terms of diffusion. 
Even though EMAS continues to grow steadily and has, at the beginning of 2008, almost 
6,000 registered sites in the EU , it is still covering a re latively limited number of 
organisations. This is partially due  to the scheme's unclear legisla tion, and its lack of focus on 
its real 'added-value' over and above similar schemes. 
Three general policy options have been identified and analysed: 
(1) continuing with the present approach, 
(2) phasing out the scheme, and  
(3) substantially modifying the scheme. 
In the option of continuing with the present approach , no substantive changes will be 
introduced to the scheme's content and level of ambition. The changes considered could only 
be of administrative / institutional nature, in order to make the current scheme run better. In 
 
EN 3   EN this option, only minor improvements can be exp ected because the under lying drivers of the 
low uptake of the scheme will not be remedied. 
The option of phasing out the scheme  aims at abolishing EMAS  in the medium term. As 
with the option of keeping the system as it is, the overall environmental impact of this option 
will be negative. 
The fact that the underlying drivers of the lo w uptake of the scheme are identified by the 
studies and the stakeholder and public consultation, offers the po ssibility to remedy these. A 
substantial modification of the scheme  through the introduction of  substantive changes is 
the only possible way to realise this. Because the original ideas behind EMAS remain valid 
from an environmental, economic, and EU policy perspective, it is prop osed that this option 
should be pursued, and that the revised EMAS  scheme should be strongly reinforced and 
developed, in order to significan tly increase its up-take and ma ke it become a true, sizeable 
alternative to traditional "command-and-contro l"-type legislation. EMAS should be more 
business-friendly and help the EU achiev e its overall environmental objectives. 
Even though a number of the measures imply budgetary implications for Member States or 
the European Commission, it is decided to introdu ce these measures because it is felt that 
there is a clear net over-all benefit. 
To achieve these objectives, the revision of th e EMAS Regulation should  aim at essentially: 
(a) ensuring that it will be the best indi cation of environmental performance for 
external stakeholders and nati onal enforcement authorities  
(b) raising its attractiveness for pa rticipating organisations and 
(c) increasing its user-friendliness, particul arly for small organisations (SMEs and 
small public authorities). 
The table below shows the causes that have been identi fied as contributing to the low uptake of the scheme 
as well as the options for improvement that are considered in this document. 
underlying drivers of the probl em options for improvement 
 Measures aimed at ensuring that the scheme is the best indication 
for external stakeholders and national enforcement authorities as 
regards performance improvement and legal compliance. 
Lack of clarity with regard to the applicable legal environmental requirements strengthening and ameliorating the rules on legal compliance 
The system of reporting is not harmonised or 
uniform harmonising and strengthening reporting by the introduction of: 
- core performance indicators and - sectoral reference documents
 
Procedures for accreditation and supervision of 
verifiers are not harmonised harmonising procedures for accr editation and supervision of 
verifiers 
 Measures aimed at raising the attractiveness of the scheme for 
participating organisations, particularly for small organisations, 
by reducing the administrative burden for participating 
 
EN 4   EN organisations and by increasing the visibility of participation in 
EMAS. 
Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme 
in Member States 
Uneven support in the Me mber States of EMAS 
by way of financial, fiscal and market-related measures increasing promotion and support for the scheme 
Organisational and financial barriers for 
implementation of EMAS 
Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS reducing burdens an d creating incentives 
Coexistence of other environment management 
systems clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 
Insufficient integration with other community 
policies / instruments creating possibilities for operational links and synergies with other 
EU legislation/instruments 
Limited geographical scope of EMAS making EMAS global 
 Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly  
Lack of clarity on how the system works re-writing text Regulation 
 integration of Guidelines in the Regulation