Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Simplification of the regulatory environment for the machinery sector
Date: 2007-09-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: competition law, drafting of EU law, machine-tool industry, occupational safety, standardisation, technology

C 10/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

5.4
The Committee agrees that banks should be required to
immediately inform the court, by electronic or other means of
communication, of how they have complied with the order.

has jurisdiction over this,
general rules on dispute settlement.

in accordance with the applicable

Community law should not lay down rules for ranking
same bank account. The

5.5
creditors
Committee favours the application of national legislation.

competing over

the

The Committee considers that the practical enforcement
5.6
of the order should be governed by the law of the country that

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

Lastly,

the Committee would particularly draw the
5.7
Commission's attention to the need to make provision for a
mechanism for the translation of documents relating to the
operation of
the
mechanism established under Article 21(2)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006.

the proposed system, along the lines of

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Simplification of the regulatory
environment for the machinery sector’

(2008/C 10/03)

On 8 January 2007, European Commission vice-presidents Margot Wallström and Günter Verheugen
requested the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the Simplifi-
cation of the regulatory environment for the machinery sector.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Iozia.

At its 438th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 138 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

nesses. Better legislation, at least where this sector is concerned,
does not mean no legislation, but providing a clear, stable
framework whose rules are easy to implement and where
administrative costs are kept to a minimum.

euro

1.1
The European machinery industry is a key, cutting-edge
industry for the European economy. In 2006, several hundred
billion
over
130 000 companies which export a third of their production.
The machinery and electromechanical
industry employs over
four million workers within the EU, with high added value and
levels of knowledge.

turnover were

generated

by

of

The machinery and electromechanical

industry can
1.2
contribute more than other industries to the achievement of the
Lisbon goals by developing lifelong training, exchanging exper-
tise and best practices and maintaining its ability to be competi-
tive and penetrate world markets at the highest possible level.

the Commission's

The EESC supports

1.3
to
strengthen the competitiveness of the sector and improve the
reference legal framework with better and more effective regu-
lation,
the sector, which
includes tens of thousands of small and medium-sized busi-

taking into account

the nature of

initiatives

The EESC welcomes

1.4
the Commission's decision to
entrust to it this sensitive task of identifying, with the greatest
possible consensus, areas of existing Community legislation
which require simplification, in the wake of the activities which
have stimulated legislative bodies to develop better, simpler
legislation.

1.5
The EESC notes that various legislative initiatives are
under way concerning the sector: the different interests involved
— economic, social, environmental — need to be reconciled.
The creation of the internal market must not jeopardise other,
very important considerations such as health and safety in the
workplace and consumer and environmental protection, in the
context of the Lisbon goals. The EESC believes that a strategy
integrating and coordinating the different initiatives is needed.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/9

1.6
The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposals in the
Communication of 17 February 2007 modifying the new
approach and strengthening the role of Member States' market
surveillance activities, which they sometimes under-resource.
The EESC calls for more Commission staff to be assigned to
coordination, monitoring and, in some cases, even checks on
management of accreditation procedures, notification bodies'
activities and the quality of their certification. It supports the
creation of a ‘platform for communication’ between operators
and Member States, which must act commensurately and consis-
tently with the goals of the directives and Community policy,
bringing about gradual convergence of market surveillance
systems and models.

As regards standardisation activities, the EESC calls for all
1.7
stakeholders to be enabled to participate from the outset in
drawing up standards, strengthening the role both of technical
committees, particularly at local level, and impact assessments,
without excessive use of telematic consultation, which although
a useful tool must not be the only means of consulting stake-
holders, particularly in this case.

1.8
As regards ‘harmonised’ standardisation, the EESC feels
that this should be made available free of charge or for a token
amount, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises, and
points out the disparity between the treatment of firms which
do not belong to the countries in whose languages the rules are
published (English, French and sometimes German) and that of
the others, which do not have to bear what can be huge transla-
tion costs.

1.9
The EESC stresses that all unnecessary administrative
costs should be removed, substantially reducing the burden on
the production system.

1.10
The EESC calls on the Commission to take into due
consideration the need to encourage stable standardisation,
incorporating suggestions from operators and key stakeholders.
As regards the legal framework and the reference legal basis, the
EESC recommends that, before issuing legislation, the Commis-
sion assess whether the same objectives could not be achieved
by other means such as self-regulation or coregulation, as long
as maximum transparency and fully-inclusive stakeholder parti-
cipation can be ensured, and consistently consider the main aim
of the standard and its content when determining the relevant
Treaty articles to use as a legal basis.

The EESC calls for technical barriers to the completion
1.11
of the internal market to be removed. Unnecessary national and
local regulations are a genuine, insurmountable barrier to the
free movement of goods.

1.12
The EESC recommends that future legislation always be
preceded by a proper, careful, ex ante impact assessment, taking
account of the degree of proportionality, and also be followed
by very stringent, ex post monitoring to repair damage which
would otherwise be irreparable for the future of the sector's
companies.

1.13
European sectoral social dialogue will also have a key
role to play in identifying all the common initiatives supporting
job creation and development of competitiveness in the sector,
with due regard for workers', public and environmental safety,
which are sacrosanct principles. Corporate social responsibility
practices will facilitate this ongoing dialogue between companies
and stakeholders, to prevent improper use, increase knowledge
and lifelong training and build a good relationship with the
region in question and end consumers.

2. Gist of the Commission referral

The

2.1
initiative of
European Commission, on the
vice-presidents Wallström and Verheugen, has asked the EESC to
draw up an exploratory opinion aimed at analysing the general
coherence of
the machinery
the regulatory framework for
in order to determine the scope for simplification. In
sector,
addition to the relevant sectoral
legislation, the analysis must
take in the whole regulatory environment applying to the
machinery sector.

2.2 With a view to involving the interested parties in the
simplification process, specifically in identifying rules that might
prove particularly problematic, the Commission has turned to
the EESC, recognising that given its considerable wealth of
experience and truly pluralist membership, it is the ideal body
to reflect and condense the views of Europe's economic opera-
tors, workers and civil society.

Given its experience gained through numerous opinions
2.3
on better
regulation and simplification (1) and in view of
Article 8 of the Cooperation protocol between the European Commis-
sion and the EESC, the Commission is entrusting this important
task to the EESC. Should the EESC's work prove productive and
beneficial, the Commission has suggested that it may repeat the
request for many other areas of importance to its — and the
EESC's — Better Regulation agenda.

The Commission has subsequently clarified its viewpoint,
2.4
stating that better regulation does not necessarily mean less
regulation, and that in fact we must safeguard at least current
levels of protection for workers, consumers and the environ-
ment, with a view to ensuring a regulatory framework that
allows for increased competitiveness.

(1) OJ C 24 of 31.1.2006, rapporteur: Mr Retureau; and OJ C 309 of

16.12.2006, rapporteur: Mr Cassidy.

C 10/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

3. General comments

reconciling the various

The EESC would start by saying that it is extremely keen
3.1
interests
to undertake the task of
involved, with a view to presenting a proposal on improving
and simplifying the current regulatory and legislative environ-
ment. The best feature of the EESC is its ability to influence the
decision-making process by hammering out the widest possible
consensus among civil society representatives holding different
viewpoints. By faithfully upholding the EU's principles and
values, and by producing balanced, high-quality and innovative
opinions, the EESC is an important and effective partner for the
EU institutions. The Commission's request presents all members
of the EESC with the stimulating challenge of making full use of
this opportunity to further enhance the role of organised civil
society, as recognised in the Treaties, to provide a forum for
meeting and discussion.

The opportunity for the EESC to have an early input into
3.2
identifying the specific areas in which the regulatory environ-
ment can be improved, breaks new ground in the cooperation
between the EU institutions. All
interested parties have, of
course, already notified the Commission individually of their
and preferences. Manufacturers, users,
own requirements
workers, consumers, standardisation bodies and public authori-
ties have all indicated how they would like to see the existing
rules improved. The consultation methods employed to date have
not, however, produced an accurate picture reflecting the
various interests, leaving all parties feeling at some stage that
their views have not been taken on board.

3.3
The EESC can, however, present an accurate reflection of
these interests, given both its diverse in-house expertise, and the
networks of important contacts that its members can draw on
to gain important insights. The EESC expressed some of its
views on this subject in its Own-initiative opinion on Industrial
Change in the Mechanical Engineering Sector (2).

that various

The EESC notes

3.4
initiatives have been
launched or announced with regard to EU rules on industrial
production and, specifically, the machinery sector. These initia-
tives give rise to a variety of complex problems. It would be
useful to examine these problems taking account of the range of
interests that EU legislation protects:
the free movement of
goods, workers' health and safety, consumer protection, environ-
mental protection and the economic and social objectives of the
Lisbon Strategy. These EU laws derive from different legislative
instruments and a study of this kind has never been carried out.
The EESC believes that the time really has come to address the
whole issue comprehensively and systematically.

(2) OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005 (rapporteur: Mr Van Iersel).

3.5
EU laws on the production and marketing of industrial
materials have been drafted incrementally. This has generally
ensured legislative harmonisation, which has greatly simplified
in which companies operate,
the regulatory environment
although it must be stressed that this process has not yet been
completed.

3.6
EU laws adopted since the late 1980s derive from two
major bodies of rules: one on the market and the other on the
workplace. The effective implementation of these rules requires
the involvement of a wide range of parties: standardisation and
notification bodies, designers and manufacturers, importers and
distributors, assemblers and fitters, public inspection and disci-
plinary bodies (including customs and the judiciary), entrepre-
representatives, etc. Consumer
neurs, workers and workers'
organisations are very keen to be given a practical and effective
role, their involvement to date being deemed insufficient. Coop-
eration between all of these parties is crucial, as is cooperation
between public authorities at national and EU levels.

Applying these rules does not seem to create any major
3.7
difficulties. However, despite this generally favourable assess-
ment there are a certain number of practical problems that
must not be overlooked.

4. Improved safety levels, but still some way to go

4.1
Every year across the EU there are between 6 000 and
8 000 fatal accidents at work (40 % of which involving workers
under 35) and hundreds of thousands causing injuries. Some of
these accidents are caused by work tools. In certain cases, inade-
quate personal safety equipment or training is also to blame.
Approximately one quarter of EU workers claim to be required
to use personal safety equipment for health and safety reasons.
The main physical agents representing risk factors in the work-
place are generally linked to work tools: noise, vibrations,
ionising and non-ionising rays. Ergonomic factors have a crucial
bearing on health and safety at work. In some cases, work tools
may cause significant exposure to chemicals: the effectiveness of
personal safety equipment may sometimes be crucial.

4.2
Particular consideration must be given to consumer
products, the public being largely indifferent and undoubtedly
unalerted to the inherent potential risks of the machinery they
buy or hire. Sadly, too many accidents are occurring through
improper use by consumers, and these are not included in the
statistics.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/11

5. Cooperation between the various parties is sometimes

difficult

5.1
It should be noted that cooperation between the parties
operating on the single market is faced with real difficulties
including a deep-rooted reluctance to act with full transparency.
This reluctance, on the part of the private sector, stems from a
desire to protect against competition or possible sanctions, and
on the part of
the public sector results from bureaucratic
inertia, sometimes quite entrenched. For example, there is a
clear need to step up cooperation between manufacturers and
users and to increase transparency in the way in which the key
requirements of the New Approach directives are interpreted by
the standardisation, supervisory and notification bodies and by
consultants providing technical support to entrepreneurs.

This problem was a key concern for the Commission
5.2
when launching its recent initiative on 14 February 2007, under
the review of the new approach, entitled New Internal Market
package for goods. This consists of a draft regulation Setting out
the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to
the marketing of products (COM(2007) 37 final) (3) and a draft
decision on a Common framework for the marketing of products
(COM(2007) final) (4). One of its proposals is that ‘market surveil-
lance structures will be reinforced to catch unsafe products, remove
them from the whole Community market and take action against frau-
dulent companies. The testing, certification and inspection bodies who
are involved in product checking will be subject to more stringent
controls in the form of accreditation, to ensure that there is a level
playing field both for manufacturers and for the bodies themselves’.
(There are currently about 1 800 notification bodies in the EU,
specifically laboratories,
inspection and certification bodies.
These are private entities accredited by public authorities.) It
should be noted that these ‘independent’ bodies include some
which have been directly set up by manufacturing firms' associa-
tions, and the conflict of interests here could become a real
problem. In one Member State, for example, in the lifts sector
alone over 80 notification bodies have been accredited.

Commission, which will have to appoint more staff if it is to
continuously monitor market surveillance, accreditation proce-
dures for notification bodies and, in some cases, the activities of
the vast
these bodies as well.
majority of sectoral organisations were in favour of strength-
ening national and, accordingly, European authorities in this
way.

In the Commission's survey,

The EESC welcomes this initiative, which limits the scope
5.3
that hinders the
for discretion and inconsistent assessment
development of the internal market and leads to a competitive
disadvantage for compliant operators. The distortion of compe-
tition caused by lapses in surveillance is a huge problem which
serves to highlight one of the constraints on implementation of
the new approach. It is also crucial to ensure the simplicity and
clarity of the regulatory framework, particularly for small and
medium-sized enterprises, as well as to step up cooperation
between market supervisory authorities, both in the EU/EEA
area and internationally. The EESC supports the creation of a
‘platform for communication’ between operators and Member
States, which must act commensurately and consistently with
the goals of
the directives and Community policy, bringing
about gradual convergence of market surveillance systems and
models. It is crucial that customs authorities are involved in
this.

5.4
At European level, greater cooperation is needed between
all DGs concerned (e.g. ENTR, ENV, EMPL and SANCO), which
could work together to produce ‘guides’ on the application of
existing directives. These would not replace the standards, of
course, but they could be useful and save a lot of money being
spent on unnecessary consultancy fees.

5.5
As regards seasonal products such as garden machinery,
accelerated procedures need to be laid down to prevent market
opportunities being missed. Notwithstanding the need for
rigorous implementation of all the legislation, especially safety
rules, the EESC proposes that a ‘mediation institute’ be set up to
this end which could be called on to ensure that specific, valid
needs are met.

5.2.1
Twenty-two years on from the issue of the Council
resolution of 7 May 1985 incorporating the new approach prin-
ciples,
and
the Commission is proposing to modernise
strengthen market surveillance, making the CE marking increas-
ingly trustworthy. The EESC feels that
the new approach
method, which was addressed by 25 directives (21 of which
included specifications for granting the marking while four did
not), has yielded good results and encouraged development of
the internal market, although at the same time it considers that
the proposed review is appropriate. Member States' powers and
the
responsibilities must be increased, as must

those of

(3) Opinion INT/352, in preparation (rapporteur: Mr Pezzini).
(4) Opinion INT/353, idem 3.

6. Administrative burdens — not always necessary

6.1
Another Commission priority is to reduce unnecessary
red tape, which impacts considerably on competition. The EESC
is following with interest the Commission's work in this area,
which has taken the form of an action programme, presented
on 24 January 2007, aimed at cutting administrative burdens
on companies by a quarter by 2012.

C 10/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

The Commission could help provide a practical solution
6.2
to problems regarding the application of directives by,
for
example, acting as a central office for all communications that
currently have to be sent to the individual Member States, invol-
ving great difficulties in ascertaining the correct address. This is
the case for Directive 2000/14/EC on noise emissions, under
which a declaration of conformity has to be sent to a Member
State and to the Commission, and for Directive 97/68/EC on
if using the
emissions from machinery engines, under which,
‘flexibility scheme’, companies have to notify the relevant autho-
rities of each Member State of type-approval received, reporting
to them every six months.

6.3
Putting into practice the directives on the protection of
workers from physical agents presents many difficulties for busi-
ness. Particularly problematic are the directives on vibrations
(2002/44/EC) and on the risk of exposure to non-ionising radia-
tion (2006/25/EC), especially for SMEs. Such problems could
arise in the application of the next directive on artificial optical
radiation. Guidelines on their practical application are needed, if
these directives are to achieve their objectives. Clearly, where it
is genuinely impossible to apply them in practice, thought will
have to be given, and swift action taken, regarding the amend-
ments needed to enable companies fulfil their legal obligations.

it

is important

In the field of

to take account of

industrial production and specifically
6.4
machinery,
the various
requirements involved when dealing with the issue of adminis-
trative burdens. Traceability of work carried out by the various
parties is fundamental both to the physical safety of users and
to the legal certainty of contractual relations established in the
market. It is therefore necessary to present balanced solutions
which retain the requirement for transparency and traceability,
while not adding unnecessary administrative costs.

7. The role of standardisation

7.1
Technical standards play a key role in the functioning of
EU rules and flesh out the basic safety requirements laid down
in legislation. Compliance with these standards confers a
presumption of conformity with the relevant directives. Certifi-
cation, where necessary, by accredited notification bodies goes
hand in hand with the legislative framework of rules.

noted ‘on the ground’. The EESC calls for greater stakeholder
participation in technical committees, particularly at local level,
in this sector in which few people have genuine decision-
making power. It notes with concern that the growing cost of
standardisation could become a constraint on competition, and
even safety, where the risk is taken,
for example, of using
machinery improperly, for uses which conflict with standards,
Some SMEs in Eastern Europe have a tendency to ‘wing it’ or
resort to expedient devices.

the

initiatives

The EESC welcomes

7.3
announced on
15 March 2007 under the Action plan for European standardisa-
tion, in which all Member States were invited to report on the
level of the
state of play of the implementation at national
measures taken to enhance the participation of stakeholders in
European/international standardisation. The Commission, for its
part, is to collect the observations made and integrate them into
European standardisation. The involvement of SMEs in standar-
disation is essential, both at EU and national levels; they must
make an effective and practical contribution to future standardi-
sation processes.

7.4
In certain cases it can be more difficult for entrepreneurs
to comply with all health and safety legislation requirements.
Risk assessment, where machinery is used, requires complemen-
tarity between the manufacturer and the user company.
Problems can arise if standards do not provide for sufficient
information to be supplied on any residual
the
company must take into consideration. If companies are not
properly informed of the residual risk attached to a machine
that they purchase, they will have difficulty in complying with
the risk assessment obligations stipulated in Framework Direc-
tive 89/391/EEC and in its 19 daughter directives on the active
and passive protection of workers.

risk that

7.5
Dissemination of these standards can be problematic for
small and medium-sized enterprises given the high cost of
acquiring them; while standardisation leads to certification
procedures, the administrative costs incurred are generally much
higher than those resulting directly from legislation.

7.2
Overall, European standardisation bodies have carried
out very useful work on the basis of Commission mandates.
Drawing up standards should require greater involvement of
stakeholders, as this would facilitate subsequent comparison.
The fact remains, however, that this is the work of a select few.
The majority of user industries do not have the expertise or the
resources to regularly monitor this work. There is even less
involvement of workers and consumers. This situation makes it
difficult to take account of the importance of experience gained.
Certain standards do not address the full range of concerns

The risk analysis provided by CEN specialists is extremely
7.6
important
for entrepreneurs, who must combine it with a
specific analysis of the actual working environment in which the
machinery will be used. The cost of these harmonised standards
is high, particularly for SMEs. The EESC calls for consideration
to be given to the proposal that harmonised standards, deriving
from the CEN's Commission mandate, be made available for
free or for a token fee, to allow them to fulfil their legal obliga-
tions. Free dissemination on the Internet, moreover, has already
been successfully implemented by the telecommunications
sector, where some ETSI (European Telecommunications Stand-
ard Institute) standards are placed directly on the Web.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/13

8. Promote regulatory stability

8.1
The EESC points out that it is not always necessary to
modify directives that have been and continue to be successful.
Undoubtedly, while the work and conclusions leading to the
comprehensive overhaul of Directive 98/37/EC — known as the
Machinery Directive — were particularly complex, an optimum
balance was ultimately struck between the various stakeholders.
In certain other cases, it would perhaps be better to avoid exces-
sive ‘enhancement’, such as when amending the Low Voltage
Directive (73/23/EC) or, as pointed out by the machinery manu-
facturers' association in its letter of 5 November 2004, in the
case of the inappropriate Commission proposal to merge Direc-
tive 87/404/EC and the Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23).

8.2
It has become apparent that the market needs a clear,
stable regulatory framework to take the anxiety out of invest-
ment planning and enable it to adhere to clear rules which are
not changed too often. On the other hand, there is a very real
danger that ‘simplification’ could result in greater administrative
costs and higher costs for conformity assessment procedures as
they become more complex.

8.3 Moreover, as regards the possibility of using Article 95 of
the Treaty, while the EESC understands manufacturers' needs, it
stresses that the reference legal framework underlying the adop-
tion of directives must be in line with the fundamental princi-
ples of the Treaties, particularly in terms of the legal basis for
the different standards. Clearly, focus on the objective and the
content of the instrument should be the real reference criteria
for implementation of
the various standards. The European
Court of Justice has also issued a number of judgments in this
connection, some recently, excluding in any case the possibility
of a mixed legal basis where references are contradictory or so
layered as to limit Parliament's rights. In the case of product
design, where another objective is the focus, the desire of busi-
nesses to take as a basis Article 95(3) of the Treaty, which, as is
well-known, limits Member States' power and strengthens Com-
munity rules, as provided for in Article 137 or Article 175 for
example, cannot always be fulfilled (5). Businesses point to the
added costs (which are borne by the end user) that making the
necessary modifications to machinery design and production
entails, in response to requests from individual Member States.
Complementary legislative models should be devised which do
not overlap but limit to the minimum Member States' ability to
adopt separate, different measures, which must be in line with
the principles of common sense and proportionality.

some difficulties, especially if import checks are not as rigorous
as this fundamental directive requires. The EESC urges the
Commission to monitor carefully Member States' market
surveillance procedures, as in this particular sector they have
not always managed to perform their role effectively in the past,
partly because the designated surveillance bodies have been
seriously under-resourced. In this connection, depending on the
degree of dominance of certain areas of production within the
tasks could be divided between surveillance
Member States,
authorities, by product area for instance (valves and fittings,
lifting and handling equipment, pumps and compressors,
machinery for the manufacturing industries, etc.).

8.5
Despite the key contribution made by the mechanical
engineering industry to the European economy as a whole,
Member States seem to invest very little in the institutional
activities for which they are responsible. The Commission could
request information on this and compare it with the practical
results obtained. Often,
it is left to individual ability/commit-
ment to determine the quality and number of checks, but much
depends on the available resources.

9. Remove technical barriers to full development of the

single market

9.1 Within national legislation, a range of technical barriers
remain, creating significant problems for companies. One sector
affected, for example, is non-road mobile machinery needing to
be transported on public roads. As different rules, with varying
levels of stringency, apply across the Member States, firms need
to be equipped with several different types. There is some confu-
sion as regards terminology as well, for example in the use of
the terms ‘undertakings’ and ‘firms’. The inspection requirements
in some Member States entail additional costs, which are often
duplicated for each country that provides for inspection by a
specific body in the development, testing, or transport phases.
In particular where safety measures are concerned, the EESC
calls for harmonisation of legislation to be carried out quickly.
As regards tractors, for example, over and above existing provi-
sions on rear-view mirrors and speed limits, technical specifica-
tions must be laid down for front and rear lights and, most
importantly, braking distance. There are currently tractors on
European roads which were made as long as forty years ago.
Gradual replacement of
the fleet would ensure much more
effective active and passive safety levels.

The recent REACH directive is a milestone in consumer
8.4
and worker protection. The EESC has endorsed the technical
solutions adopted and the prospect of flexibility associated with
simplification; however, it points out with some concern that
small and medium-sized businesses could find themselves in

To regulate the use of machinery on public roads, the

9.2
EESC recommends the following:

(5) Judgement of the Court in Case C-94/03: Commission of the European
Communities v Council of the European Union — Choice of legal
basis.

— adopting a proposal to harmonise existing national legisla-

tion on the use of machinery on public roads;

C 10/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

— using the New Approach methodology;

— providing for benchmark standards that confer a presump-

tion of conformity with requirements;

— including appropriate provisions for conformity assessment,
bringing in a more rigorous conformity assessment
for
certain systems (steering, brakes, etc.).

10. Future legislation: involvement and impact assessment

10.1
The EESC calls for closer cooperation in future between
regulators and stakeholders on future regulation policies, by
means of effective dialogue, and without overly relying on econ-
sultation, given the need for interaction between the parties. In
frequent, ongoing
the EESC's view,
in some specific areas,
consultation would prevent problems,
thus ensuring better
quality legislation and more effective standards.

The EESC believes it

10.2
for the
various options, an impact assessment methodology common
to all EU institutions — Parliament, Council and Commission
— as well as a suitable quality control system.

to develop,

is crucial

10.3
The Commission should always consider whether its
intended objectives actually necessitate a regulatory framework
or whether,
in fact, self-regulation or co-regulation would be
sufficient. The EESC believes that among the various options,
the aim must be to choose the one which can meet the same
objectives at a lower cost and with a lower administrative
burden, and which can ensure maximum transparency and
stakeholder participation.

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

10.4
Sectoral social dialogue has a key role to play. The
common interest could be served in practice by specific initia-
tives to develop training, particularly in the area of safety in the
including lifelong training, which builds not only
workplace,
skills but also awareness of the various managerial and organisa-
tional issues related to better and safer use of machinery. Corpo-
rate social responsibility,
implemented through an extended
dialogue which includes civil society and local authority repre-
sentatives, could help to develop a safe, productive corporate
culture, especially in small and medium-sized businesses, where
risk management is clearly more difficult.

10.5
The EESC believes that it would be useful to carry out a
review allowing all interested parties to assess the merits and
limitations of the regulatory framework. Such an assessment
would allow us to proceed in a unified manner and ensure that
the various initiatives under way do not produce incomplete
solutions or conflicting results. The Commission's decision to
discuss the new Machinery Directive with stakeholders is a step
in the right direction. More initiatives of this kind are needed. In
particular, the EESC highlights the links between the various
initiatives, such as those under the action programme on redu-
cing unnecessary red tape and the New Approach (on 14 February
2007, the Commission adopted its proposals for a Council and
European Parliament regulation and decision on a review frame-
work for the New Approach, on the basis of a public consulta-
tion on the future of
the internal market). The EESC is
convinced that a joined-up approach to these initiatives and
proper coordination thereof are likely to tangibly improve the
current body of legislation and its uniform application across
the 27 Member States.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS