Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement - Impact Assessment [COM(2007) 510 final SEC(2007) 1137]
Date: 2007-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, approximation of laws, impact study, international standard, measuring equipment, weights and measures

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.9.2007 
SEC(2007) 1136 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the  

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

amending Council Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to units of measurement 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

[COM(2007) 510 final 
SEC(2007) 1137] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

There is a sundown clause in the directive which would stop all use of supplementary (non-
metric) indications by 2009 and this can give problems to economic operators if the sundown 
clause is applied. Also the directive needs to be updated to technical progress, meaning in this 
case the inclusion of new metric units about which there is international agreement. 

Commission  services  published  a  working  document  which  had  been  subject  to  an  inter 
service consultation in December 2006 for public consultation until 1 March 2007. A report 
on  the  public  consultation  and  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  was,  after  inter  service 
consultation, published in July 2007. There has not been an inter service steering group, but 
the inter service consultation has involved 9 Directorates-General. 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

No external expertise was used other than the contributions to the public consultation, which 
among others came from experts in the field (academics, teachers) but mostly industry. 

Stakeholders  were  consulted  during  the  10-week  period  up  to  1  March  2007.  All  reactions 
were published on the Europa web site by mid April, except for those which were confidential 
and those of individual firms where there was the potential risk of a breach of confidentiality. 

The Commission’s minimum standards have been met. 

All input from stakeholders to the public consultation has been presented and discussed in the 
report on the public consultation. The main finding can be summarised as the following. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Industry is unanimous in wanting to lift the sundown clause and indefinitely extend 
the sundown clause. This is also supported by the US government. 

Those concerned in industry and science are in favour of including the new SI-unit of 
catalyctic activity, the katal, in the list of permitted units of measurement. 

Member States agree that application of the directive has not lead to major problems 
during  nearly  three  decades  and  want  the  current  practice  to  be  continued.  There 
were no examples given by industry that would indicate problems. 

Consumers  in  the  UK  are  divided  with  some  being  in  favour  of  metric-only  and 
pointing  tot  eh  mix-up  caused  by  indications  in  shops  in  non-metric  units.  Others, 
who  probably  represent  a  large  majority,  are  in  favour  of  continued  use  of 
supplementary  indications  next  to  metric  indications  and  the  indefinite  use  of  the 
existing limited exemptions (pint, mile, troy ounce), which has also been requested 
by  the  UK.  A  minority  is  in  favour  of  rolling  back  metrication  and  allowing 
indications only in imperial units, but this has not been requested by the UK. 

The  working  document,  report  on  the  public  consultation  and  all  contributions  to  the 
website 
consultation 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm). 

available 

Europa 

the 

are 

on 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
The  public  consultation  has  influenced  the  report  by  means  of  a  unanimous  view  from 
industry  together  with  a  credible  assessment  of  compliance  costs.  Furthermore  the  lack  of 
complaints as regards the application of the current directive indicated that, in general, there 
apparently  are  no  problems  and  this  was  confirmed  by  the  authorities.  Finally  the  views 
expressed  as  regards  the  exemptions  in  the  UK  and  Ireland  confirmed  majority  support  for 
continuation  and  that  there  were  no  major  obstacles  to  cross  border  trade  due  to  these 
exemptions. 

2. 

SECTION 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem that may require action? 

The directive has been in existence since 1980 and has served to standardise the use of legal 
units  of  measurement  within  the  EU  in  accordance  with  the  International  System  (SI) 
promulgated  by  the  competent  international  body,  the  Bureau  International  des  Poids  et 
Mesures. It has also gradually extended the use of metric units, which were already applied in 
most  Member  States,  to  the  UK  and  Ireland,  thus  achieving  a  common  market.  There  is  a 
sundown clause (Art. 3.2) in the directive, which would stop all use of supplementary (non-
metric)  indications by  2009.  If  it  were to apply, the EU would require all labelling  to be in 
metric-only and this can give problems to economic operators because the USA requires non-
metric  labelling  next  to  metric.  The  directive  (Art.  6a)  specifies  that  issues  regarding  its 
implementation, and in particular the matter of supplementary indications, should be further 
examined. Also the directive needs to be updated to technical progress, meaning in this case 
the  inclusion  of  new  metric  units  about  which  there  is  international  agreement.  Finally  the 
directive  requires  UK  and  Ireland  to  fix  a  date  for  ending  a  limited  number  of  exemptions 
they still enjoy (Art 1.b: pint, mile, troy ounce), but it can be observed that these usages have 
continued for many years without impediment to the single market. 

2.2.  What are the underlying drivers of the problem? 

Underlying drivers of the problem are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Different  units  of  measurement  confuse  consumers  and  represent  a  barrier  to  trade 
leading  to  potential  fragmentation  of  the  Internal  Market.  Hence,  the  international 
agreement on using metric units and the directive. 

For  traditional  reasons  there  is  a  strong  attachment  to  imperial  units  and 
industry/engineering often uses these units instead of metric. 

Metric-only units are not accepted by the United States and therefore trans-Atlantic 
trade  requires  indications  in  non-metric  units  where  they  are  needed  in  order  to 
comply with US laws (federal and 3 states). 

Due  to  innovation  the  system  of  metric  units  is  periodically  extended  and  this 
requires updates to the directive. On the other hand, there remain many instances in 
which there is no metric unit available, e.g. binary measurement in computing (bits, 
bytes). 

Public  opinion  in  the  UK  and  Ireland  seems  strongly  in  favour  of  retaining  those 
non-metric usages still permitted by the Directive. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 

All economic operators are affected, as are consumers and authorities. Law in all walks of life 
requires  units  of  measurement.  Member  State  governments  have  signed  the  international 
agreement on the system of metric units (Metre Convention), which obliges them to base their 
laws on the agreement. The directive at the EU level guarantees a common approach. 

Units  of  measurement  affect  individual  groups  in  many  ways.  Virtually  all  transactions 
require  measurement  in  some  form  or  other  and  this  concerns  economic  operators  and 
consumers.  This  is  true  for  domestic  as  well  as  for  cross  border  trade  and  this  is  where 
incompatibility  of  units  can  become  a  barrier  to  trade.  Information  to  the  public  can  be 
quantitative and in some cases good comprehension at all times by all is even a prime safety 
issue. Excises and levies are often calculated on the measured quantity so involve authorities. 
Goods and financial markets depend on quantities. The directive is effective in all these cases. 

Laws in 47 out of 50 states of the US have changed over the past decade to allow metric-only 
labelling.  This  concerns  about  half  of  products.  The  other  half  is  covered  by  federal  law 
requiring both metric and US inch-pound indications, so in these cases metric-only labelling 
remains prohibited. It remains to be seen whether there is sufficient support in the US at the 
federal  level  for  allowing  metric-only  labelled  products  to  enter  the  market  next  to  dual 
labelled products. Given consumer and industry preferences in the US dual labelling can be 
expected to remain for a very long time. The sanction of a deadline at a certain date, enticing 
as  is  it  may  seem,  would,  however,  backfire  if  really  carried  out.  A  metric-only  EU 
prohibiting supplementary indications would  force US  exporters to  relabel all products they 
export to the EU. This would be a strange way of thanking the US for adapting their state and 
federal laws to conform to international standards. By requiring metric-only labeling and no 
longer  authorising  supplementary  indications  on  the  Internal  Market  the  EU  would  be 
imposing a new barrier on trade to products from the US. 

2.4. 

How  would 
equal? 
evolve, 
N.B. Scenario(s) should take into account actions already taken or  planned by 
the EU, Member States and other actors. 

problem 

things 

being 

the 

all 

The  sundown  clause  in  the  directive  by  2009  would  cause  operators  to  adapt  to  a  situation 
where the EU requires all labelling to be metric only: US imports into the EU would need to 
be relabelled, as would EU exports to the USA. Also sectors would need to be excluded from 
the scope of the directive for which no metric measurement exists. 

The issue of metric–only labelling has regularly been the subject of the transatlantic business 
dialogue  (TABD)  which  recommends  “manufacturers  should  have  the  option  of  using  only 
metric units or metric and a supplemental unit in response to customer needs and preferences. 
Therefore,  the  TABD  urges  continued  progress  in  the  U.S.  at  the  state  and  federal  level  to 
approve  “metric-only”  as  an  option  at  all  levels  of  commerce.  Similarly,  the  EU  must  also 
provide manufacturers the option to use only metric units or metric and a supplemental unit of 
measurement”1. 

1 

TABD Cincinnati recommendations of 18 November 2000, p. 6. 
http://static.tabd.com/manilaGems/2000CincinnatiCEOReport.pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the case of new metric units, due to technical progress, Member States would implement 
national laws, which in certain cases may require relabelling, notably in the case of different 
moments of implementation of these national laws. 

UK and and in some cases Ireland would need to fix a date for ending the last exemptions, 
where  they  are  still  being  applied  (pint  for  milk  in  returnable  bottles  and  beer  and  cider  on 
draught,  mile  for  road  traffic  signs,  speed  and  distance  measurements,  troy  ounce  for 
transactions in precious metals). The exemption of the acre for land registration however is no 
longer in use, because of changes in administrative procedures in both States. 

2.5. 

Does  the  EU  have  the  right  to  act  –  Treaty  base,  ‘necessity  test’  (subsidiarity) 
and fundamental rights limits? 

EU  is  not  a  signatory  of  the  Metre  Convention  agreement  on  metric  units,  but  all  Member 
States are and they are bound by the agreement to implement it in their national legislation. 
The agreement is not binding, so Member States could choose to base their laws in different 
ways on the agreement, such as was the case before 1980 and may repeat itself in the case of 
new units. EU action is necessary to ensure a common approach. 

The  existing  directive  ensures  a  common  approach  on  the  basis  of  Article  95  of  the  Treaty 
with as result that units of  measurement  are harmonised  on  the Internal  Market. As a result 
there are no barriers to trade on the Internal Market due to units of measurement, which are in 
line with international standards. 

3. 

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES 

3.1.  What are the general policy objectives? 

The  general  objective  of  the  directive  is  to  ensure  that  the  use  of  units  of  measurement  is 
harmonised  on  the  basis  of  the  international  agreement  on  the  system  of  SI  units  for 
expressing quantities. 

The general policy objective is to better regulate under the condition of simplification where 
possible.  In  the  case  of  the  directive  on  units  of  measurement  this  means  reducing 
exemptions,  limiting  provisions  concerning  regulatory  follow-up  and  providing  market 
operators with a stable and permanent regulatory environment. 

The  recently  agreed  Directive  on  Nominal  Quantities  for  Prepackaged  Products2  is  an 
example of a simplification exercise which creates trade because any size that is appropriately 
SI  labelled  and  possibly  with  supplementary  indications  may  be  sold  everywhere  and  this 
benefits scale effects and competitiveness. 

The required update mentioned in the problem definition (concerning the difficulty to apply 
the sundown clause on supplementary indications) is due to external influences, i.e. the USA 
is  still  engaged  in  the  slow  process  to  fully  adapt  its  legal  system  to  the  use  of  metric-only 
labelling,  whilst  industry  is  comfortable  with  measurements  in  non-metric  units,  due  to 
tradition or lack of metric alternatives. 

2 

http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=191876 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As regards fixing a date to end the current exemptions (pint for milk in returnable bottles and 
beer  and  cider  on  draught,  mile  for  road  signs  and  speed  indications,  troy  ounce  for 
transactions in precious metals), public opinion in the UK and Ireland is very much in favour 
of maintaining them, where still in use, and does not see any need for change. 

3.2.  What are the more specific/operational objectives? 

The  operational  objective  is  to  make  the  minimal  necessary  changes  to  the  directive  with  a 
view to continuing current conditions of enforcement which have worked well and to general 
satisfaction, as well as to clarify the continuation in legal terms as regards the continuation of 
exemptions  for  the  UK  and  Ireland  which  are  still  used  and  scrapping  any  exemption  no 
longer in use. 

3.3. 

Underline  the  consistency  of  these  objectives  with  other  EU  policies  and,  if 
applicable,  horizontal  objectives,  such  as  the  Lisbon  and  Sustainable 
Development strategies or respect for fundamental rights. 

These objectives fit into the Community policy of better regulation and simplification, and are 
in line with the Lisbon strategy. The objectives aim to continue free circulation of goods and 
services  on  the  Internal  Market  consistent  with  international  standards.  In  line  with  better 
regulation and simplification, changes are kept to the minimum and continuity of enforcement 
is best ensured. The objectives are to maintain conditions that have proven to be conducive to 
competitiveness of European enterprises. 

4. 

SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1.  What  are  the  possible  options  for  meeting  the  objectives  and  tackling  the 

problem? 
N.B.  the  ‘no  EU  action’  option  should  always  be  considered  and  it  is  highly 
recommended  to  include  a  non-regulatory  option,  unless  a  decision  of  the 
College has already ruled this out. 

Option  1  -  No  action:  sundown  clause  would  mean  that  by  end  of  2009  supplementary 
indications  are  no  longer  allowed.  There  could  be  a  need  to  review  the  existing  acquis 
requiring indications in non-SI units in specific cases such as kcal. No adaptation to technical 
progress.  The  UK  and  Ireland  would  remain  obliged  to  fix  a  date  ending  the  remaining 
exemptions. 

Option  2  -  Repeal  the  directive:  Member  States  would  be  free  to  base  national  law  on 
international standards, as was the directive. Some Member States may for that reason decide 
not  to  have  any  regulation.  Mutual  recognition  would  apply  according  to  Article  28  of  the 
Treaty. 

Option  3  -  Update  the  directive:  adapt  the  directive  to  indefinitely  allowing  supplementary 
indications.  Adaptation  to  technical  progress  by  including  the  new  metric  units  of 
measurement. Adapting the scope to include additions to the treaty since 1980 of new area of 
EU  responsibilities,  which  rely  on  measurement  (consumer  affairs,  environment). 
Supplementary  indications  cover  sectors  that  use  measurement  for  which  no  metric  units 
exist,  whilst  there  is  no  need  to  review  existing acquis  requiring  indications  in  non-SI  units 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
such  as  kcal.  The  requirement  for  UK  and  Ireland  fixing  a  date  for  exemptions  still  in  use 
could also be repealed and any exemptions no longer used by these Member States repealed. 

4.2.  Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why? 

No option has in principle been excluded beforehand. 

The  option  of  further  time  limited  extensions,  i.e.  extending  the  authorisation  of 
supplementary  indications  for  a  fourth  ten  year  period  until  2019,  however,  has  not  been 
further considered due to three legal reasons and a political one: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Restricting  the  use  of  non-SI  units  could  create  extra  risks  which  could  go  against 
essential  requirements  stipulating  that  the  benefits  to  a  patient  must  outweigh  the 
risks in the IVD Directive 98/79/EC. 

Labelling  in  both  Joule  (SI)  and  ‘Kcal’  (non-SI)  is  prescribed  by  the  nutritional 
labelling  Directive  90/496/EEC  and  prohibiting  it  would  require  a  change  to  that 
directive. A research study indicated that consumers “preferred calories to joules as a 
measure of energy”3. 

From an intellectual property rights perspective, allowing the use of supplementary 
indications takes a similar approach to Rule 10 of the Regulations under the Patent 
Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), 
which lays out the rules for physical units4. The PCT requires metric units to be used 
but allows other units if accompanied by metric units. As it does not permit national 
authorities to impose more stringent formal requirements than those under the PCT, 
indefinitely  allowing  supplementary  indications  would  avoid  a  clear  inconsistency 
between the PCT and European legislation. 

The  sanction  of  a  deadline  at  a  certain  date,  enticing  as  is  it  may  seem,  would, 
however, backfire if really carried out. A metric-only EU prohibiting supplementary 
indications would force US exporters to  relabel all products they  export  to the EU. 
This would be a strange way of thanking the US for adapting their state and federal 
laws to conform to international standards. By requiring metric-only labeling the EU 
would be imposing a new barrier on trade to products from the US. 

5. 

SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1.  What are the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the 

short-listed options? 

Administration costs incurred under the three options are the following: 

– 

3 

4 

Option  1:  Metric-only  would  require  EU  exporters  to  separately label  products  and 
revise manuals of goods for export to the United States and similar costs would be 

European Heart Network “A systematic review of the research on consumer understanding of nutrition 
labelling,” June 2003, pp. 28-30 
http://www.ehnheart.org/content/ItemPublication.asp?docid=4517&level0=1455&level1=1499 
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/pdf/pct_regs.pdf 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

incurred by foreign exporters to the EU. Estimate €250 million to €1250 million, half 
permanent and half one-off, with costs higher for SMEs. 

Option 2: Risks of high costs due to permanent confusion in cross-border trade and 
transactions  and  high  costs  due  to  one-off  errors  such  due  to  mix-ups  in 
specifications such as in the case of the Marslander. 

Option  3:  continuation  of  current  system  carries  no  additional  administration  cost. 
For reasons of proportionality, i.e. the  preferred option 3 concerns the extension of 
the current situation, the EU standard cost method has not been applied. 

5.1.1.  Option 1 - No action 

Applying the sundown clause, would cause administration costs in EU-US trade, the estimates 
of which are based on the feedback from the respondents to the public consultation, which is 
retaken in the Annex. Metric-only would require re-labelling and revising manuals of goods 
produced  in  the  EU  for  export  to  the  United  States  from  2010  onwards  and  would  lead  to 
administration  costs  amounting  to  0.02%  of  turnover  for  large  firms  and  up  to  0.2%  of 
turnover for small firms. Mechanically, metric-only potentially could lead to social effects in 
the form of more employment, but it is expected that employment will be lost in those cases 
where SME firms cannot cope with rising costs, probably leading to a zero sum, although this 
is  uncertain.  With  total  EU  exports  to  the  USA  amounting  to  €315bn,  costs  of  the  change 
between  0.02%  and  0.2%  could  amount  to  administration  costs  of  between  €62  million  and 
€630 million for European industry, half of which is one-off and half of which is permanent 
These  estimates  are  difficult  to  verify  but  seem  fairly  consistent  and  coming  from  various 
sources, at least some of which can be considered to be independent (firms, sectors, overall 
from  both  USA  and  EU).  The  range  of  costs  is  large  due  to  the  fact  that  small  enterprises 
could  have  much  larger  costs,  due  to  lack  of  scale.  The  division  between  one-off  and 
permanent  has  been  taken  down  the  middle,  because  of  the  nature  of  the  various  costs,  e.g. 
redesign might be one off: rewriting a manual may be one-off whilst relabelling is recurring 
and therefore permanent. These costs would be EU-wide. 

Prohibiting  the  use  of  supplementary  indications  could  increase  the  legal  uncertainty  of  a 
number  of  industries  that  rely  on  supplementary  indications  for  purposes  of  design  and 
specification of spare parts. This cost is difficult to assess and may be large given that these 
problems have not surfaced in practice as long as supplementary indications are allowed. 

A legal consequence is that references in specific EU laws to non-SI markings (e.g. kcal) may 
possibly need to be repealed and labels adapted. However a sufficiently long application time 
could be taken into account to minimise the costs of relabelling for industry complying with 
this  change.  There  may  also  need  to  be  costs  to  school  consumers  who  say  they  better 
understand kcal and who will incur opportunity costs. 

There  would  be  no  adaptation  to  technical  progress  to  include  the  definition  of  “katal” 
meaning  that  there  is  no  harmonised  update  of  the  directive  to  the  existing  international 
standard.  Some  Member  States  may  already  have  made  the  change  in  national  law,  which 
means  that  manufacturers  and  consumers  in  these  states  have  a  legal  base  for  applying  the 
international  standard.  In  other  countries  this  may  not  be  the  case,  which  implies  a  legal 
inequality in the sense that, where there is no legal base, domestic production is not covered 
by  a  legal  base  whilst  imports  are.  Not  adapting  the  directive  will  possibly  lead  to  legal 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
uncertainty  (impossible  to  monetize)  and  missing  the  benefits  of  abiding  legally  with  the 
international standard. 

Applying only metric units could be a benefit for some consumers in the UK who currently 
incur opportunity costs understanding and comparing non-metric units in the UK and Ireland. 
Stakeholders gave no estimate of such benefits but assuming as a working hypothesis that 5% 
of adult population (2.5 million persons) experiences problems with this and would no longer 
take  rectifying  measures  by  buying  calculator  (€20,  one  off  saving)  and  no  longer  need  to 
spend  10  hrs  per  year  using  it  at  an  opportunity  cost  of  €5  per  hour,  there  would  be  social 
benefits to consumers resulting from a one-off saving on calculators of €50 million and from 
an annual saving on opportunity costs of €125 million. These benefits are limited to only UK 
and Irish consumers. Social effects such as the employment loss in making calculators would 
be minor and be primarily outside the EU whilst there would be a minor retail loss in UK and 
Ireland due to the not selling of calculators. On the other hand these benefits will be possibly 
more than offset by those who would have to do the calculation back to imperial units if there 
would be only metric units. The UK Metrics Association contends that “experience indicates 
that it is far simpler and quicker just to set aside imperial units and to learn to visualise and 
use  metric  units  by  practical  example  without  the  intermediary  stage  of  converting  from 
imperial units.”5 This view is, however, may not be applicable to a majority of UK citizens 
and industry. Those who do not understand metric units are, in particular, the elder generation 
who are particularly vulnerable in this respect. Social costs and benefits may well cancel each 
other out, with probably a net cost to a majority of mainly elderly consumers. 

Applying the sundown clause would conceivably not have any environmental effects. 

Fixing of a date for the end of the exemptions for UK and Ireland in Article 1b causes change 
that would invoke costs somewhere in the future. 

– 

– 

– 

5 
6 
7 

Adapting of road signs in the UK would cost an estimated €100 million if phased in 
gradually6 whilst it could amount to €1.1bn if implemented in one go7. 

The London bullion market is the leading market for transactions of precious metals 
as a financial asset would be at a costly disadvantage with its worldwide competitors 
in  Zurich,  Tokyo  and  New  York  where  the  troy  ounce  is  the  main  unit  of 
measurement  –  the  exchange  and  the  UK  government  contend  that  a  change  could 
cause London to lose its dominant position. 

The cost of getting rid of returnable pint milk bottles would be zero if the phasing-in 
is gradual and abolishing the pint of draft beer and cider would not involve any cost 
with  an  appropriate  phasing-in.  There  do  not,  however,  seem  to  be  any  palpable 
benefits  but  the  change  could  certainly  cause  some  utility  disbenefits  possibly 
endangering health due to misunderstanding of quantities in the case of draught beer. 

“A very British Mess” , A report by the UK Metric Association, 2006, paragraph 6.9 on p. 38 
Report by the UK Metric Association “Metric signs ahead” (2006) 
Estimate by the UK Department of Transport (2006). 
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/estimatingthecostofconversio4155 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.1.2.  Option 2- Repeal the directive 

Repealing  the  directive  could  lead  to  Member  States  interpreting  the  Meter  convention 
differently. 

The  Meter-Convention  is  a  treaty  of  which  all  EU  Member  States  are  signatories. 
Nevertheless the Member States of the Meter-Convention are not legally bound to exclusively 
implement the SI system. Other units of measurement are allowed. 

To have a comparable common basis for all the measurement done in Europe in the Member 
States  and  between  Member  States  using  the  same  measuring  instruments  it  is  necessary  to 
have the same legal units of measurement. 

If there would be no directive (or regulation) any unit of measurement could be applied. If a 
Member  State  would  implement  solely  the  SI  system  on  its  national  territory,  the 
jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice would force it to accept all the other measuring 
units  allowed  in  any  other  Member  State  of  the  European  Union.  This  would  lead  to  a 
situation  in  Europe  of  the  past.  The  Cassis-de-Dijon  jurisprudence  would  lead  to  nearly 
endless  possibilities  for  units  of  measurements.  If  the  SI  system  is  no  longer  the  reference 
system for Europe other units (US fluid ounces) could be allowed as sole indication in one or 
more Member States. This would lead to a very unclear market situation in Europe and thus to 
confusion in cross-border trade, customs, taxation and internal transactions. 

Under option 2 relatively large increases of employment may be possible in order to address 
the  increased  confusion  and  inefficiencies,  but  these  will  be  annulled  by  the  losses  of  scale 
effects  and  EU  competitiveness  notably  in  the  case  of  SMEs  which  account  for  the  largest 
growth of employment. 

While  it  is  difficult  to  monetize  these  effects  it  would  appear  that  information  costs  would 
increase  significantly  on  a  permanents  basis,  both  for  producers,  employees,  authorities  and 
for consumers. An example of a costly one-off loss was the US spacecraft Marslander, which 
crashed  on  Mars  due  to  malfunctioning  because  inch/pound  indications  had  been  mixed  up 
with metric indications in the production phase. Risks like this would increase. 

5.1.3.  Option 3 - Update the directive 

Extending  the  use  of  supplementary  markings  for  an  indefinite  period  would  have  the 
opposite effects as mentioned above under Option 1. There do not seem to be any additional 
costs  for  industry  caused  by  extending  the  use  of  supplementary  indications,  because  there 
will be no change to the current situation while the opportunity benefits would be the saved 
costs  of  the  sundown  clause.  On  the  other  hand  the  current  opportunity  costs  of  some 
consumers  in  UK  and  Ireland  would  continue.  Under  option  3  there  is  no  change  of 
employment to be expected. There would no additional costs compared to the situation as it is 
and in this light a full analysis of administrative costs based on the standard cost model would 
be disproportionate. 

Supplementary  indications  cover  sectors  that  use  measurement  for  which  no  metric  units 
exist. Application of the existing directive during the past 30 years has shown that authorities 
have been accommodating and the public consultation did not deliver cases in practice to the 
contrary. The advantage is also this allows a synergy i.e. were metric units to be developed, 
there exists already the legal framework for a smooth and gradual transition to the new metric 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
situation,  with  supplementary 
to  continue,  e.g.  binary 
measurements  in  computing  (bits,  bytes).  Extending  supplementary  indications  would 
therefore allow the current wide scope of the directive to be maintained. 

indications  being  allowed 

Adding consumer protection and environmental protection, at the end of Article 2(a), does not 
lead  to  any  change  in  society  given  that  currently  units  of  measurement  are  already  being 
applied  for  these  reasons.  What  has  changed  is  the  Treaty  itself  since  the  inception  of  the 
directive and it is for this administrative reason that the change should be considered. There 
are no costs expected whilst the current beneficial situation will continue. 

Include the newly named derived metric unit “katal” in table 1.2.3 “SI derived units” in the 
Annex.  This  is  an  update  to  apply  the  existing  international  standard,  which  is  already 
overdue.  Some  Member  States  may  already  have  made  the  change  in  national  law,  which 
means  that  manufacturers  and  consumers  in  these  states  have  a  legal  base  for  applying  the 
international  standard.  In  other  countries  this  may  not  be  the  case,  which  implies  a  legal 
inequality in the sense that where there is no legal base domestic production is not covered by 
a  legal  base  whilst  imports  are.  Adapting  the  law  will  create  legal  certainty  (impossible  to 
monetize) and not have the administrative costs. There do not seem to be other impacts on the 
costs side. The benefits of abiding legally with the international standard are many. 

Deleting the obligation of fixing a date for the end of the exemptions for UK and Ireland, in 
Article 1b, concerns the use of the pint as indication for milk in returnable bottles and draught 
beer and cider in both UK and Ireland, the use of indications in miles for road signs and traffic 
speeds in the UK and the use of the troy ounce for precious metals, notably on the London 
bullion  market.  Currently  all  of  these  uses  are  deeply  engrained,  some  having  cultural 
significance, and do not give rise to discomfort which can be considered a major benefit. The 
Commission  is  not  aware  of  any  costs  associated  with  the  continuation  of  these  specific 
exemptions.  No  change  would  give  opportunity  benefits.  Maintaining  the  pint  for  milk  in 
returnable bottles and draught beer and cider would maintain the current utility benefits. The 
non-adapting  of  road  signs  in  the  UK  could  save  between  100mln  to  €1100mln)  depending 
upon the speed with which the change is implemented. Maintaining the competitiveness of the 
London bullion market would allow the market to continue to be based in London. It would 
seem  that  there  are  no  costs  and  only  benefits  associated  to  a  continuation  of  the  existing 
exemptions. 

End the exemption for land registration by taking out the third line in the table in Chapter II of 
the  Annex.  This  exemption  is  no  longer  applied  in  UK  and  Ireland  and  therefore  ending  it 
does not bring costs. The only non-monetary benefit is simplification. 

5.2. 

List  positive  and  negative  impacts,  direct  and  indirect,  including  those  outside 
the EU. 

Applying  the  sundown  clause  in  2009  would  cause  costs  of  a  similar  magnitude,  as  under 
option  1  above,  in  industries  in  non-EU  countries  exporting  to  both  the  European  and  US 
market.  For  the  rest  it  seems  foreign  producers  would  not  be  influenced.  The  opportunity 
benefits of the alternative in option 3 are worldwide, whilst there do not seem to be costs to 
foreign exporters. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Specify uncertainties and how impact may be affected by changes in parameters 
(uncertainty and sensitivity analysis). 

The  monetised  effects  are  subject  to  great  uncertainty.  The  wide  margin  expressed  for  the 
costs due to the sundown clause reflects that smaller enterprises will be relatively harder hit 
than large ones. 

The  industry  costs  of  the  sundown  clause  have  been  quite  arbitrarily  divided  in  half  and  it 
could be that the repeating costs are much higher, given that relabelling will be a permanent 
as well as a one-off activity. 

The  opportunity  cost  of  the  current  situation  to  a  minority  of  UK  and  Irish  consumers  is 
highly  uncertain  and  could  be  considerably  lower  compared  to  the  benefits  to  the  great 
majority UK citizens who apparently prefer the current situation above change as seems to be 
the case. The cost estimates for consumers are difficult to corroborate but reflect that a larger 
share of the population apparently would suffer disadvantages from metrication than the share 
that would benefit. 

5.4. 

Include impacts in the EU and outside the EU. 

As said, impacts are mainly within the EU except for the sundown clause,  which  would hit 
industry abroad in an equal way. 

5.5. 

Specify which impacts are likely to change over time and how. 

Given  the  high  uncertainty  it  is  difficult  to  indicate  which  impacts  will  change  over  time. 
Probably there will not be changes in the repeating costs, which are largely due to the separate 
labelling required for the US and the EU, if the sundown clause were to be applied (Option 1). 

5.6. 

As relevant, specify which social groups, economic sectors or particular regions 
are affected. 

It concerns business all over Europe and outside of Europe and a minority of citizens in the 
UK and Ireland.  

5.7.  What are the potential obstacles to compliance? 

There do not seem to be obstacles to compliance depending on the option. 

Option  1  would  probably  cause  quite  substantial  compliance  costs,  because  the  change  to 
metric-only in the EU will be difficult to apply by operators. 

Option 2 also requires change and it may too see substantial compliance costs notably due to 
uncertainty and differences in national legal situations. 

Option 3 would not lead to potential obstacles to compliance, given that it continues current 
practice,  which  has  been  satisfactorily  applied  without  major  problems  during  the  past  30 
years. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
6. 

SECTION 6: COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Indicate  how  positive  and  negative  impacts  have  been  weighed  for  each  short-
listed option. 

Impacts have been distinguished into one-off and annual costs and benefits. One-off costs will 
need to be borne in the first year or before that. 

6.2. 

Present results of the weighing 

Table 1. Costs and benefits of Options (Benchmark = current situation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Mln € 

One-off 

Annual 

One-off 

Annual 

Option 1 – No action 

Option 2 – Repeal the directive 

Option 3 - Update the directive 

50 

0 

0  

125 

0 

0 

>212 
1780  

High 

50 

- 

>  188 
755 

- 

High 

125 

Option 1 represents the case of “no action’ whilst Option 3 comes closest to the case of “no 
change”. In order to use a clear single benchmark for the comparison, the current situation has 
been taken as the benchmark 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present the aggregated and disaggregated results 

Table 2. Costs and benefits of Option 1 – No action (benchmark = current situation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Mln € 

One-off 

Annual 

One-off 

Annual 

1. Applying the sun-down clause 

EU industry 

Non EU industry 

UK and Irish consumers 

Legal uncertainty industry 

Adaptation other directives 

2.  No  adaptation  to  technical 
progress 

3. Ending UK / IRL exemptions 

0 

0 

50 

0 

0 

0 

for  milk 

in 

returnable 

0 

Pints 
bottles 

Pints for draught beer and cider 

0 

Traffic and speed road signs (only 
UK) 

Troy ounce 

Total of Option 1 

Of which: 

UK 

Rest of EU and worldwide 

0 

0 

50 

50 

0 

0 

0 

125 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

125 

125 

0 

31 – 315 

31 - 315 

31 – 315 

31 - 315 

>50 

PM 

PM 

0 

0 

0 

100 - 1100 

0 

>125 

PM 

PM 

Legal void 

Public 
dislike 

Public 
dislike 

Public 
dislike 

High 

>212 
1780  

- 

>  187 
755 

- 

150 - 1150  High+125 

62 – 630 

62 - 630 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Costs and benefits of Option 2 – Repeal the directive (benchmark = current situation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Mln € 

One-off 

Annual 

One-off 

Annual 

Confusion in cross border trade and 
transactions 

0 

Risk of One off errors (Marslander)  0 

Total of Option 2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

High 

High 

High 

0 

High 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 4. Costs and benefits of Option 3 - Update the directive (benchmark = current situation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

One-off 

Annual 

One-off 

Annual 

supplementary 

Mln € 

1.  Continue 
indications 

EU industry 

Non EU industry 

UK and Irish consumers 

Legal uncertainty industry 

Adaptation other directives 

0 

0 

0 

PM 

PM 

0 

0 

0 

PM 

PM 

0 

0 

50 

0 

0 

2.  Adaptation 
progress 

to 

technical 

0 

Harmonisation  0 

3.  Allowing  UK 
exemptions 

/ 

IRL 

Pints  for  milk 
bottles 

in  returnable 

0 

Pints for draught beer and cider 

0 

Traffic  and  speed  road  signs 
(only UK) 

Troy ounce 

Total of Option 3 

Of which: 

UK 

Rest of EU and worldwide 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Public’s 
preference 

Public’s 
preference 

Public’s 
preference 

High 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 

50 

0 

0 

0 

125 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

125 

125 

0 

6.3. 

Indicate if the analysis confirms whether EU action would have an added value. 

The  options  1  and  2  of  no  action  and  repealing  the  directive  respectively  would  have 
considerably more costs than benefits. The option 3 of updating the directive has no benefits 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
compared to the current situation but by far the lowest costs and this confirms that EU action 
has added value. 

6.4. 

Highlight the trade-offs and synergies associated with each option. 

There is a trade-off between the preference of a majority of the public in the UK and Ireland 
to maintain the exemptions and the opposite view of the much smaller minority. (Options 1 
and 3) 

There is a synergy between extending the use of supplementary indications and the leeway as 
regards  non-metric  applications  in  the  current  practice  of  enforcing  the  directive,  notably  in 
sectors that use measurement for which no metric unit exists. (Option 3). 

6.5. 

If possible, rank the options in terms of the various evaluation criteria. 

As regards the benefits of applying option 1, these can be deemed to be social and accrue to 
some  citizens.  A  large  majority  in  UK  and  Ireland  will  suffer  from  ending  the  exemptions 
(pint, mile, troy ounce). As regards the economic cost of option 1, industry will experience no 
benefits and high administrative costs. 

In  the  case  of  option  2  costs  are  primarily  economic  but  probably  also  have  a  large  social 
component. 

As regards the costs of applying option 3, these can be deemed to be social and concern some 
citizens. A large majority in UK and Ireland will benefit from keeping the exemptions (pint, 
mile,  troy  ounce).  As  regards  the  economic  benefits  of  option  3,  industry  will  benefit  from 
high administrative cost savings without incurring any costs compared to the current situation. 

In no option are there environmental costs to be expected. 

6.6. 

If possible and appropriate, set out a preferred option. 

Option  3  to  update  the  directive  is  the  preferred  option,  because  it  maintains  the  existing 
situation and requires no new administrative costs, which in this area concern mainly labelling 
costs. Allowing UK  and  Ireland  to continue indefinitely exemptions (pint,  mile,  tray  ounce) 
benefits  most  consumers  who  want  the  current  situation  to  continue.  This  option  includes  a 
synergy between extending the use of supplementary indications and continuing the leeway as 
regards  non-metric  applications  in  the  current  practice  of  enforcing  the  directive,  notably  in 
sectors  that  use  measurement  for  which  no  metric  unit  exists,  e.g.  binary  measurements  in 
computing  (bits,  bytes).  This  option  would  ensure  a  continued  application  of  the  current 
practice, which has, on the whole, not shown major problems. 

The main costs resulting from the alternative option 1 of no action would be administration 
costs,  which  are  significant  and  probably  will  be  highest  for  small  and  medium  sized 
enterprises due to less scale effects. In order to keep the impact assessment proportional  no 
full estimate has been made according the standard cost model, but the quite similar estimates 
from various sources in industry are relied upon. 

Costs resulting from the other alternative option 2 of repealing the directive are very uncertain 
but  could  easily  be  high  and  relate  to  the  fact  that  Member  States  may  implement  the 
international standards differently thus causing uncertainty and possibly barriers to trade. Also 
there might be costly losses on an incidental basis due to misunderstandings, for example the 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
US Marslander spacecraft, which crashed on Mars due to malfunctioning because inch/pound 
indications had been mixed up with metric indications in the production phase. 

Option 3 to update the directive is, therefore, the preferred option. 

7. 

SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

7.1.  What are the core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives? 

Progress towards meeting the objectives does not need to be measured because it concerns the 
adaptation of EU harmonisation to international standards whilst accommodating the situation 
for  EU  exporters  in  a  major  trading  partner,  the  USA,  which  has  not  yet  adopted  the 
international standard fully. 

7.2.  What 

is 
arrangements? 

the  broad  outline 

for  possible  monitoring  and  evaluation 

As a result of option 3 regular evaluation should take place of the US adoption process of the 
international  metric  standard,  in  particular  as  regards  the  progress  towards  allowing  metric-
only labelling, and also, at the level of the world body of the General Conference for Weights 
and Measures, as regards the development of potentially useful metric units of measurement 
where, due to lack of SI units, currently only non-SI units can be used, e.g. bits and bytes in 
computing, as both are key drivers for the choice of option 3. 

7.3. 

How has the opinion of the IA board of 16 July 2007 been taken into account? 

(1) The IA report should elaborate on the expected developments in the US. The past and 
expected  developments  in  the  US  have  been  outlined  under  the  point  ‘Who  is  affected’ 
(section  2.3)  and  the  relevant  discussions  in  the  transatlantic  dialogue  have  been  mentioned 
under the point ‘How would the problem evolve’ (section 2.4). US progress towards allowing 
metric-only labelling is included as an element of monitoring and evaluation (section 7.2). 

(2)  The  IA  report  should  provide  a  summary  of  the  analysis  of  administrative  costs 
under the different options in a separate paragraph. An analysis of one-off and permanent 
administrative costs under the different options is set out under ‘Analysis of impacts’ (section 
2.4).  The  preferred  option  does  not  lead  to  new  administrative  costs,  whilst  the  discarded 
other options would (section 6.6). 

(3) The IA report should provide a brief description of ways in which the results of the 
consultation have influenced the final report and the proposed policy choice. The point 
‘Consultation and expertise’ has been expanded with a brief description of the results of the 
consultation  and  how  they  have  influenced  the  preferred  policy  choice  (section  1.2). 
Stakeholder input on administration costs has been included as an Annex. A case of evidence 
accumulated by the Commission services on related policy dossiers (nominal quantities) has 
been introduced under the ‘general objectives’ (section 3.1). 

(4) It is recommended to give a more structured presentation of the (discarded) option of 
a time-limited extension. A justification for discarding the time-limited extension option has 
been given under the heading of ‘Which options discarded at an early stage and why’ (section 
4.2). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Annex 

Cost estimates resulting from ending supplementary indications 

Text retaken for the Report on the Public Consultation on Units of Measurement (June 2007)8 

Respondents  from  industry  unanimously  confirmed  the  necessity  to  extend  the  use  of 
supplementary markings. Many have asked for an indefinite extension. Requiring metric-only 
would lead to very large costs from having to split production lines and making products in 
metrics for the EU market and in non-metrics for the US market. Next to that there would be 
additional costs from having to use different labels and documentation, retraining workers and 
maintaining increased stocks. Finally, bespoke production runs could become shorter leading 
to  higher  prices  per  item.  Some  of  these  operations  would  have  negative  environmental 
consequences such as more scrap, more print runs, more cleaning of presses. 

Table  1  Transatlantic  trade  and  estimates  of  costs  of  requiring  metric  metric-only 
labelling in the EU from 2010 

Sector 

TA trade 

production 

labels  

stocks 

Total costs 

Source 

$10bn 

Electrical 
Equipment 

Cosmetics 

$10.000  per 
label 

Manufacturing 

High tech 

$100bn 
in 
turnover 
EU;  500,000 
employees 

Disable 
°F 
indication  = 
4 
engineering 
months 
$60.000 

= 

8  working 
per 
days 
manual 
= 
$3500 

Extra  stocks 
per  product 
= 
$10.000 
one-off; 
$1000 
year 

per 

Chocolate/ 
confectionary 

$705 mln 

Plastics 

$13bn 

Metric 
moulds 

Engineering 

€63  bn  (EU 
exp) 

Machinery 
Transport 

and 

NEMA 

CTFA 

NAM 

AeA 

$80  mln  for 
large 
a 
company 

$30  mln  for 
large 
a 
company 

firm: 

Per 
$25-50mln 
one-off  and 
$4  mln  per 
year 

NCA-CMA 

SPI 

Orgalime 

€125  mln 
(0.02 – 0.2% 
of turnover) 

€150  mln  – 
€1.5bh 
(0.02-0.2% 

Business 
Europe 

8 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Engineering 

Meat 

85-90% of 
US meat exp 
to EU 

£1000-
£5000 
manual 

per 

of turnover)  

extra 

5% 
costs 
perpetually 

GAMBICA 

$12mln 

USMEF 

Medical  devices 
(IVD) 

€9bn 
market) 

(EU 

€700 
prod line 

per 

€14 mln 

EDMA 

Toys 

Art materials 

Gas appliances 

Manufacturing 

Electro-
mechanical 

Electro-
mechanical 

Small business 

$250- 
$10.000  per 
item 

2.5 
days 
manual 

man 
per 

$2000 
item 

per 

0.2% 
turnover 

of 

Medium 
company 

$500.000 

Medium 
company 

£100.000 

Medium 
company 

$30 mln 

Large 
company 

€30 – 60 mln  Large 

company 

Medium 
company 

FSB 

TO 
0.5% 
one  off  and 
0.25%  TO 
annually 

new 

Any 
investment 
requires 
times 
amount 
turnover 
cover cost 

3 
that 
in 
to 

It would seem that enforcing metric-only labelling in the EU from 2010 onwards would lead 
to  considerable  costs  amounting  to  0.02%  of  turnover  for  large  firms  and  up  to  0.2%  of 
turnover for small firms. Mechanically it could lead to more employment, but it is expected 
that other employment will be lost in those cases where firms cannot cope with rising costs. 
With total EU exports to the USA amounting to €315bn, costs of the change between 0.02% 
and 0.2% could amount to between €63 million and €630 million for European industry. 

There  do  not,  however,  seem  to  be  any  additional  costs  caused  by  extending  the  use  of 
supplementary indications, because there will be no change to the current situation. 

EN 

20 

   EN