Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme'
Date: 1999-05-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: cooperation policy, environmental policy, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard, profit sharing

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/43

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit
scheme’ (1)

(1999/C 209/11)

On 11 December 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Pezzini.

At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 71 votes to three with five abstentions.

1. Background

1.1.
The review of the Regulation builds on an assessment
of implementation in the Member States, and on the trend in
Community environmental policy to emphasise voluntary
instruments and the responsibility of all stakeholders in
promoting sustainable growth. The review contains some
important new elements which call for further discussion.

1.2.
The Committee is pleased to note that some of the
new elements correspond to recommendations made in the
Committee opinion on the original proposal (2), in particular
as regards worker participation, provision of support to SMEs,
the case for a logo, and gradually widening the scope of the
Regulation.

1.3.

The main new elements are intended to:

— widen the scope of the regulation (Article 3);

— establish a link between ISO 14001 and EMAS, in order to
make it easier to move between the two and avoid
duplication of work (Annex I);

— involve employees

in the implementation of EMAS

(Article 1);

— increase the participation of SMEs (Article 10(1));

— use EMAS in the implementation and control of environ-
mental legislation, without calling for blanket implemen-
tation (Article 10(2));

— adopt a visible logo (Article 8);

— develop a promotional strategy (Article 11);

— ensure the consistency of

implementation across the
Member States by setting up an accreditation forum and
other competent bodies (Articles 4 and 5).

(1) OJ C 400, 22.12.1998, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 332, 16.12.1992.

1.4.
It should be emphasised that the proposal contains
major elements of continuity, particularly as regards the added
value of EMAS, which requires organisations to go beyond
mere compliance with current environmental regulation (third
recital). The proposal also puts considerable emphasis on
subsidiarity, leaving the Member States ample discretion in
implementing EMAS.

1.5.
The Committee notes that the January 1999 conference
on the EMAS review hosted by the German presidency
provided an occasion for fruitful discussion and analysis of
current achievements. Moreover, the conference confirmed the
need to overcome certain major obstacles to the uniform
implementation of EMAS throughout the Member States,
particularly in view of the considerable fall in certification
applications in Germany, which had previously been at the
forefront in implementing the scheme.

1.6.
In particular, the Committee endorses the need to
develop EMAS, especially by making it easier for SMEs to
sign up to the scheme, whilst safeguarding the objective
of continuously improving environmental performance by
keeping the public fully informed.

The Committee had the opportunity to address the
1.7.
problems posed by uneven geographic implementation — and
especially to look at
the obstacles encountered in some
Member States and ways of solving them — inter alia at the
hearing organised together with ANPA (the Italian Environ-
mental Protection Agency) on 16 March 1999 in Rome,
where much valuable oral evidence was taken from the
socio-economic partners and associations involved in EMAS.

The hearing revealed the need for better promotion of
1.8.
the system on the part of
the Member States and the
Commission; for wider stakeholder participation — especially
professional associations, trade unions and NGOs; and for
partnership arrangements for EMAS dissemination.

C 209/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

1.9.
In this respect, the ESC will study the case for an
additional opinion to look more closely into all aspects of the
implementation procedure ignored by the Regulation, and
which do not tend to make EMAS participation easy, particu-
larly for SMEs.

2. General comments

The Committee believes that EMAS provides a useful
2.1.
instrument for achieving the main objective of promoting
sustainable production and consumption (development) pat-
terns, and would reiterate some of its fundamental principles,
i.e. the fact that it:

— is market-based;

— provides for voluntary participation;

— promotes shared responsibility for environmental protec-

tion;

— provides a framework for the effective management of

environmental effects;

— improves environmental performance, particularly that of

industry, but also that of other sectors;

— gives credible, transparent results;

2.2. Geographical imbalance and subsidiarity

2.2.1.
Since there is a strong geographic imbalance in the
success of EMAS across the Member States — which could
have a negative impact on business-market relations — we
need to look more carefully at past experience in order to
identify instruments which can encourage more consistent
application. This should not be confused with a rigid
implementation of the rules; the aim is rather to identify
incentives and promotion schemes which are compatible with
the rules of competitiveness and competition.

Four Member States — Austria, Germany,

2.2.2.
the
Netherlands and Sweden — have a much higher relative
density (number of EMAS-compliant firms as a percentage of
all firms) than the rest of the European Union.

2.2.2.1.
This ‘positive anomaly’ should provide food for
thought; these results were most certainly achieved through
instruments and measures which were not specifically provided
for in the Regulation, and which could be usefully applied
elsewhere.

Key features of this experience could include the
2.2.2.2.
following: administrative procedures were decentralised; the
Chambers of Commerce, employer and union organisations,
and other associations were involved in promoting the system;
the competence and number of the verifiers; dissemination of
information; implementation of new advanced environmental
technologies; the availability of a tried and tested legislative
framework for the environment. Clearly, a strong environmen-
tal tradition helps take-up of voluntary environmental protec-
tion practices such as EMAS.

— is complementary to the traditional command-and-control

approach.

2.2.3.

The following instruments might be used:

2.1.1.
Because of its complementary nature, EMAS must be
combined with other environmental policy instruments used
in public authority promotion of sustainable development,
with all partners playing an active role. Clearly, although
EMAS is mainly business-oriented, it will improve its profile
and value added if it involves a wider audience — especially the
public, who are the end-targets of environmental statements.

2.1.2.
Attention should be paid to ‘green’ developments in
public procurement (green procurement), which are designed
to foster environmentally sustainable production methods and
services and — more generally — pursuit by the Commission
of the integrated product policy (IPP) which is to be the subject
of a green paper. These new developments could provide a
more conducive climate for EMAS certification.

2.1.3.
Although EMAS participation is voluntary for firms
and organisations, it is the duty of the authorities to promote
dissemination of
their public
commitment to environmentally-friendly development. They
could, for example, view it as a ‘plus’ — on a par with other
strengths — when assessing the criteria for awarding public
contracts.

this instrument as part of

— retroactive tax rebates for management procedures which

have yielded concrete environmental gains;

— decentralised administration of control and certification;

— EMAS coverage of other national requirements in the

environmental field;

— incentives to encourage big business to involve sub-

contractors in implementing EMAS programmes;

— inclusion of the names of sub-contracting firms in the

environmental statement;

— involving local authorities

in areas where different
approaches are being adopted in a given sector, and
considering them as coordination instruments for collec-
tive certification;

— more management responsibility for decentralised business
associations, in order to encourage the participation of
SMEs, and backed up by technical and financial support;

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/45

— enhanced visibility and communication of achievements

to the public;

— information and education campaigns, particularly for

associations representing small-business interests.

2.2.4.
The forum of accreditation and other competent
bodies will no doubt be able to promote exchanges of
experience, but harmonisation will also be a result of single
market pressure.
the
companies which have signed up are mainly large multi-
nationals or firms which supply central and northern European
markets.

is no coincidence that

in Italy,

It

2.2.5.
The need to provide a level playing field in the single
market is one of the main reasons for adopting EMAS (cf.
point 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum); the Commission
places strict curbs on the action it may take, in deference to
subsidiarity. It does not however shirk its obligations under
Article 10(4)
(promotion of a coherent approach) and
Article 11 (Community awareness campaign). Given the
uneven results, one wonders whether these obligations have
been met in full, bearing in mind the need to improve
environmental awareness amongst the public and players in
the various sectors.

2.3. Extension of scope

This ambitious goal is warranted by the track record
2.3.1.
of a number of pilot projects. Besides demonstrating the need
for an extension of scope, they have also shown time and time
again how all human activity impacts — albeit to varying
degrees — on the environment.

2.3.2. When discussing the case for extending the scope —
which the ESC endorses in principle — two somewhat
simplistic views must be refuted.

2.3.2.1.
The first is held by those who do not believe it is
possible to extend the scope of the Regulation, because, in
their opinion, some sectors — the service sector for example
— do not impact on the environment in a specific geographic
area. This is to forget that there are knock-on effects.

2.3.2.2.
The second view is held by the Commission, which
considers all the problems solved when it simply asserts that:

a)

b)

the pilot projects are proof that demand exists for environ-
mental certification outside the manufacturing sector;

that other sectors also impact significantly — both directly
and indirectly — on the environment;

c) and that EMAS management systems can be applied to all

economic sectors.

2.3.3.
It should however be emphasised that the immediate
blanket extension of EMAS poses a problem which will not be
easy to solve, owing to the fact that manufacturing industry
and other sectors — services in particular — impact differently
on the environment; In spite of this, it must be dealt with
rationally, using a logical, three-pronged approach, based on:

— a clear assertion that EMAS can be applied in all sectors, in
order to remove any ambiguity as to possible derogations
or convenient exclusions;

— more detailed research — again backed up by evidence to
provide specific benchmark criteria for a proper assessment
of the environmental performance of the various sectors,
this was
and a clear definition of
called for in the Committee’s opinion on the original
Regulation (1);

the certified site;

— arrangements for extending the scope to sectors which
have been excluded, based on a gradual, prioritised
approach. The first step should be to explore the possi-
bilities for implementation in the public and services
sectors.

2.4. Employee participation

2.4.1.
Although provided for under Article 1(d) in as much
as it is regarded as vital to the success of EMAS, the notion of
employee participation remains a general statement of intent.
The operative Articles fail to provide further details as to the
shape or form this participation might take, in contrast with
the 1993 Regulation [Articles 3(1) and 7(2)].

2.4.2.
The new regulation should ensure worker involve-
ment and consultation, via their representative bodies within
the firm, by involving them in drafting and implementing the
programmes, particularly as regards vocational training and
work organisation.

2.5. Using EMAS to implement and control environmental legis-

lation

Article 10(2) enables Member States to use EMAS
2.5.1.
registration in the implementation and control of environmen-
tal legislation, in order to avoid duplication of effort.

2.5.2.
This is a useful instrument, seen in the light of the
comments contained in the ESC opinion on the implemen-
tation of environmental legislation (2).

2.5.3. Without forgetting that the added value of EMAS lies
in the fact that it goes beyond mere compliance with legis-
lation, participation in the scheme could be phased in, by
means of dialogue between the firm and the competent
authority. This would encourage compliance and help to shed
light on any grey areas.

(1) OJ C 332, 16.12.1992.
(2) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, OJ C 95, 30.3.1998.

C 209/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

2.5.4.
Avoiding duplication of effort will undoubtedly be
an incentive for firms, and will encourage the environmental
authorities to promote greater use of the EMAS scheme.

2.7. EMAS visibility and credibility

2.5.5.
The Committee is however concerned at the total
lack of any mention of involving the European Environment
Agency, which could play an important role in benchmarking,
and provide technical and scientific support for the formu-
lation of guidelines.

2.6. Persuading SMEs and craft industries to register

2.6.1.
Attention should be paid to the special circumstances
which account for the way small firms conduct their business
and for the choices they make. These firms combine a
significant number of skills which they have to administer
according to priorities in terms of time available and limited
human resources. This means that anything which is not
strictly necessary — and which would involve considerable
input in terms of time and resources — tends to be jettisoned
unless it can be shown to be of use to the firm.

2.6.2.
It would therefore seem necessary to provide specific
procedures, simplified paperwork, and audit and control
schedules which are in keeping with the size and nature of the
firm. In this respect, the ESC notes that over-frequent controls
result in red tape and unwarranted expenditure, particularly
for SMEs.

2.6.3.
Clearly, the budget of the vast majority of most
micro-businesses will not stretch to employing someone
to grapple with mountains of red-tape. Consequently, the
competent environmental authorities should identify the
appropriate local/regional level to set up service and back-up
facilities, in order to encourage participation.

2.6.4.
In particular, there is a need to address the problem
of training internal auditors to meet the requirements of small
firms, which — unlike larger firms which have management
quality systems — are unlikely to have auditors on the payroll.
involve sectoral associations, which must
Training must
receive adequate support from the authorities. The internal
audit is a vital element in achieving — in partnership with the
relevant environmental authorities — compliance with existing
regulations, as a first step towards EMAS certification (cf.
Article 10(2)).

Guide lines should also be drafted to assist the
2.6.5.
verifiers in their work with SMEs, and to ensure conformity of
the assessment criteria.

2.7.1.
EMAS is a voluntary instrument which, thanks to the
transparency of its procedures and the fact that it is subject to
environmental authority controls, is welcomed by the public
as an attempt on the part of economic players to improve their
environmental performance. As an instrument for sustainable
development, it requires the participation of all stakeholders
and a proper public information campaign. It is more widely
used in areas where the authorities are actively pursuing a
policy of sustainable development, involving all education and
training providers, particularly schools.

2.7.2.
An attempt must be made to distinguish EMAS from
private certification systems, by emphasising the added value
it offers in terms of public protection, and by cutting red tape
and stepping up the consultation and information strands. The
ESC therefore feels that a logo — as envisaged in the new
proposal — would be extremely useful.

2.7.3.
Since the Commission is responsible for promoting
EMAS at Community level, the Committee suggests that the
new regulation should include guidelines on best practice, the
most frequent obstacles, and any other information which
might help improve understanding and use of this instrument.
The Committee hereby declares its willingness to help draw
up such guidelines, should it be called upon so to do.

The Committee feels it essential that all Member
2.7.4.
States should ensure that socio-economic players interested in
the scheme are widely consulted and actively informed. These
schemes are most successful when they are run with the
cooperation of the competent authorities. This requirement
should therefore be included in the provisions of the text,
so that the regulation contains an explicit reference to a
participation-based approach, and to the need for a strong bias
towards shared responsibilities in the field of sustainable
development. Article 2 should give a definition of ‘stake-
holders’, and they should be the recipients of the environmental
statement. Article 5 should state explicitly that stakeholders
must be consulted by the competent authorities. Finally, their
active involvement in informing the public and promoting the
system should be provided for in Article 11(1).

2.7.5.
Finally, the ESC notes that there are no plans to
produce a comparative study of results at European level. An
instrument of this kind could be extremely useful in promoting
EMAS registration. Consequently, the European Environment
Agency might be given a fixed deadline to produce just such a
report, to provide benchmarking for EMAS quality control at
European level.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/47

2.8. Specific comments

2.8.1. D e f i n i t i o n o f o r g a n i s a t i o n a n d s i t e

( A r t i c l e 2 ( 1 ) a n d ( m ) )

2.8.1.1.
Although the site has a distinct geographic
location, with a recognisable impact on the environment, the
same cannot be said for the organisation. The proposal must
not allow an organisation to register as such, when it has sites
which do not conform to relevant environmental legislation.
Consequently, specific reference criteria — particularly for
services — must be drawn up. For example, what is the
procedure for an organisation spread over several sites?

2.8.2. B e s t A v a i l a b l e T e c h n o l o g y ( B A T )

2.8.2.1.
Article 3 of EMAS I required the firm to declare its
environmental protection strategies with a view to continu-
ously improving its environmental performance by harnessing
BAT. The new proposal no longer includes this important
point. Annex I(B)(2) of EMAS II should include a reference to
BAT as providing applicant firms with an instrument for the
continuous improvement of their environmental performance,
and as an important pointer for verifiers. This would obviously
be confined to sectors where BAT is well established.

2.8.3. C o m p l i a n c e w i t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e g u -

l a t i o n s

EMAS I was not open to firms which do not
2.8.3.1.
legislation. The new proposal,
comply with environmental
however, is not clear about the need for an EMAS-certified
organisation to undergo regular checks on its compliance with
national environmental provisions, although a number of
provisions do refer to this (Articles 3(b) and 6.1(e), Annex I
B(1), Annex II(2.6), Annex V(4.3)). In particular, it does not
specify clearly whether the environmental statement must
include information relating to the organisation’s compliance
with national environmental
legislation. This information
should be included in paragraph 3.2 of Annex III, which sets
out the content of the environmental statement.

Brussels, 26 May 1999.

2.8.4. U s i n g E M A S t o c h e c k c o m p l i a n c e w i t h

e n v i r o n m e n t a l l e g i s l a t i o n

Article 10(2) on the duplication of control pro-
2.8.4.1.
cedures should be read in the light of Article 1(3). EMAS is not
a replacement for normal environmental controls, and does
not lead to a duplication of effort since EMAS and environmen-
tal control are different but complementary. Registration is a
voluntary instrument for industry, and cannot replace control
and monitoring by the public authorities. It can, however, be
used — within the framework of subsidiarity — to avoid
needless duplication and to simplify the administrative pro-
cedures required under national legislation.

2.8.5. E n v i r o n m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t ( A n n e x I I I )

2.8.5.1.
The Commission proposal is a watered-down ver-
sion of the previous Regulation. Under the terms of Annex III
(3.2), an organisation only needs to communicate its general
objectives, without having to describe strategies or objectives
in detail. Moreover,
the environmental statement can be
tailored to reflect stakeholders’ concerns. This should not be
allowed; there should be a single, complete statement.

The content of

2.8.5.2.
the environmental declaration
must tie in with the provisions of Annex I(3) on external
communication, in the sense that there must be ‘an open
dialogue with interested parties including local communities
and customers with regard to the environmental impact of
their activities’. The environmental statement must comply
with this requirement.

2.8.6. W o r k e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n

2.8.6.1.
In order to avoid the risk of selective interpretation
in Annex II and Annex V, the word ‘personnel’ should be
replaced by ‘workers’. In order to comply with contractual
requirements on information and consultation, provision
should be made to ensure that results are forwarded to
workers’ representatives within the firm.

2.9. Management Committee (Article 14)

2.9.1.
The shift from a regulatory committee to a manage-
ment committee bolsters the Commission’s initiative and
improves speed and efficiency at international level in par-
ticular.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI