2002/18/EC: Commission Decision of 21 December 2001 establishing the Community eco-label working plan (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 4395)
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, eco-label, environmental protection, public awareness campaign, quality label

L 7/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 21 December 2001

establishing the Community eco-label working plan

(notified under document number C(2001) 4395)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/18/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a
revised Community eco-label award scheme (1), and in partic-
ular Article 5 thereof,

Community
(EMAS) (2).

eco-management

and

audit

scheme

(5)

(6)

The working plan should be reviewed periodically.

The measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up
pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/
2000,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 provides
the
Commission is to establish a Community eco-label
working plan.

that

The working plan should include a strategy for the
development of the scheme, setting out objectives for
environmental improvement and market penetration, a
non-exhaustive list of product groups which should be
considered as priorities for Community action, and plans
for
the
Community scheme and other eco-label award schemes
in Member States.

coordination

cooperation

between

and

Furthermore the working plan should provide measures
for the implementation of the strategy and include the
planned financing of the scheme.

Finally the working plan should outline the services to
which the scheme is not applicable, taking into account
Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing
a
voluntary

organisations

participation

by

in

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Community eco-label working plan for the period from 1
January 2002 to 31 December 2004, set out in the Annex, is
adopted.

Article 2

A review of the working plan shall be initiated before 31
December 2004.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Article 3

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2001.

For the Commission

Margot WALLSTRÖM

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001, p. 1.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/29

ANNEX

COMMUNITY ECO–LABEL WORKING PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The Community eco-label was introduced in 1992 to encourage businesses to develop products with a reduced
environmental impact throughout their whole life cycle, and to provide consumers with better information about these
impacts.

Since then, new policy approaches on sustainable goods and services have been developed. These endeavours undertaken
at all political levels have culminated in the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy (1) (IPP). This document proposes a
new strategy to strengthen and refocus product-related environmental policies and develop the market for greener
products, which will also be one of the key innovative elements of the sixth environmental action programme —
Environment 2010:

‘Our future, our choice’ (2).

The strategy, as proposed by the Commission in the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy,
is currently being
discussed by other European institutions and stakeholders. The outcome of this wide debate will provide an insight into
how the integrated product policy strategy can be successfully integrated into environmental policy. The debate will also
be the basis for a forthcoming White Paper setting out the conclusions of the Commission for the implementation of such
an IPP approach. The strategy, as proposed in the Green Paper, includes three main elements, namely price mechanisms,
green consumer demand and measures in favour of a more environmentally friendly design and use of products. Inter alia,
consumers should be given easier access to understandable, relevant and credible information through a strengthened and
refocused strategy on environmental

labelling.

This opens new opportunities for the European eco-label, which has so far had to operate with little or no support from
other policy measures, and has not yet achieved a satisfactory level of visibility on the market. Within the European
eco-label scheme there is considerable information and expertise on product policy based on life-cycle thinking which
should be made available to stakeholders involved in further developing the integrated product policy approach.

This working plan therefore should be seen in the context of the ongoing discussions on an EU integrated product policy
and the development of the sixth environmental action programme and the Community's sustainable development
strategy. The European Union's sustainable development strategy forms part of its preparations for the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. At this summit, following the 1992 Rio process, the European
Union will seek to achieve a ‘global deal’ on sustainable development. The June 2001 European Council of Göteborg (3)
agreed on a strategy for sustainable development and added an environmental dimension to the Lisbon process for
employment, economic reform and social cohesion. By explicitly mentioning the integrated product policy as a task of
joint responsibility and by inviting industry to take part in the development and wider use of environmentally friendly
technologies, the European Council itself stressed the importance of de-coupling economic growth from resource use.

Environmental labelling will constitute an important element within all these new approaches, with ISO type-I labels
(life-cycle based, third party certified eco-labels following ISO 14024), such as the Community eco-label, making a
significant contribution. It should be recognised that the eco-label, as both a voluntary and a selective scheme, does not
have the force and universality that measures such as regulations can provide. But good environmental labelling schemes
will remain attractive to consumers because of their immediacy and simplicity. They are also business friendly because
they act as product enhancers and offer marketing advantages at the point of sale. In addition the eco-label offers a
reference point for environmental excellence at European level, for example in greening public procurement and for
identifying green products on which taxation could be reduced. Moreover, in the draft directive on the environmental
impact of electrical and electronic equipment, the eco-label is proposed as giving a presumption of conformity with the
requirements of the directive.

Finally, while it is clear that the Community eco-label has not yet achieved satisfactory market penetration, it is now in a
better situation than ever before, with a continuously widening range of product groups, with eco-labelled products in
nearly all of the Member States and new applications coming in all the time. Moreover, new perspectives, such as IPP in
general and the greening of public procurement in particular, are opening up fresh market opportunities. Nevertheless,
much still needs to be done to make the eco-label more attractive to manufacturers, distributors, consumers and other
stakeholders.

(1) COM(2001)68 final.
(2) COM(2001)31 final.
(3) Presidency Conclusions, 15 and 16 June 2001, SN 200/01 p. 4; Commission communication: A sustainable Europe for a better

world: An EU strategy for sustainable development (9175/01).

L 7/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

In particular, it needs to be more widely recognised that the eco-label is a label of environmental excellence that has
several unique strengths. It is the only truly European eco-label, being valid throughout the 15 Member States of the EU
and the three Member States of the EEA. It is a public label, not a private label, developed under the authority of the
European institutions. The criteria are developed following very extensive consultation between all interested parties,
including public authorities, representatives of consumer and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
industry, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), distributors and others. It is an environmental label, not a health or
quality label, although these aspects are also considered. It takes into account all stages of the life cycle of the product,
that is to say it is not a single issue label or limited to the characteristics of the product itself. It uses the same logo for a
wide range of product groups, and so is easily recognisable by the consumer, who can be confident that the product
bearing the label
is one of the best with respect to its environmental performance. This is not a self-claim of the
manufacturer, as compliance with the criteria is certified, verified and monitored by an independent third party (one of
the eco-label competent bodies).

The fundamental aim of this working plan is, therefore, to build on these solid foundations and lay down the programme
of work for the next three years that will:

— make the eco-label a more successful and effective instrument for improving the environmental quality of products

and services,

— contribute to making consumption more sustainable, and to the policy objectives set out in the Community's
sustainable development strategy, the sixth environmental action programme and the forthcoming White Paper on
Integrated Product Policy Strategy,

— make the most effective use of the resources allocated to the scheme by the Commission, the Member States and the

members of the European Union Eco-labelling Board (EUEB) (1).

STRATEGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEME 2002 TO 2004

1. Policy and strategy

The Community eco-label is continually developing and adapting its long-term policy and strategy, which needs to be
closely integrated, among others, with the ongoing discussions on an EU integrated product policy, with the development
of the sixth environmental action programme and with the Community's sustainable development strategy. The eco-label
also needs to follow closely the wider developments in product labelling, including ISO type-II and III labels as well as
ethical, quality and health labels.

In order to manage more effectively the various related discussions and information flow, both within the scheme and
with respect to external forums, and to prepare and lead the debate on the future of the scheme, an active and permanent
policy management group should be set up.

Objective

Continue to develop and adapt the long-term policy and strategy of the scheme, as well as the integration of the eco-label
in the various policies being developed in relation to sustainable consumption (such as IPP, greening public procurement,
wider labelling, reduced taxation for green products, etc.).

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should set up a permanent policy management group, to develop and adapt its long-term policy and strategy,
and to coordinate with and provide input to the abovementioned policy developments. These policy issues should also be
discussed during the Presidential meetings (2).

2. Objectives for environmental improvement and market penetration

The objectives for environmental

improvement and market penetration are essentially:

(a) to widen the number of markets potentially open to eco-labelled products by progressively expanding the range of

eco-label product groups,

(b) within each of these markets/product groups, to increase significantly the visibility of the eco-label (i.e. the number of

eco-labelled products on the market),

(c) and thereby to continually reinforce the overall environmental benefits of the scheme and its contribution to making

consumption more sustainable

(1) Note: the Commission acts as the secretariat for the EUEB and participates in all
(2) EUEB meetings organised twice a year by the Chair of the EUEB in his/her country to discuss policy and marketing.

its activities.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/31

(a) Product group development

Currently criteria have been adopted for 17 product groups (tissue paper, dishwashers, soil improvers, bed mattresses,
indoor paints and varnishes, footwear, textile products, personal computers,
laundry detergents, detergents for dish-
washers, copying paper,
light bulbs, portable computers, refrigerators, washing machines, all purpose and sanitary
cleaners, hand-dishwashing detergents).

Work is ongoing on at least five new product groups (hard floor coverings, televisions, furniture, vacuum cleaners, and
tourist accommodation), and should be finalised in 2002.

The long-term objective is to establish a set of product groups which forms a sufficiently complete range of products to
attract retailers, manufacturers and consumers, and which is also manageable in terms of the work necessary to establish
and regularly revise their criteria. In the short term this should be between 25 and 35 product groups (see section 4a, and
sections 3a and Appendix II for a non-exhaustive list of priority product groups). The scope of each product group
should, where appropriate, be progressively widened, for example to include also certain products for professional use.

The scheme, its procedures and its resources are currently such that between four and eight Commission decisions on
product group criteria can be made every year. The revision of existing product groups should, in general, be made every
four to five years (although this period should be adapted on a case-by-case basis), implying on average some four to six
revisions every year, and thereby allowing perhaps two new product groups to be established every year.

Objective

Establish a set of product groups which forms a sufficiently complete and manageable range of products to attract
retailers, manufacturers and consumers.

Within five years, the number of established product groups should increase to between 25 and 35.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

Taking into account the priority list of product groups, the Commission, the EUEB and the Member States should, in
addition to carrying out the necessary revisions, establish one or two new product groups every year of the working plan.

The duration of validity of product group criteria should in general be four to five years (although this guideline period
should be adapted on a case-by-case basis).

In order to facilitate criteria setting, the EUEB should set up a working group to address horizontal issues common to
many product groups (e.g. flame retardants, packaging, etc.).

(b) Market penetration, visibility and consumer awareness

There are four parameters for measuring the visibility of the eco-label:

— companies: the number of companies awarded the eco-label,

— products: the number of products for which these companies have the eco-label,

— articles: the number of articles of these products marketed bearing the eco-label,

— values: the ex-factory sales value of these articles.

Currently (August 2001) 83 companies use the eco-label (compared to 37 in March 2000), on several hundreds of their
products. Textiles and paints and varnishes are by far the most successful product groups in terms of the number of
applicants. Tissue paper accounts for a significant proportion of the overall sales value of eco-labelled items. The
distribution of eco-label holders and their products over the European Union and the European Economic Area is still
fairly uneven, but compared to the situation one year ago, shows a much better and more balanced coverage of products
in 12 of the 17 product groups with licence holders in 13 out of the 18 participating countries. For 2000, provisional
data gives sales of approximately 17 million eco-labelled articles with an ex-factory value of approximately EUR 38
million.

In terms of actual market penetration, Community eco-labelled products are however still relatively insignificant, currently
representing less than 1 % of the total market for the different product groups. For example, the ex-factory sales value of
eco-labelled indoor paints and varnishes in the EU was approximately EUR 8 million in 1999, compared to the total sales
value of all decorative paints of approximately EUR 7 200 million.

L 7/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

The short-term objective is therefore to increase considerably the number of labelled products, so as to make the eco-label
visible on the market and to increase its environmental impact. The longer term objective is to continuously reinforce this
visibility so as to move towards the full theoretical potential for market penetration of the eco-label, which generally lies
between 1 % and 30 % of the overall market (depending on the product group in question and the selectivity of its related
eco-label criteria).

It should be stressed that the global experience of type I eco-labels is that it is infrequent to achieve anything close to such
levels of market penetration, and generally this has only been achieved for one or two product groups in geographically
restricted markets. The eco-label should therefore embrace realistic but at the same time ambitious targets. In the short
term, in order to achieve a minimum level of visibility, an annual increase of at least 25 % of the value and/or number of
eco-labelled articles would be necessary.

Visibility is far from being a precise concept, but in so far as the eco-label is concerned, one could consider minimum
visibility to be achieved if consumers all over the EU and the EEA have the possibility of choosing eco-labelled products of
different sorts during their shopping, without having to search too actively. A rough guideline definition could, for
example, be that eco-labelled products of at least three or four different product groups should be marketed in each
in quantities representing at least 1 % of the overall market of those product groups.
Member State,

In this respect, the eco-label competent bodies in each Member State have identified certain existing product groups for
targeting their marketing and promotion, including in particular textiles, footwear, paints and varnishes, soil improvers
and tissue paper.

While, in the final analysis, the decision to use the eco-label or not lies entirely with the individual companies (and is
taken essentially on the basis of economic and marketing factors), the EUEB, the Member States and the Commission can
nevertheless considerably influence the market penetration of the eco-label. As well as actively promoting the eco-label to
all stakeholders (see also section on joint promotional actions), the extensive consultation and dialogue during the
establishment of the criteria aim to achieve the best possible balance between environmental ambition and technical
feasibility, so as to be attractive to manufacturers, distributors and consumers.

While many more relevant manufacturers and retailers are now aware of the eco-label and the opportunities the new
scheme presents in relation to their products, as key stakeholders they all should be correctly informed as soon as
possible.

The various studies undertaken by the European Commission over the last few years, have highlighted some common
barriers in the communication process, inter alia, the differing but still existing lack of information regarding the scheme
and its opportunities and the perception of the eco-label as a relatively weak marketing tool. Other factors include the
reluctance in participating in eco-label schemes per se and the difficulties of applicants, particularly in some product
groups, in meeting the selective criteria because they do not always have full control over their entire supply chain (e.g.
textiles). Most of these barriers are due to problems of communication and cooperation between the actors involved in
the promotion and diffusion of the scheme and are tackled in this working plan.

A further aspect, very relevant to the visibility and market penetration and therefore to the direct environmental benefit of
the label, is highlighted in the recent contract on marketing the eco-label in Greece where the study endeavoured to
increase the recognition of the eco-label flower logo amongst the general public. In order for the logo to influence
consumer choice, consumers should be able to understand (by knowing, or having heard, or reading the label or
accompanying brochures, etc.) that a product bearing the eco-label has a reduced environmental impact. For example, a
previous survey in Finland (1999) showed that some 39 % of consumers knew or could guess what the European
eco-label

logo stood for, although less (22 %) recognised it directly as the Community eco-label.

As long as only a relatively small number of products bear the eco-label, promotional actions should, to be most
cost-effective, concentrate more on manufacturers and distributors than on consumers. As more of these manufacturers
and distributors begin to use the eco-label, and more related promotion is carried out, we should expect the rate of
recognition to increase, and at that point awareness-raising actions more specifically directed to the consumer should
become worthwhile.

In the mean time, a series of brochures, explaining the aims and meaning of the eco-label for specific product groups, has
been prepared by the Commission to accompany eco-labelled products as they are sold to the consumer. These should
now be distributed more systematically by the members of the EUEB.

Even with huge marketing resources, it takes many years for brands to become established and widely recognised. While
the objective for the long term should be that more than half of European consumers recognise the European eco-label as
a label of environmental excellence, it should be acknowledged that this can only be approached progressively. In the
short term, and within the limits of resources available, surveys should be undertaken to monitor the degree of
recognition and to follow the development of consumer awareness. Ways to increase these figures should be explored and
put in place.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/33

In particular, the Danish promotional campaign to consumers in 2000 to 2001 showed that it is possible to make
significant improvements in consumer recognition (in this case a fourfold increase to 20 %), by cooperating and
coordinating very closely with manufacturers and distributors in a particular sector. The key factor to this success was that
eco-labelled products (textiles and detergents) were placed on the market by a large number of manufacturers at the same
time as the advertising campaign was launched (by television, point-of-sales brochures, etc.).

Objectives

Annual

increase of at least 25 % of the value and/or number of eco-labelled articles,

Achieve before the end of the working plan a minimum level of visibility in two thirds of the Member States,

All relevant manufacturers and retailers should be aware of the eco-label,

In the long-term, more than half of European consumers should recognise the Community eco-label logo as a label of
environmental excellence.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should, before the end of the first year of the working plan, put in place the reporting mechanisms to establish
annual statistics for tracking the market penetration of the different product groups.

The EUEB should, before the end of the first year of the working plan, develop the abovementioned criterion for a
minimum level of visibility of the eco-label and evaluate in which countries this has been achieved.

The EUEB, Member States and the Commission should, throughout the duration of the eco-label working plan, undertake,
individually and/or collectively, actions to promote the Community eco-label. In particular retailers and public procure-
ment officers (see below) should be targeted. These actions should be reported (and information on them exchanged)
during the Presidential meetings of the EUEB that take place twice a year. The resources devoted to promotion should also
be reported and, as far as possible, should be at least 50 % of those devoted to the development and revision of product
groups. In parallel, feed-back from stakeholders should be systematically sought and taken into account.

In each Member State, the eco-label competent bodies, interest groups and public authorities, should identify certain
established product groups as being a priority and where appropriate should focus a significant part of their marketing
efforts on these.

The EUEB should develop a cost-effective methodology for monitoring consumer recognition of the Community eco-label
logo, and should develop cost-effective actions for progressively increasing this.

See also joint promotional actions (sections 4b and 5).

(c) Environmental benefits

The overall objective of the eco-label is to promote products which have the potential to reduce negative environmental
impacts, as compared with the other products in the same product group, thus contributing to the efficient use of
resources and a high level of environmental protection. In doing so it contributes to making consumption more
sustainable, and to the policy objectives set out in the Community's sustainable development strategy (for example in the
fields of climate change, resource efficiency and eco-toxicity), the sixth environmental action programme and the
forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Product Policy Strategy.

Previous studies and reports have shown that the specific environmental benefits of eco-labels are difficult to calculate due
to the difficulty of isolating and measuring these from environmental benefits achieved via other environmental measures.
It is however possible to estimate the maximum potential environmental benefit that could be achieved if all the products
in a product group met the eco-label criteria. When proposing new criteria for a product group, the technical studies
should as far as possible assess this maximum potential.

In general, the direct environmental benefit of the eco-label is strongly correlated with its market penetration. This is
achieved firstly through both the consolidation and increase in the sales of eco-labelled products, which have a lower
environmental impact, and secondly through the improvements their manufacturers have to make in order to meet the
eco-label criteria. Progress in increasing the environmental benefit of the eco-label is clearly dependent on the different
promotional and marketing actions already being carried out and foreseen in this working plan.

In practice the eco-label has some very important indirect benefits which are not reflected in the number of eco-labelled
products or licences. These indirect benefits are positive and should be evaluated and encouraged.

L 7/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

One key indirect environmental benefit of the eco-label is the increasing use of eco-label or other environmental criteria
in public or private procurement. Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 states that: ‘In order to encourage the use
of eco-labelled products the Commission and other institutions of the Community, as well as other public authorities at
national
level should, without prejudice to Community law, set an example when specifying their requirements for
products’.

Public procurement accounts for approximately 14 % (1) of demand in the European market and purchasers in companies
and other governmental and non-governmental organisations should be encouraged more systematically to use eco-label
criteria in their calls for tenders. The Commission interpretative document on public procurement and the environment (1)
now clarifies how this can be done.

The awareness of purchasers is, however, not yet high enough to have significant effects on the market. Thus, one specific
objective should be to increase public and private purchaser demand for green products over the next years. Surveys
should be undertaken and measures explored on how to increase these figures.

It should also be underlined that this is one area where the impact of the eco-label is not necessarily linked to the number
of products bearing the eco-label. A product can be shown to meet eco-label criteria and therefore be preferred by a
purchaser, without necessarily having the eco-label.

A similar indirect benefit that again is not always reflected in the number of eco-labelled products, is the increasing use of
the eco-label criteria as a benchmark of environmental excellence by companies in developing and even marketing their
products. For example, some companies make sure that their products meet some or all of the eco-label criteria without
necessarily applying for the eco-label.

Objectives

Contribute to making consumption more sustainable, and to the policy objectives set out in the Community's sustainable
development strategy, the sixth environmental action programme and the forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Product
Policy Strategy,

Progressively develop qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the direct and indirect benefits of the eco-label,

In the medium term, public procurement officers should be informed of the possibilities of using the eco-label criteria in
their calls for tenders,

In the medium term, the role of eco-label criteria as a benchmark of environmental excellence should be explicitly
developed.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB, Member States and Commission should, throughout the duration of the eco-label working plan, undertake,
individually and/or collectively, actions to inform public and private procurement officers on the opportunities for using
eco-label criteria in their calls for tenders.

The EUEB should develop and improve the methodology and parameters for estimating the direct and indirect environ-
mental benefits of the eco-label during the first three years of this plan. The maximum potential benefits should be
systematically estimated for each product group when establishing new or revised criteria. A strategy should be set in
place for monitoring, evaluating and increasing the indirect environmental benefits of the eco-label criteria.

3. Non-exhaustive list of priority product groups

(a) Priority product groups

A variety of conditions need to be met in order for a product group to be considered as a priority for the Community
eco-label. Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 in particular expresses some key requirements concerning its
suitability for eco-labelling. The product must be significant in terms of the internal market and be sold for final
consumption. It must involve significant environmental impacts that can be positively influenced by consumer choice,
and manufacturers and retailers must be willing to put the eco-label on their products.

(1) Commission interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integra-

ting environmental considerations into public procurement, COM(2001)274 final.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/35

In other terms, product groups should be assessed for their relevance, potential and steerability. Relevance refers to the
nature and magnitude of the associated environmental impacts, potential refers to the potential environmental benefits,
and steerability refers to the extent to which the product group can be influenced by eco-labelling.

Appendix 1 summarises the main points of appreciation of a ‘candidate’ product group. On the basis of this checklist of
questions, each candidate product group should be graded as ‘high priority’, ‘medium priority’, ‘low priority’ or ‘not a
priority’, and resources allocated accordingly. Work should not be continued on any product graded as ‘not a priority’.

For the time being, the relative weight given to each of the questions is undetermined and may quite logically vary from
case to case. Moreover, consideration needs to be given to developments in IPP (e.g. possibilities of developing ISO type II
or III labelling for the product groups in question). The overall priority grading of each product group should be arrived at
by discussions and consensus within the EUEB. The methodology (and therefore Appendix 1) should be further improved
and updated, and should be applied to the priority product groups listed in Appendix 2, which includes established and
on-going product groups as well as suggestions for possible new product groups (candidate product groups).

Appendix 2 should then be updated accordingly, where necessary adapting the names of the candidate product groups to
take into account more closely their future scope. It should also be noted that during the course of the revision of
established product groups, their scope should, where appropriate, be progressively extended, for example to include
certain products for professional use.

It is stressed that the lists in Appendix 2 are non-exhaustive, as laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000.
At any time, the Commission may give a mandate to the EUEB to develop and periodically review the ecological criteria,
as well as the assessment and verification requirements, for a product group that is not listed in Appendix 2. These lists
may also be updated during the period of validity of this working plan (in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000), and new product groups may be added.

Objectives

Make the best use of the resources allocated to product group development by focusing attention on those product
groups which are the most suitable for the Community eco-label.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should develop and improve the prioritisation methodology, in particular seeking to develop the environmental
ranking and to develop an appropriate weighting of the questions. This should take into account, among others, the
success or failure of the established product groups, which should be explicitly analysed. Appendix 1 should be updated
accordingly.

The table of priority product groups and their related priorities in Appendix 2 should be updated regularly, following
consultation with the EUEB, and applying the methodology described above. In particular, for those product groups in
Appendix 2 where their priority ranking is yet to be assessed, this assessment should be carried out as soon as possible.
On the occasion of the revision of each product group,

its priority should be reassessed by the EUEB.

(b) Outline of services to which the scheme is not applicable

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 does not explicitly exclude any service from the scope of the eco-label
scheme. All product groups, whether goods or services, must however satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 2(2), and
must be the subject of a Commission Decision establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the eco-label to that
product group.

Similarly, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary
participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), does not explicitly exclude
any service from the scope of EMAS. In general, any service-provider dedicated to improving its overall environmental
performance may on its own initiative apply for registration with EMAS, whatever the type of service it provides.

There is no a priori reason for the eco-label to exclude in the long term any service from its scope. The constraints of
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 would already exclude many more services than goods as not having
significant environmental impacts or significant potential for effecting environmental improvement through consumer
choice.

The Community eco-label should, initially at least, consider more readily services that have a strong goods-related aspect,
such as car-washes (consuming water, energy and detergents), or textile laundering services (using washing machines,
transport, energy, waste, detergents, etc.).

L 7/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

One reason for this is that there is much less experience, either within the Community eco-label or national labels, with
services compared to goods, and with the application of life-cycle methodologies to services. The establishment and first
experiences of the first service-related product group ‘tourist accommodation’ will be valuable in this context. It may
however well be advisable, during the duration of this working plan, to initiate feasibility studies on one or two other
service-related product groups, among others, to deepen our experience with and understanding of services.

There are clear marketing arguments in favour of first completing the ‘families’ of goods that are most attractive to
manufacturers, retailers and consumers, and eventually any closely related services before initiating new service-based
families, such as green financing or public administration.

The role of the Community eco-label in the wider context of IPP and other policy areas also, initially at least, calls for an
extension of the range of goods covered before developing the range of services covered by the scheme.

Nevertheless, as our understanding of goods and services develops, and as the role of the eco-label scheme also evolves
and develops, certain services as yet unidentified, may well become a legitimate priority for the eco-label.

In conclusion, it is not appropriate to exclude any particular service. A case-by-case application of the checklist above
should provide an objective way of grading between product groups for goods and services. It should also be taken into
consideration whether a given service has a clear relationship with the existing product groups.

As a final point, the complementary and mutually supportive roles of the eco-label and EMAS (and other environmental
management schemes such as ISO 14001) need to be stressed. Very briefly, a company that has EMAS is clearly one that
is systematically managed from the environmental point of view and is continuously improving its environmental
performance over and above minimum legal requirements. A product bearing the eco-label is clearly one of the best from
the environmental point of view. A company with EMAS would benefit from using the eco-label criteria in its
environmental policy as a clear and positive environmental objective for its products. A company that has or wants the
eco-label for its products would benefit from using EMAS to manage and maintain its compliance with all the related
criteria. Under the new eco-label scheme various fee reductions, for example for EMAS and ISO certified companies, SMEs
and first movers have become possible.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should, during the first three years of the working plan, develop the methodology for establishing ecological
criteria for services, and should examine a range of services with a view to assessing their degree of priority.

The EUEB should, during the first two years of the working plan, analyse the potential synergies between the eco-label
and EMAS, as well as other environmental management schemes such as ISO 14001.

4. Cooperation and coordination between the EU scheme and other eco-label schemes in the Member

States

Coordination and cooperation between the Community eco-label and other eco-labels in the Member States should
progressively become more systematic and comprehensive. This can significantly reinforce the contribution of labelling
schemes in Europe in their actions to promote and develop sustainable consumption.

There are several fields for such cooperation and coordination, including exchange of information, joint promotion and
product group development.

In particular considerable resource savings could be achieved by a better coordination of product group development.

Objective

Progressively and systematically develop the cooperation and coordination between the Community eco-label and other
eco-labels in the Member States.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should set up a permanent cooperation and coordination
management group.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/37

(a) Coordination of product group development

The Community eco-label and the other labels should systematically exchange information on their existing product
groups and on their programmes for product group development, and should where appropriate coordinate their efforts,
pooling resources, expertise, and results. This would lead to mutual savings, clarification of the respective roles of the
different schemes, and facilitate harmonisation (in cases where similar labels have similar objectives).

A number of different approaches each have their advantages and should be developed in parallel. For each product group
in each label, a joint decision should be made with respect to the different situations and possibilities as follows:

EU yes, national or regional no: in cases where EU criteria exist for a given product group and the national or regional
label does not have them, the national (or regional) label should decide (and inform the EUEB) whether:

(i) not to develop criteria for this product group (i.e. only the EU label would be available). This would have the
advantage of simplifying the choice of manufacturers, would strengthen the EU label, and would require more active
marketing of the EU label for that product group;

(ii) to adopt the EU criteria as national criteria (for example as Austria has done for light bulbs). This would have the
advantage of offering national manufacturers the choice of using the national label and/or the EU label for its local
marketing, and the EU label for its marketing within other Member States. It should be seen as strengthening both
labels;

(iii) adopt criteria different from the EU label. This should be motivated by the different environmental or marketing aims
and should be clearly explained to all stakeholders at national and EU levels. For example, in cases where the EU
criteria are very stringent, the national label may legitimately aim to address a wider segment of the market by
adopting less severe criteria, and vice versa. The national label may also have specific environmental aims that it
wishes to stress in the criteria, that are perhaps less relevant or appropriate at the European level. However, in most
cases, efforts should be made on both sides to achieve convergence on criteria where appropriate.

EU no, national yes: in cases where national (or regional) criteria exist, the Community eco-label should take this into
consideration in assessing the priority of possibly establishing the product group at the EU level. Should the EU label
decide to go ahead, the EUEB should take into account the existing national criteria in developing the EU criteria. Any
differences between national criteria and the final criteria should be identified, outlined and explained, and communicated
to the respective stakeholders.

EU no, national no: in cases where neither national nor EU criteria exist, the Community eco-label and national labels
should discuss, case-by-case, whether developing criteria is most appropriate at the EU level or national level or both (in
this case clarifying what would be the complementary approaches and why), and how to proceed most effectively.

EU yes, national yes: in cases where both the national and the Community eco-label exist for a given product group, a
decision should be made to either progressively harmonise the criteria (e.g. one of the two adopting the other's criteria),
adopt complementary approaches (see above), or one (or both) withdrawing the product group.

Objective

Progressively coordinate product group development in the different labelling schemes in the EU.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should review and catalogue all product groups covered by eco-labels
in the EU and candidate countries (and eventually in other countries) and set in place a mechanism for establishing and
updating a central register of these product groups and their criteria.

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should set in place a mechanism for progressively coordinating their
work programmes, and for exchanging information.

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States, should for each product group in each label, determine which of the
situations and approaches outlined in section 4(a) should apply.

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should, as far as possible, harmonise their detergent ingredient
databases (DID-Lists) and related issues.

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should, within the ongoing product group development, examine the
possibilities of mutual recognition, in an appropriate way, of intermediate or final products bearing one of the other labels
in the Member States, for example in the context of product groups where credit is allowed for using labelled products.

L 7/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

The EUEB should take into account relevant work being carried out with the Global Eco-labelling Network (GEN).

(b) Joint actions to promote the EU scheme and other eco-labels in the Member States, and their
eco-labelled products, among others, in order to raise consumer awareness and understanding
of the common and complementary roles of the schemes

Information should be given to the different stakeholders explaining the environmental value of the different eco-labels in
Europe, presenting the different schemes not as competitive, but rather as complementary, although with different
product groups and targets, and always contributing to the common final objective of sustainable development and sound
consumption patterns.

This would require some joint discussion between the EU label and the other labels in the Member States to arrive at a
common understanding and presentation of the schemes and of their common and complementary aims and roles.

One specific aspect should be joint promotional campaigns for coincident product groups, clarifying to the consumer the
different environmental aspects (if any) and benefits derived from the coincident schemes.

It is also important to develop a joint website/database that will allow European consumers and public and private
purchasers to find more easily eco-labelled products (i.e. with information on where they can be purchased, who the
manufacturer is, contact information).

In cases where both the national (or regional) and EU labels have criteria for a given product group, it is clear that the best
possible outcome (in terms of informing the consumer and reinforcing eco-labelling as a tool for promoting sustainable
consumption) is that the applicants apply for and receive both labels. Nationally, the producer would benefit from the
local celebrity of the national label and the European dimension of the EU label, and in selling his products in other
Member States (where his national label is generally less well known) he would benefit from the EU label. Both labels
appearing side-by-side would reinforce consumer awareness of both logos, and both schemes would be reinforced.

In order to encourage the use of both labels, the fee structures should be adapted so that an applicant wanting both labels
would receive an appropriate discount. For example he could be allowed to deduct from his fees for one label the price he
is paying for the other. The financial consequences (both positive and negative, short- and long-term) of this should be
carefully examined, as well as a series of procedures for sorting out possible complications.

Objective

Progressively raise the awareness of the common and complementary aims and roles of the EU label and of the other
labels in the Member States.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The Commission, the Member States, the EUEB, the other labels in the Member States should, in the first year of the
working plan, jointly develop information for stakeholders (manufacturers, consumers, distributors, public purchasers,
etc.) concerning the existence and common and complementary roles and aims of national labels and the EU label.
Actions should be taken to diffuse this information in the second year of the working plan.

The EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should exchange and disseminate information on what eco-labelled
products are sold where.

The Commission, the EUEB and the other labels in the Member States should explore the possibilities of developing a
joint ‘green store’ of eco-labelled products on the Internet (and/or related actions). If favourable, a timetable and budget
for its realisation should be proposed at the same time.

The EUEB and the national labels should develop joint actions to encourage the use of eco-label criteria in public and
private procurement.

The Commission,
in consultation with the EUEB, should study the possibilities and opportunities of adapting the
Community eco-label fee structure to offer an appropriate discount to applicants who want both the Community
eco-label and one or more of the other labels in the Member States, taking into account the financial consequences (both
positive and negative, short- and long-term), and if appropriate propose a modified Decision. The other labels in the
Member States should do the same.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/39

5.

Joint actions on promotion

(Note: these joint actions to promote the EU label are in addition to joint actions with national labels described above, as
well as in addition to the ongoing promotional actions carried out by individual Member States and members of the EUEB
and by the Commission)

A voluntary scheme can only be successful and have a significant impact on the market if it is supported by a significant
amount of marketing and promotion activities. Article 10 of the revised Regulation calls on Member States and the
Commission,
in cooperation with the members of the EUEB, to promote the use of the Community eco-label by
awareness-raising actions and information campaigns for consumers, producers, traders, retailers and the general public.
The involvement of different stakeholders and in particular those who can act as multipliers (such as the retail sector, and
consumer and environmental NGOs), are of crucial importance. These should be clearly identified and a targeted strategy
on how best to inform each should be developed.

The EUEB in particular should continue to organise regular meetings twice a year devoted essentially to marketing and
promotion and strategic development, and should form a permanent marketing management working group to develop
including those by the Commission and the Member States.
and coordinate joint promotional actions of all sorts,

As stated above (see section on market penetration) the overall resources devoted to promotion and marketing (whether
joint or individual) should be significant and be at least 50 % of the level of the resources devoted to the technical
development of the product groups.

Objective

The EUEB, the Commission and the Member States should, to an appropriate degree, co-ordinate their marketing efforts
and develop and implement joint actions.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should set up a permanent marketing management group.

The resources devoted to promotion (jointly or otherwise) should, as far as possible, increase in the range of 50 % of
those devoted to the development and revision of product groups.

The EUEB should meet twice a year to discuss essentially marketing and promotion, and the strategic development of the
scheme (Presidential meetings).

The EUEB, the Commission and the Member States should jointly identify the different key target groups and define and
implement a strategy for each.

(a) Joint promotion activities to improve stakeholder awareness

The main objective is to continuously inform manufacturers, consumers and multipliers (retailers and NGOs), indeed all
stakeholders, about the eco-label and its developments. Printed material (brochures and newsletters, articles) and the
website are some of the appropriate means. In parallel, feedback from stakeholders should be systematically sought and
taken into account.

In so far as brochures are concerned, a complete range of material (the eco-label info-kit) is already available, developed
by the Commission and different competent bodies, and should systematically be made available to relevant stakeholders,
as well as being regularly updated and improved. Better use could be made of these, and the EUEB, the Commission and
the Member States should coordinate their efforts in order to use the limited resources more efficiently, to develop
brochures, newsletters and the website, and to diffuse them more systematically to key target groups.

Similarly the Community eco-label website (http://europa.eu.int/ecolabel)
is already a central source of all relevant
information, and needs to be actively and jointly managed and regularly updated. To reinforce its credibility and
transparency, regular input should be encouraged from all stakeholders, including consumer and environmental NGOs.

Apart from providing the appropriate information tools, it is also important to consider events such as exhibitions and
fairs at which to present the European eco-label to a broader public. So far no systematic analysis has been done to
investigate which exhibitions or fairs are most suitable to promote the eco-label. Another important aspect that should be
further explored is the possibility of using eco-labelled products at ‘mega-events’ such as world championships, the
Olympic games or festivals, etc.

L 7/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

Finally, there is still a widespread misconception that applying for the eco-label is a cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly
process, whereas with the recent revision of the Regulation and of the fee structure, applying is simpler and cheaper than
before. Moreover,
in setting the criteria for each product particular attention is paid to keeping testing costs to a
minimum and to clarifying exactly what documentation and test reports an applicant needs to provide. Better information
on these points needs to be specifically communicated to stakeholders.

Objective

Continuously inform all stakeholders about the eco-label and its developments. In parallel, feedback from stakeholders
should be systematically sought and taken into account.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB and the Commission should organise the updating and continuous improvement of the eco-label website.

The EUEB should organise and coordinate the development and distribution of brochures and other printed material.

The EUEB should draw up a list of events where the eco-label should be presented, and a proposal to use eco-labelled
products at selected ‘mega-events’.

The EUEB should ensure that information to stakeholders clarifies the procedures, time and costs related to applying for
the eco-label.

(b) Joint promotion activities to improve public and private purchaser awareness

The section above on market penetration stresses the potential of public and private purchasers. Joint promotional
activities should focus on this key target group. Information is necessary on both the legal framework (how a purchaser
can incorporate the eco-label criteria in his calls for tenders, now clarified in the Commission interpretative document on
public procurement and the environment) and on the criteria available for the different product groups. Here as well, the
eco-label website should play an important role. Joint meetings between the EUEB with public purchasers should be
organised and national and/or regional campaigns should also be considered.

Objective

In the medium-term, public procurement officers should be informed of the possibilities of using the eco-label criteria in
their calls for tenders.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB, Commission and Member States should, before end of the second year of the working plan, develop a joint
strategy and a series of joint actions to promote the use of the eco-label criteria in public and private procurement.

The Commission should draw up a handbook on green public procurement, which among other aspects should address
how the criteria can be used in calls for tenders. The EUEB, Commission and Member States should ensure the widest
possible diffusion of this handbook to public purchasers, and should organise training and information sessions and other
relevant actions. Relevant information should be placed on the eco-label website.

(c) Joint promotion and support to SMEs and distributors

In addition to the different promotional actions detailed in the sections above, networks should be set up to support
applications by SMEs for the eco-label. SMEs do not always have the appropriate means or information to appreciate the
opportunities offered by the eco-label and to prepare a successful application. They should be assisted by networks
involving other applicants, interest groups, competent bodies and other relevant organisations such as business federa-
tions or regional authorities.

Retailers, as the gatekeepers between manufacturers and consumers, also have a key role to play. They could, for example,
use the eco-label to enhance the quality image of their own-brand products as well as seeking to offer other eco-labelled
products to their customers. Developing strategic partnerships with retailers should therefore be a priority.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB should develop a strategy and actions to set in place eco-label support networks for the SMEs.

The EUEB should develop strategic partnerships with retailers.

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/41

6. Planned financing of the scheme

Because of the involvement of many organisations,
example,

is annual), precise budgets cannot be prepared for the coming years.

including public administrations (the Commission budget, for

Nevertheless, the requirements of the eco-label scheme have two main components, being the resources for product
group development and those for marketing and promotion.

The estimated resources devoted to the eco-label
including those devoted by the EUEB, Commission and
Member States, were approximately 45 persons and EUR 4 million (not including salaries). Of this, approximately
EUR 2,8 million was devoted to marketing and promotion.

in 2000,

This level of resources is adequate for the development and revision of the product groups, and could, subject to the
annual budgetary possibilities of the EUEB, Commission and Member States, continue to be allocated annually. These
resources should be used as effectively as possible.

The overall level of income from fees available to the competent bodies in 2000 was approximately EUR 280 000, and
can be expected to increase with the development of the scheme. This should allow a regular increase in the level of
resources devoted to marketing and promotion (not including those made by the companies that have been awarded the
eco-label), which should reach a level of at least 50 % of those devoted to the development and revision of the product
groups.

Objective

To plan the long-term financing of the scheme, using the resources allocated as efficiently as possible.

I m p l e m e n t i n g m e a s u r e s

The EUEB, the Commission and the Member States should aim to agree on the long-term financing of the scheme.

L 7/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

Appendix 1

PRIORITISATION METHODOLOGY

The following non-exhaustive checklist summarises the main questions that should be asked about each ‘candidate’
product group (a positive answer to each question is favourable to going ahead and establishing ecological criteria for that
product group):

Environmental questions: Does the product group have …

1. … significant environmental

impacts on a global, regional or general basis?

2. … significant potential for environmental

improvement through consumer choice?

3. … relevance to priority environmental policy areas, instruments and legislation (e.g. IPP, waste, climate change,

energy label)?

Market related questions: Does the product group …

4. … represent a significant volume of sales and trade in the internal market?

5. … provide opportunities and incentives to manufacturers and/or retailers to seek a competitive advantage by offering

eco-labelled products?

6. … have environmental arguments already associated with its marketing?

7. … meet explicit stakeholder interest for an eco-label for this product group?

8. … have a significant volume of sales for final use or consumption?

9. … have a significant public procurement market?

10. … have a significant private procurement market for this product group?

11. … come from small manufacturers?

12. … have a high rate of purchase by consumers (e.g. every day or every week)?

13. … support an existing product group ‘family’?

14. … present a particular opportunity to enhance the scheme's overall visibility?

Other related issues: Does the product group …

15. … involve consumer health and safety issues?

16. … exist within another eco-label scheme in Europe or elsewhere, and if so, is the product group a success within that

scheme?

17. … have established fitness for use standards?

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/43

Appendix 2

NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF PRIORITY PRODUCT GROUPS

Existing or ongoing product groups

Tissue paper products

Copying paper

Soil

improvers

Indoor paints and varnishes

Textile products

Footwear

Detergents for dishwashers

Laundry detergents

All purpose cleaners and cleaners for sanitary facilities

Hand-dishwashing detergents

Bed-mattresses

Light bulbs

Personal computers

Portable computers

Washing machines

Refrigerators

Dishwashers

Tourist accommodation

Furniture

Hard floor coverings

Televisions

Vacuum cleaners

Tyres

Possible new product groups

(Note: Work is currently being carried out by the EUEB and the Commission to assess in detail the level of priority of
these possible new product groups and determine the best order and timing for their development.)

Printing paper

Printed paper products

Converted paper products, stationery

Wallpaper

Rubbish bags/plastic bags

Shopping bags — carrier bags

Writing implements

Telephones

Copiers

Small household electrical equipment

Fashion accessories

Gloves

Leather products

Sports equipment

Toys and games

Packaging

L 7/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

Do-it-yourself products

Air conditioners

Heating systems

Water-heating systems

Insulation

Building components

Building services

Retail services

Dry cleaners

Financial services

Transportation services

Delivery services

Vehicle repair services

Cars

Kitchenware, household fittings, etc.

Sanitary products (sanitary towels and napkins, etc.)

Shampoo and soap

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/45

Appendix 3

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES

Objectives

Implementation measures

2002

2003

2004

Policy and strategy

Continue to develop and adapt the
long-term policy and strategy of the
scheme, as well as the integration of
the eco-label in the various policies
relating to sustainable consumption.

Form a permanent policy manage-
ment group to develop and adapt
long-term policy and strategy, and
coordinate with and provide input
to relevant policy developments.

Continue.

Continue.

Establish a set of product groups
which forms a sufficiently complete
and manageable range of products
to attract
retailers, manufacturers
and consumers.

Within five years have 25 to 30
product groups.

Product group development

Establish new product groups.

Establish new product groups.

Establish new product groups.

Adapt validity of criteria in general
to four to five years.

Develop methodology for estab-
lishing criteria for services.

Form a working group to address
horizontal issues common to many
product groups

Make the best use of the resources
allocated to product group develop-
ment by focusing attention on those
product groups which are the most
suitable
Community
the
ecolabel.

for

Develop and improve the prioriti-
sation methodology.

Coordinate with other ecolabels.

Continue.

Continue.

Update table of priority product
groups.

Assess a range of service groups.

Coordinate marketing efforts and
develop
joint
actions.

implement

and

Marketing, promotion

Form a
management group.

permanent marketing

twice a year

to
EUEB to meet
discuss marketing, promotion, and
the strategic development of
the
scheme (Presidential meetings).

Identify the different key target
groups and define and implement
a strategy for each.

Continue.

L 7/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2002

Objectives

Annuel increase of at least 25 % of
eco-labelled articles.

Achieve a minimum level of visi-
bility in two thirds of the Member
States.

inform all

Continuously
stake-
holders about the eco-label and its
developments. In parallel, seek feed-
back from stakeholders.

and
relevant manufacturers
All
retailers should be aware of the eco-
label.

half

than

of
should recognise

European
More
consumers
the
Community eco-label logo as a label
of environmental excellence.

Implementation measures

2002

2003

2004

Undertake promotion.

Undertake promotion.

Undertake promotion.

Continue updating the website,
distributing brochures, attending
events and informing about costs,
etc.

Recources devoted to promotion
should be at least 50 % of those
devoted to product group develop-
ment.

In each Member State, identify and
focus marketing efforts on key
product groups.

Continue updating website, distrib-
uting brochures, attending events
and informing about costs, etc.

Develop a strategy and actions for
SME support networks and stra-
tegic partnerships with retailers.

for monitoring

Develop a cost-effective methodo-
logy
consumer
recognition of the Community eco-
label logo, and develop cost-effec-
tive
progressively
for
increasing this.

actions

Update and improve design of the
eco-label website.

Organise and coordinate the devel-
of
opment
brochures
printed
material.

distribution

other

and

and

Draw up a list of events where the
eco-label should be presented.

Inform potential applicants about
application procedures and costs.

Set up the reporting mechanisms
to establish annual statistics for
tracking market penetration.

the

criterion

Develop
a
minimum level of visibility of the
eco-label, evaluate in which coun-
tries this has been achieved.

for

Direct and indirect impacts

Develop a handbook on green
public procurement and eco-label
criteria, diffuse this (also on the
website) and organise training and
information sessions.

Develop a joint
strategy and a
series of joint actions to promote
the use of the eco-label criteria in
public and private procurement.

Continue.

Inform public procurement officers
of the possibilities of using the eco-
for
label
tenders.

in their

criteria

calls

Contribute to making consumption
more sustainable.

Progressively develop qualitative and
quantitative evaluations of the direct
and indirect benefits of
the eco-
label.

The role of eco-label criteria as a
benchmark of environmental excel-
lence should be explicitly developed.

and
Develop the methodology
parameters
the
estimating
for
direct and indirect environmental
benefits of the eco-label.

The maximum potential environ-
mental benefits to be systematically
estimated for each product group
when establishing new or revised
criteria.

Continue.

Continue.

Analyse synergies with EMAS.

in

place

Set
monitoring,
increasing the
mental benefits of
criteria.

evaluating
indirect

strategy

for
and
environ-
the eco-label

11.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 7/47

Objectives

Implementation measures

2002

2003

2004

Progressively develop the coopera-
tion and coordination between the
Community eco-label and other eco-
labels in the Member States.

Progressively coordinate the product
group development in the different
labelling schemes in the EU.

Cooperation and coordination

cooperation
coordination management

Form a permanent
and
group.

Review and catalogue all product
groups covered by eco-labels in the
EU and candidate countries.

Set in place a mechanism for estab-
central
lishing and updating a
register of product groups and
their criteria.

For each product group in each
label, determine how it fits into the
European and/or national scheme.

coordinating

in place a mechanism for
Set
progressively
the
work programmes of different
schemes and for exchanging infor-
mation.

Examine the possibilities of ‘recog-
nising’ intermediate or final prod-
the other
ucts bearing one of
labels.

Take into account relevant work
being carried out with the Global
Eco-labelling Network (GEN).

Harmonise the detergent ingredient
databases
(DID-lists) and related
issues.

Progressively raise the awareness of
the common and complementary
aims and roles of the EU label and
of the other labels in the Member
States.

Jointly develop and diffuse infor-
mation to stakeholders concerning
the existence and common and
complementary roles and aims of
labels and the EU label.
national

Exchange
information on what
labelled products are sold where.

Continue.

Continue.

Explore the possibilities of devel-
oping a joint green store of eco-
labelled products on the Internet.

Develop joint actions to promote
the use of eco-label criteria in
public procurement.

of

adapting

Study the possibilities and oppor-
the
tunities
Community eco-label fee structure
to offer an appropriate discount to
applicants that want both the EU
and one or more of
the other
labels in the Member States.

Plan the long-term financing of the
scheme, using the resources allo-
cated as efficiently as possible.

Financing

Aim to agree on the long-term
financing of the scheme.

Continue.