Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 402 final} {SEC(2008) 2122}
Date: 2008-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European organisation, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, environmental standard, management audit, management information system

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2121 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and 
audit scheme (EMAS) 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 402 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2122} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.  Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .................................................... 5 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 

1.1.1.  Reference to the associated item in Agenda Planning or the Work Programme. ........ 5 

1.1.2.  Purpose of this Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 5 

1.1.3.  Chronology................................................................................................................... 5 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 

1.2.1.  External expertise and stakeholder consultation .......................................................... 6 

1.2.2.  Commission’s minimum standards on consultation .................................................. 10 

1.2.3.  Main results................................................................................................................ 10 

2.  Problem definition............................................................................................................ 12 

2.1. 

Description of the problem......................................................................................... 12 

2.1.1.  Background ................................................................................................................ 12 

2.1.2.  Main problem identified............................................................................................. 16 

2.2. 

The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 18 

2.2.1.  Lack of clarity with regard to the legal requirements ................................................ 18 

2.2.2.  The system of reporting is not harmonised or uniform.............................................. 18 

2.2.3.  Procedures for accreditation and supervision of verifiers are not harmonised .......... 18 

2.2.4.  Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme in Member States ......................... 19 

2.2.5.  Uneven support in the Member States of EMAS by way of financial, fiscal and 

market-related measures............................................................................................. 19 

2.2.6.  Organisational and financial barriers for implementation of EMAS ......................... 21 

2.2.7.  Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS .............................................................. 22 

2.2.8.  Coexistence of other environment management systems .......................................... 24 

2.2.9. 

Insufficient integration with other community policies / instruments ....................... 25 

2.2.10.  Limited geographical scope of EMAS....................................................................... 25 

2.2.11.  Lack of clarity on how the system works................................................................... 25 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

Affected parties .......................................................................................................... 25 

Evolvement of the problem in case no action will be taken ...................................... 25 

Community action...................................................................................................... 26 

3.  Objectives......................................................................................................................... 27 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 27 

Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies ............................................ 27 

4.  Policy options................................................................................................................... 29 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Policy option 1: continuing with the present approach - (base scenario) .................. 29 

Policy option 2: phasing out the scheme.................................................................... 29 

Policy option 3: substantially modifying the scheme ................................................ 29 

4.3.1.  Measures aimed at ensuring that the scheme is the best indication for external 

stakeholders and national enforcement authorities that EMAS organisations comply 
with all relevant environmental legislation and continuously improve their 
environmental performances...................................................................................... 31 

4.3.1.1.  Sub-option 1: legal compliance.................................................................................. 31 

4.3.1.2.  Sub-option 2: reporting – core performance indicators ............................................. 31 

4.3.1.3.  Sub-option 3: development of sectoral reference documents .................................... 31 

4.3.1.4.  Sub-option 4: harmonising procedures for accreditation and verification................. 32 

4.3.2.  Measures aimed at raising the attractiveness of the scheme for participating 

organisations, particularly for SMEs and small public authorities, by reducing the 
administrative burden for participating organisations and by increasing the visibility 
of participation in 
EMAS......................................................................................................................... 32 

4.3.2.1.  Sub-option 5: promotion and support ........................................................................ 32 

4.3.2.2.  Sub-option 6: reducing burdens and creating incentives ........................................... 33 

4.3.2.3.  Sub-option 7: clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes ............... 36 

4.3.2.4.  Sub-option 8: links with other EU legislation/instruments ........................................ 36 

4.3.2.5.  Sub-option 9: EMAS global....................................................................................... 37 

4.3.3.  Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly ....................................... 37 

4.3.3.1.  Sub-option 10: re-writing text Regulation ................................................................. 37 

4.3.3.2.  Sub-option 11: integration of Guidelines in the Regulation ...................................... 37 

4.4. 

Options discarded at an early stage............................................................................ 37 

5.  Analysis of impacts .......................................................................................................... 39 

5.1. 

Expected economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the short-listed 
options ........................................................................................................................ 39 

5.1.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 39 

5.1.2.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 43 

5.1.3.  Social and employment impacts................................................................................. 47 

5.2. 

Positive and negative impacts of the different options .............................................. 48 

5.2.1.  Option 1: continuing with the present approach ........................................................ 48 

5.2.2.  Option 2: phasing out the scheme .............................................................................. 49 

5.2.3.  Option 3: substantially modifying the scheme........................................................... 49 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

Impacts in the EU and outside the EU ....................................................................... 53 

Impacts likely to change over time ............................................................................ 53 

Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected................................. 53 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.6. 

Potential obstacles to compliance .............................................................................. 53 

6.  Comparing the options ..................................................................................................... 55 

7.  Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................... 56 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives...................................... 56 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation............................................... 56 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing  

1.1.1.  Reference to the associated item in Agenda Planning or the Work Programme.  

Management plan – G2 – Sub-action 437.1 

1.1.2.  Purpose of this Impact Assessment 

This Impact Assessment has been prepared by DG Environment of the Commission 
Services to inform the development of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 
of the European parliament and of the council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary 
participation  by  organisations  in  a  Community  eco-management  and  audit  scheme 
(EMAS)1.  It  follows  the  guidelines  for  an  Impact  Assessment  produced  by  the 
Secretariat  General  of  the  Commission.  It  has  been  submitted  to  the  Impact 
Assessment  Board  on  27  June  2007  and  it  has  taken  the  opinion  of  the  Impact 
Assessment  Board  of  4  July  2007  into  account  by  elaborating  on  and  adding 
information  on  issues  identified  by  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  as  not  yet  fully 
developed. 

The Impact Assessment presents an analysis of the situation under Regulation (EC) 
No  761/2001,  identifies  the  main  policy  options  that  have  been  considered  in  the 
context of the revision of the EMAS Regulation, and assesses these options in terms 
of their environmental, social and economic impacts. 

The impact assessment also identifies the main players in the implementation of the 
scheme  and  some  results  expected  from  the  revision,  against  which  to  measure  the 
implementation and the effectiveness of the proposed Regulation. 

1.1.3.  Chronology 

Task 

Deadline 

External evaluation 

Dec 04 - Dec 05 

Selected stakeholder consultation 

Jan 06 – Dec 06 

Status 

Completed 

Completed 

Draft main direction revision 

May 06 – June 06 

Completed 

Internal agreement main direction 

June 06 – Dec 06 

Completed 

Draft text Regulation 

Dec 06 – May 07 

Completed 

Impact 
(incl. stakeholders consultation) 

assessment

Dec 07 – June 07 

Completed 

Revise draft text I 

July 07 – Feb 08 

Completed 

Inter-service consultation 

March 08 – April 08 

In process 

Revise draft text II 

April 08 

To be completed 

1 

OJEC L 114 of 24/04/2001, p.1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission adoption new Regulation 

May 08 

To be completed 

EP – Council co-decision 

June 08 - End 09  

To be completed 

Adoption new Legislation 

End 09 – Beg 10 

To be completed 

An  inter-service  steering  group  has  been  formally  created,  following  on  from 
informal  contacts  and  consultations  with  Units  from  DG  ENV,  DG  TREN  and  DG 
ENTR, which started at the time of the evaluation study of the EMAS and Eco-label 
schemes. 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

1.2.1.  External expertise and stakeholder consultation 

The  EMAS  scheme  involves  many  stakeholders  and  attracts  attention  from  many 
interested  parties.  The  Commission  services  already  maintain  a  dialogue  with 
representatives  of  the  Member  States  and  with  the  different  stakeholders  of  the 
EMAS process, in order to follow the practical implementation of the scheme. This 
has made it possible to monitor the scheme's strengths and weaknesses. 

The  use  of  external  expertise  and  a  formal  round  of  consultation  with  EMAS 
stakeholders  (representatives  from  the  business  community,  including  SMEs,  and 
public  organisations,  EMAS  verifiers,  EMAS  consultants,  accreditation  bodies, 
competent  bodies,  NGOs,  national  EMAS  experts)  was  nevertheless  felt  to  be 
necessary  to  provide  the  Commission  with  good  grounds  to  conduct  an  effective 
revision process. 

(i)  A  large-scale  evaluation  study  on  EMAS  and  Eco-label  was  carried  out  by  a 
consortium  of  consultants  led  by  Bocconi  University,  known  as  the  ‘EVER’ 
study2 

The  EVER  study  was  carried  out  on  behalf  of  DG  Environment.  It  examined 
how European companies perceive the motives, success factors and benefits in 
relation to EMAS and it aimed at providing recommendations for the revision 
of  both  the  EMAS  scheme.  The  EVER  study  consisted  of  a  desk  research, 
consisting of a thorough review of existing literature and previous studies and 
surveys on the scheme and thee 'in-field' research, carried out by way of direct 
interviews and case studies. The findings of that research phase were presented, 
discussed and enriched through a stakeholder engagement exercise, carried out 
within  two  workshops  held  in  September  2005,  that  involved  experts, 
institutions, companies, practitioners and NGO's. 

The  EVER  study  showed  that  EMAS  is  considered  as  a  mean  to  integrate 
environmental  concerns  in  the  organisation's  collective  value  system  and 
improve  the  corporate  image.  EMAS  is  not  only  perceived  as  a  system  to 
reduce costs from waste disposal, energy consumption etc.; it is also seen as a 
scheme  that  signals  environmental  friendliness  to  the  internal  and  external 
stakeholders. 

Environmental  improvements,  enhanced  image  and  costs  reductions  are 
perceived  as  far  the  most  important  benefits  from  adopting  EMAS.  Even 

2 

For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/everfinalreport1_en.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
though  almost  half  of  the  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  believed  that  the 
monetary costs of EMAS outweighed the benefits, more than two third of the 
respondents  considered  EMAS  as  a  success  when  comparing  the  financial  as 
well as non-financial benefits and costs.3 

(ii) 

In  parallel,  the  REMAS  project4  a  three-year  project  funded  by  the  EU  LIFE 
Environment  Fund,  and  carried  out  by  the  UK  Environment  Agency,  the 
Scottish  Environment  Protection  Agency,  the  UK  Institute  of  Environmental 
Management  and  Assessment  and  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  in 
Ireland, was concluded in May 2006. 

The objective of the REMAS project was to determine the influence of different 
types of environmental management systems on site environmental management 
activities,  and  their  subsequent  impact  on  compliance  with  legislation  and 
performance against best available techniques.  

The  REMAS  report  presents  the  results  of  a  detailed  statistical  analysis  of  the 
relationship  between  environmental  management  systems  classification,  site 
environmental  management  activities  and  environmental  performance,  using 
data that has been collected from a sample of over 300 sites, operating across 8 
industrial sectors in 14 European countries. 

The  REMAS  project  compares  a  number  of  aspects  of  environmental 
management  between  organisations  (a)  with  no  environment  management 
system,  (b)  with  a  non-certified  environment  management  system,  (c)  with  a 
standard certified environment management system ISO 14001) and (d) with an 
enhanced  certified  environment  management  system  (ISO  14001  "plus"5  and 
EMAS). 

The report concludes that: 

•  there  is  strong  evidence  that  the  adoption  of  an  accredited  certified 
environment  management  system  improves  site  environmental  management 
activities. 

•  there  is  evidence  that  overall  environmental  management  is  better  under 
EMAS  than  under  ISO14001;  driven  largely  by  better  performance  for 
Performance  Monitoring,  Documentation  Control 
and  Reporting 
Environmental Performance.6 

The main elements of which an environment management system consists are: 

3 
4 
5 

6 

EVER study. "Perceptions of EMAS Registration – A summary report". p.3. 
For more information: http://remas.ewindows.eu.org/ 
In  practice  there  is  no  such  standard  as  ‘ISO14001  plus’.  This  is  a  nomenclature  used  only  in  the 
REMAS project to test the effect of the registration elements of EMAS. 
Nevertheless,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  even  though  environmental  reports  provide  quantitative 
data on performance of EMAS organisations, there are a number of problems with the availability of 
these  data,  such  as  the  lack  of  harmonisation  (indicators),  different  reporting  levels  and  insufficient 
information on output, etc. Combined with the fact that organisations not participating in EMAS usually 
have limited reporting obligations as regards environmental performance, comparison between EMAS, 
ISO 14001:2004 and non-EMAS organisations is difficult to make. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
•  the environmental policy 

•  procedures and controls ensuring: 

–  operational and risk management, 

–  monitoring of environmental performance, 

–  compliance with legal requirements, 

•  documentation control 

•  management review procedures 

•  reporting on environmental performance 

•  commitment to training and awareness raising of employees and 

•  open communication culture. 

The table below gives the estimates for the individual aspects of environmental 
management. 

The  values  represent  the  differences  in  the  expected  scores  for  the  respective 
environment management system relative to the “base class” of ISO 14001 (all 
other  factors  being  equal).  A  higher  coefficient  corresponds  to  better 
performance. 

Estimated 
impact  of  environment  management  system  classification  on  average 
environmental  management  activities,  and  on  individual  dimensions  of  environmental 
management activities 

Estimated regression coefficients 

EMAS 

ISO Plus 

ISO 14001 

Informal  None 

  Overall 

0.09 

0.03 

  Environmental policy 

0.05 

-0.03 

  Operational and risk 

0.08 

0.24 

management 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

-0.20 

-0.28 

-0.19 

-0.38 

-0.53 

-0.27 

  Commitment to training 

0.04 

-0.10 

0.00 

-0.24 

-0.46 

and awareness 

  Compliance and 

conformance control 

0.00 

-0.02 

0.00 

-0.32 

-0.46 

  Performance monitoring 

0.11 

0.11 

  Open communication 

0.02 

-0.29 

culture 

  Documentation control 

0.14 

0.16 

  Management review 

0.10 

0.08 

  Reporting environmental 

0.21 

-0.01 

performance 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

-0.07 

-0.21 

-0.09 

-0.26 

-0.43 

-0.26 

-0.58 

-0.58 

-0.57 

-0.45 

  Key 

+ ve 

- ve 

Significance level 

< 5% 

5% - 10% 

10% - 20% 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not significant 

The REMAS report confirms that: 7 

• 

• 

the  results  provide  strong  evidence  that  the  adoption  of  a  certified 
environment management system (i.e. ISO 14001 or above) improves the 
quality of site environmental management activities; increasing the overall 
score  of  a  site  with  no  environment  management  system  by  0.38-0.47 
(depending on the type of system adopted), and the score of a site with an 
informal  environment  management  system  by  0.20-0.29.  The  same  is 
generally true for the individual dimensions of environmental management 
activities,  although  there  is  some  variation  in  the  magnitudes  of  the 
impacts  between  the  dimensions.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
quality  of  environmental management under ISO14001 is any better  than 
under  an 
for 
documentation control. 

for  performance  monitoring  or 

informal  system 

the  evidence  is  mixed  regarding  the  benefits  of  adopting  an  enhanced 
certified EMS, compared to the standard ISO 14001. The sample provides 
no  evidence  that  the  additional  features  of  ISO14001  Plus  lead  to  better 
site  environmental  management.  While  there  is  some  evidence  that  there 
may be improvements in relation to operational and risk management, it is 
not clear why this should be the case. In contrast the sample does provide 
evidence that site environmental management is better under EMAS than 
under  ISO14001;  with  the  0.09  increase  on  the  overall  EMA  being 
significant  at the 10% level. This is driven largely by better performance 
for  performance  monitoring,  documentation  control  and  reporting 
environmental performance. 

(iii)  The  Member  States  bodies  running  the  EMAS  scheme  (Competent  Bodies, 
Accreditation  Bodies)  organised  a  number  of  stakeholder  meetings  and 
seminars  on  the  future  of  the  scheme,  producing  recommendations  for  its 
revision in the future.8 

(iv)  Member  States  representatives  to  the  Article  14  committee  of  the  EMAS 
Regulation (Comitology meeting) have also been consulted at each stage of the 
revision  process  and  have  provided  input  into  the  revision  work  of  the 
Commission  on  20  June  2005  (Brussels),  22  November  2005  (Turin),  29-30 
June 2006 (Luxembourg) and 13-14 November 2006 (Athens).9 

(v)  As  part  of  the  consultation  process,  the  Commission  organised  4  working 
group  meetings  with  selected  EMAS  experts  comprised  of  EMAS  verifiers, 
consultants, accreditation bodies and competent bodies on 17 May, 9 June, 20 
July  and  27  July  2006,  in  order  to  analyse  in  details  the  pros  and  cons  and 

7 
8 
9 

REMAS final report p. 23. 
For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas. 
See Annex I: minutes of the Emas Article 14 meetings. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
practical  feasibility  of  specific  options  proposed  to  revise  the  EMAS 
Regulation.10 

(vi)  The Commission visited selected Member States to gather their opinion on the 
revision  of  the  Regulation,  at  which  occasion  Member  States  and  other 
interested parties put forward their ideas for the future of the scheme. 

(vii)  The  Commission  services organised a revision workshop on 11-12 December 
2006  with  a  selected  group  of  around  100  EMAS  experts  representing  the 
different  actors  involved  in  the  different  Member  States,  in  order  to  gather 
feedback on the draft Commission proposals for the revision of the scheme.11 

(viii)  Finally,  as  part  of  the  Impact  Assessment,  a  public  stakeholder  consultation 
using  the  integrated  policy  making  (IPM)  internet  consultation  tool  was 
launched  in  December  06  and  ended  on  26  February  2007.  This  on-line 
questionnaire  enabled  all  types  of  stakeholders  and  interested  parties  to  input 
their opinion on the different options for the EMAS revision. The results have 
been  analysed  and  broadly  confirm  the  main  directions  and  revision  options 
envisaged.12. 

The  inputs received were particularly useful in helping the Commission services to 
clearly identify the needs and expectations of European organisations that are or may 
be interested in participating in the scheme. They also helped identify the potential 
practical  implementation  problems  of  the  options  investigated  by  the  Commission 
and helped investigate alternative options and actions. 

Because  of  the  varied  nature  and  interest  of  the  different  stakeholders,  sometimes 
contradictory,  it  was  not  possible  for  the  Commission  to  take  on-board  all  of  the 
suggestions.  When  this  was  the  case,  a  rationale  is  included  in  the  Commission's 
decision / options put forward as to why such ideas were considered, but not taken on 
board. 

1.2.2.  Commission’s minimum standards on consultation 

The  Commission’s  minimum  standards  on  consultation13  have  been  met.  The  time 
allowed for stakeholders to reply to the internet stakeholders consultation was more 
than 8 weeks, the minimum standard for the Commission. Additionally, as outlined 
above,  extensive  stakeholder  consultation  has  been  on-going  with  all  types  of 
stakeholders and interested parties during the course of the entire year 2006 

1.2.3.  Main results 

Both  the  EVER  study  and  the  REMAS  showed  that  there  is  evidence  that  EMAS 
leads  to  better  site  environmental  management  activities  than  other  existing 
environmental  management  systems.  Indeed,  EMAS  not  only  defines  an 
environmental management system for a given organisation, like ISO 14001, it also 
requires  full  legal  compliance  and  continuous  improvement  of  an  organisations 
environmental  performance  by  setting  objectives  and,  through  the  definition  of 

10 
11 
12 
13 

See Annex II: minutes of the working group meetings. 
See Annex III: minutes of the revision workshop on 11-12 December 2006 . 
For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/consultation_en.htm.  
COM(2002)704:  Communication  from  the  Commission:  Towards  a  reinforced  culture  of  consultation 
and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the 
Commission. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environmental  indicators,  measurement  and  publication  of  the  organisation's 
performance. 

On the other hand, EMAS has not reached its full potential in terms of diffusion, due 
to a wide range of reasons, amongst which the costs of EMAS, the low management 
commitment and the paperwork/bureaucracy were considered by the respondents in 
the EVER study as the three most important barriers for adoption of EMAS. 

These  conclusions  were  supported  by  most  consulted  stakeholders  and  were  taken 
into  account  when  the  Commission  services  analysed  the  options  identified  for  the 
revision of the scheme, and took a decision on its proposed future direction and on 
the changes that are needed to the current EMAS Regulation. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

2.1. 

Description of the problem 

2.1.1.  Background 

On  29  June  1993,  the  Council  adopted  Regulation  (EEC)  N°  1836/93  allowing 
voluntary  participation  by  companies  in  the  industrial  sector  in  a  Community  eco-
management and audit scheme. This Regulation - known as the EMAS Regulation -
entered into force on 13 July 1993 and was opened to industrial participation since 
April 1995.  

On  19  March  2001,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  761/2001,  which  revised  and  expanded  the  scope  of  EMAS  by  allowing 
voluntary participation by any type of organisation (not just industrial companies) in 
the scheme. 

When  it  entered  into  force  the  scheme  represented,  and  still  represents,  a  direct 
response  to  some  of  the  key  principles  embodied  in  the  5th  and  6th  Environmental 
Action Programme, in particular the concept of broadening the range of instruments 
and  of  promoting  an  approach  of  shared  responsibility  with  business  in  the  area  of 
environmental protection.  
The  sixth  Environmental  Action  Programme14  identifies  the  improvement  of 
collaboration  and  partnership  with  enterprises  as  a  strategic  approach  to  meeting 
environmental  objectives.  Voluntary  commitments  are  an  essential  part  thereof. 
Encouraging a wider uptake of the Community's eco-management and audit scheme 
(EMAS)  and  the  development  of  initiatives  to  encourage  companies  to  publish 
rigorous  and  independently  verified  environmental  or  sustainable  development 
performance reports is regarded as necessary in this context. 
The  mid-term  review  of  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action  Programme15 
recognises  that  there  is  a  need  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  voluntary 
instruments  that  have  been  designed  for  industry  and  that  these  tools  have  a  great 
potential but have not been fully developed. It calls upon the Commission to revise 
these schemes in order to promote their uptake and reduce administrative burdens in 
their management. 

EMAS  is  part  of  the  overall  objective  of  promoting  sustainable  production  and 
consumption  patterns,  by  providing  a  framework  for  the  effective  management  of 
environmental  impacts  and  for  continuous  improvement  in  the  environmental 
performance of all organisations (small or large, from the private or public sector) in 
Europe. 

EMAS  represents  an  alternative  approach  to  environmental  protection  through  the 
use of market mechanisms and the integration of environmental considerations into 
the core of company management. At the same time the scheme is complementary to 
the traditional command-and-control approach.  

14 

15 

Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242 of 10/09/2002, p.1 
COM(2007) 225 final: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  Mid-term 
review  of  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action  Programme,  adopted  by  the  Commission  on 
30/04/2007; not yet published. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The scheme is a market-based instrument which provides for voluntary participation. 
This  means  that  rather  than  relying  on  traditional  enforcement  measures  through 
national regulators it is intended to generate peer pressure and supply chain pressure 
to  encourage  organisations  to  participate.  Even  though  participating  in  the  EMAS 
Regulation is on a voluntary basis, once participating in the system, an organisation 
must comply with all the requirements of the Regulation. This ensures a credible and 
rigorous approach to environmental management. 

The  scheme  is  aimed  to  reconcile  both  economic  and  environmental  concerns  by 
allowing  organisations  to  set  their  own  environmental  objectives  as  a  result  of 
examining  their  environmental  performance.  Participating  organisations  can  thus 
address environmental issues within the framework of their economic considerations.  

the  qualities  of  credibility  and 

transparency.  The 
EMAS  also  embodies 
implementation  of  the  scheme  in  organisations  is  independently  verified  by  an 
accredited environmental verifier. This verifier also checks the reliability of the data 
and  information  in  the  environmental  report  which  is  used  by  participating 
organisations to communicate information about their environmental performance to 
stakeholders and the public. 

Article 15 of the Regulation provides for the revision of the Regulation to take place 
not more than five years after its entry into force: 

The  Commission  shall  review  EMAS  in  the  light  of  experience  gained  during  its 
operation and international developments no later than five years after the entry into 
force of this Regulation, and shall, if necessary, propose to the European Parliament 
and Council the appropriate amendments. 

This provision reflects the dynamic nature of the scheme which, as a market-based 
instrument,  needs  to  improve  on  the  basis  of  findings  related  to  its  practical 
implementation and in conjunction with the evolving views of its stakeholders.  

European Union Environment Management and Audit scheme – an overview 

THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE SCHEME 

THE ACTORS 

The Commission develops and supervises the scheme at the EU level. It co-ordinates also pan-European 
promotion  activities,  and  has  set  up  an  EMAS  Helpdesk  to  support  the  Commission,  in  particular  with 
requests from companies and the public. 

Member  States  are  responsible  for  establishing  EMAS  within  their  country  and  have  to  provide  the 
Commission  with  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  scheme.  They  designate  and  supervise  the 
Competent Bodies and the Accreditation Bodies and develop guidelines for suspension and deletion of the 
registration  of  organisations.  The  Member  States  promote  the  participation  of  companies  and  other 
organisations in EMAS on a national level. 

Competent  Bodies  are  designated  by  the  Member  States  and  are  independent  and  neutral  bodies 
responsible for organising the registration process of organisations within their own territory. They issue 
registration  numbers  to  organisations  which  have  submitted  a  validated  environmental  statement,  collect 
any  payable  registration  fee,  refuse,  suspend  and  delete  organisations  from  the  register  and  respond  to 
enquiries concerning organisations on the national EMAS register. 

The Article 14 Committee is the Steering Committee of EMAS. Chaired by the Commission, it represents 
the Member States, and interest groups such as industry, unions, environmental NGOs etc. The Committee 
meets several times a year to support the Commission in practical issues concerning the implementation of 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
the EMAS Regulation. Areas in which the Committee has to be involved are defined by the Regulation. 

An  Accreditation  Body  is  an  independent,  impartial  institution  or  organisation  responsible  for  the 
accreditation  and  supervision  of  environmental  verifiers  and  designated  by  the  Member  State.  It 
establishes, revises and updates a list of environmental verifiers and their scope of accreditation (according 
to  NACE  codes)  in  their  Member  State.  Consistency  of procedures relating  to  the verification process  is 
ensured by a peer review process of all Accreditation Bodies which meet at least once a year in the "Forum 
of Accreditation Bodies" (FAB) to exchange information and disseminate best practice. 

EMAS verifiers are independent organisations or individuals with expert knowledge in the field of EMAS 
that  have  been  accredited  by  their  Accreditation  Bodies.  They  have  to  ensure  that  organisations  seeking 
registration are in compliance with the requirements of the EMAS Regulation. Verifiers are responsible for 
checking  that  an  organisation  is  in  legal  compliance,  has  carried  out  an  initial  environmental  review  if 
appropriate,  has  a  fully  operational  environmental  management  system  which  is  audited  in  a  systematic, 
objective  and  periodic  way  and  that  it  has  prepared  an  environmental  statement  in  accordance  with  the 
EMAS Regulation. They also verify the reliability, credibility and correctness of the data and information 
in the environmental statement and other environmental information provided by organisations. 

THE PROCEDURES 

The  core  of  the  EMAS  scheme  is  the  so-called  "continuous  improvement  circle".  The  elements  of  this 
circle are presented in the following diagramme: 

Initial Environmental Review 

Environmental Policy and 
Programme 

Corrective Actions 

Environmental Management 
System 

Internal Audit 

Environmental Statement 

Validation and Registration 

Development of an environmental policy 

As a first step, an organisation intending to participate in EMAS has to develop an environmental policy, 
describing  it’s  overall  aims  and  principles  of  action  with  respect  to  the  environment.  The  environmental 
policy, should address all significant environmental issues, should contain a commitment to comply with 
environmental  legislation  and  should  contain  a  commitment  to  achieve  continuous  improvements  in  its 
environmental performance. 

Initial environmental review 

Following  the  development  of  an  environmental  policy  the  organisation  has  to  carry  out  an  initial 
environmental review, which is an initial comprehensive analysis of the environmental problems caused by 
an  organisation’s  activities.  The  purpose  of  this  review  is  to  identify  the  most  significant  environmental 
impacts - and therefore possible priorities to be set in the environmental programme - and to lay down a 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
benchmark to measure future success in reducing these impacts. 

Development of an environmental programme 

The organisation next has to develop an environmental programme, which translates the general objectives 
established in the environmental policy into specific targets, determining concrete measures, time frames, 
responsibilities, and the resources necessary in order to meet them. This environmental programme has to 
be updated regularly. 

Establishment of an environmental management system 

In order to ensure the successful implementation of the environmental programme, the organisation has to 
establish an environmental management system, including: 

• 

the environmental policy 

•  procedures and controls ensuring: 

–  operational and risk management, 

–  monitoring of environmental performance, 

–  compliance with legal requirements, 

•  documentation control 

•  management review procedures 

• 

reporting on environmental performance 

•  commitment to training and awareness raising of employees 

•  open communication culture, 

Carry out an internal environmental audit 

Once an environmental management system has been established, an internal audit has to be carried out in 
order to evaluate the organisation's the environmental performance based on the objectives spelled out in 
its  environmental  programme.  The  audit  must  be  repeated  regularly  in  order  to  guarantee  continuous 
improvement. The outcome of the environmental audit is a report in which possible corrective actions are 
suggested to guarantee continuous improvement of the company's environmental performance. 

Develop an environmental statement 

After the internal audit has been carried out, the organisation has to develop an environmental statement, 
that the organisation's its environmental efforts and achievements describes, as well as the requirements for 
continuous environmental performance. 

Validation and Registration 

When  all  of  the  above  has  taken  place,  an  independent  verifier  certifies  that  the  organisation’s 
environmental policy, its EMS, the environmental audit and the environmental statement comply with the 
rules  of  the  EMAS  Regulation.  After  the validated  statement  is  sent  to  the  Competent  Body  it  has  to  be 
made publicly available. Then the organisation is listed in the register of EMAS organisations and has the 
right to use the EMAS logo.  

In  case  an  EMAS  registered organisation no  longer  meets  all  requirements,  the relevant  competent  body 
shall suspend or delete the registration as appropriate. 

THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

The main instrument of the system is Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European parliament and of the 

16 

OJEC L 114 of 24/04/2001, p.1. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
council  of  19  March  2001  allowing  voluntary  participation  by  organisations  in  a  Community  eco-
management  and  audit  scheme  (EMAS)16.  Annex  I  of  this  Regulation  has  been  amended17  and  the 
Regulation has been complemented by a number of guidance documents18, parts of which are binding. 

2.1.2.  Main problem identified 

It is in that context that a review of both the EMAS and the Eco-label schemes was 
carried  out  in  2005.  This  review  identified  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  both 
schemes and proposed options to improve the effectiveness of both Regulations. 

The strength of the EMAS system, which is the reason why the European Union and 
the  Member  States  have  tried  to  position  EMAS  as  the  best  standard  for 
environmental management, is believed to be those features that go beyond the other 
existing environment management systems. 

As described before on pages 7-10 of this document, the EVER and REMAS studies 
confirmed  that,  compared  to  organisations  having  no  or  other  environment 
management systems, organisations registered under EMAS are likely too reach the 
highest  level  on  the  aspects  of  environmental  performance  improvement  and 
compliance with environmental legislation. 

The  review  shows  that  at  micro-level,  EMAS  achieved  its  objectives  as  it 
environmental  performances  of  participating 
significantly 
organisations.19 

improves 

the 

94% of the respondents in the EVER study stated to have experienced improvements 
in environmental performance over the recent years, especially in the areas of: 

17 

18 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 196/2006 of 3 February 2006 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) 
No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council taking account of the European Standard 
EN ISO 14001:2004. (OJEC L 32 of 4/02/2006, p.4). 
Decision 97/264/EC of 16 April 1997 on the recognition of certification procedures in accordance with 
Art. 12 of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993, allowing voluntary participation 
by  companies  in  the  industrial  sector  in  a  Community  eco-  management  and  audit  scheme.  (OJEC  L 
104 of 22/04/1997, p.35). 

Recommendation  (EC)  680/2001  of  7  September  on  guidance  for  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
761/2001 (7/9/2001) of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by 
organisations  in  a  Community  eco-management  and  audit  scheme.  (OJEC  L  247  of  17/09/2001,  p.1) 
and 

Decision (EC) No 681/2001 of 7 September 2001 on guidance for the implementation 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. (OJEC L 247 of 17/09/2001, p.24); 

Commission Recommendation (EC) No 2003/532/EC of 10 July 2003 gives guidance in the selection and use of 
environmental  performance  indicators  in  EMAS.  Standard  indicators  enable  benchmarking  among 
organisations attributed to the same sector. (OJEC L 184 of 25/07/2003, p.19.); 

19 

Commission Decision of 1 March 2006 laying down rules, under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  on  the  use  of  the  EMAS  logo  in  the  exceptional  cases  of  transport 
packaging and tertiary packaging (notified under document number C(2006) 306) (1) (OJEC L 70 of 9 
March 2006, p.63) 
General figures to what extent EMAS improves the general environmental performance of organisations 
are  difficult  to  give  because  (1)  performance  improvement  can  be  operationalised  in  different  ways 
(often improvements on some indicators and worsening on others); (2) it is difficult to assess whether a 
change  in  performance  is  caused  by  EMAS  or  by  other  factors  and  (3)  the  quantitative  data  of  the 
environmental  statements  of  EMAS  organisations  are  difficult  to  compare  due  to  the  lack  of 
harmonisation in reporting (different indicators, different reporting levels). 
Different case studies present the benefits of EMAS to individual organisation. See 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/casestudies/eltinter_en.htm. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
•  solid and hazardous waste (86% of the respondents); 

•  resource and energy use (82% of the respondents); 

•  incidents and accidents (76% of the respondents); 

•  emissions to air (65% of the respondents) and 

•  releases to water (67% of the respondents) 

EMAS is therefore, in theory, an instrument that enables the EU to take forward its 
environmental  agenda,  leading  to  environmentally  beneficial  changes  in  production 
and consumption patterns.  

However, the review also shows that at macro-level, the scheme has not reached its 
full  potential  in  terms  of  diffusion.  Even  though  EMAS  registrations  continue  to 
grow steadily, with a total of more than 5,000 registered sites in Europe in 2007, this 
still represents only a very small proportion of the number of organisations that could 
potentially use the scheme. 

The  figure  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  take-up  of  EMAS  in  the  participating 
countries.  The  decline  in  numbers  of  registrations  after  the  revision  of  the  first 
EMAS  Regulation  is  due  to  the  fact  that  under  the  first  Regulation  each  site  was 
registered  separately  whereas  under  the  current  Regulation,  organisations  can  be 
registered. One registration can therefore cover different sites. Corrections have been 
made to the numbers later on. 

Despite  the  intention  of  the  European  Union  and  the  Member  States  to  position 
EMAS  as  the  best  standard  for  environmental  management,  the  EVER  study 
revealed  that  even  though  EMAS  is  often  considered  in  literature  as  a  standard  of 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
excellence, 62% of all respondents in the EVER study thinks that EMAS is regarded 
and used as "best practice" for environmental management among industrial sectors 
or  other  types  of  organisations.  Of  the  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  that  are  not 
participating in EMAS, this percentage drops to 36%. 

2.2. 

The underlying drivers of the problem 

The  evaluation  study  and  stakeholder  consultations  have  clearly  identified  several 
causes for the problem identified above:  

2.2.1.  Lack of clarity with regard to the legal requirements 

In  order  to  become  or  remain  registered  under  EMAS,  organisations  must 
demonstrate  that  they  fully  comply  with  all  requirements  of  environmental 
legislation. 

One  of  the  most  significant  benefits  of  this  requirement  is  that  it  improves  an 
organisations  capability  to  meet  the  applicable  environmental  legal  and  regulatory 
requirements.  About  70%  of  the  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  perceived  the 
guarantee of legal compliance as one of the most significant benefits of EMAS. 

At the same time, organisations, especially SMEs, making up a large part of Europe's 
economy,  representing  about  99%  of  all  enterprises  and  57%  of  economic  value 
added, are often not fully aware of the environmental impacts of their activities and 
are not always able to exactly define the legal environmental requirements they are 
obliged to meet.20 As a result, even though this requirement is perceived as one of the 
elements that makes EMAS a strong and reliable indication of legal compliance for 
stakeholders  and  enforcement  authorities, the  practical  difficulties  for  organisations 
in  the  identification  of  relevant  legal  obligations  may  bring  organisations  to  decide 
not  to  go  for  EMAS  but  rather  for  another  environment  management  system  that 
does not contain this requirement. 

2.2.2.  The system of reporting is not harmonised or uniform 

EMAS  organisations  are  obliged  to  publish  annually  a  report,  the  environmental 
statement, that provides quantitative data on their environmental performance. Under 
the current Regulation, the reporting system is not harmonised between firms and as 
a  result  different  organisations  use  different  indicators  for  measurement  of  their 
environmental performance and may have different reporting levels. This reduces the 
benefits  of  EMAS  as  an  effective  way  of  communicating  environmental 
performance. 

Nevertheless, as indicated before on pages 8-10 of this document, the REMAS study 
confirmed  that,  compared  to  organisations  having  no  or  other  environment 
management systems, organisations registered under EMAS are likely too reach the 
highest  level  on  the  aspects  of  environmental  performance  improvement  and 
compliance with environmental legislation. 

2.2.3.  Procedures for accreditation and supervision of verifiers are not harmonised 

The current EMAS Regulation defines the principles which govern accreditation and 
supervision  of  environmental  verifiers.  The  text  of  the  Regulation  is  general  and  it 

20 

COM(2007) 379 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Small,  clean  and 
competitive. A programme to help small and medium-sized enterprises. Not yet published. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
requires  Member  States  to  set  up  the  detailed  procedures  through  their  national 
accreditation systems. Some Member States have introduced detailed and strict rules, 
whereas others have more lax rules. In the Forum of Accreditation Bodies efforts are 
constantly  being  undertaken  to  reach  consistency  and  a  harmonized  approach 
through sharing of experience and through its supervisory role. 

Despite  the  gradual  improvement  and  harmonisation  of  the  implementation  of  the 
system,  mainly  due  to  efforts  made  in  the  Forum  of  Accreditation  bodies  and 
Competent bodies, important differences still exist in Member States with regard to 
accreditation  and  verification.  This  may  lead  to  different  "quality  levels"  of 
verification  (especially  with  regard  to  the  legal  compliance  of  an  organisation)  and 
control of verifiers activities, which potentially undermines the credibility of EMAS.  

2.2.4.  Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme in Member States  

Many observers have identified the lack of knowledge on EMAS (and therefore lack 
of reward for the market, the stakeholders and the public institutions) as one of the 
most  relevant  barriers  for  the  development  of  the  scheme.  Promotion  activities, 
raising  awareness  of  the  scheme,  have  a  potential  of  influencing  the  uptake  of  the 
scheme. 

When  EMAS  was  introduced  in  the  90ties,  some  Member  States,  like  Germany, 
Spain  and  Italy,  strongly  promoted  the  scheme,  whereas  other  Member  States  have 
hardly promoted EMAS at all. With the enlargement of the European Union, a new 
market for enlarging the potential for new registrations emerged in the new Member 
States.  

As a consequence, even after more than 10 years of existence, the scheme, including 
its characteristics and advantages, is still not well known by potential users in many 
Member States. 

2.2.5.  Uneven  support  in  the  Member  States  of  EMAS  by  way  of  financial,  fiscal  and 

market-related measures 

The  heterogeneous  diffusion  of  the  scheme  in  terms  of  number  of  registrations  is 
linked  to  the  efforts  that  each  Member  State  (together  with  local  and  regional 
institutions)  makes  in  defining  and  implementing  different  forms  of  external 
incentives.  These  incentives  may  be  of  financial,  fiscal  and  market-related 
institutional  measures.21. When EMAS was introduced in the 90ties, some Member 
States  like  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain,  heavily  subsidized  the  scheme,  mainly  by 
direct  funding  provided  by  means  of  promotion  projects.  Financial  support  has 
however  been  reduced  over  time  and  this  is  seen  by  many  observers  as  one  of  the 
reasons for stagnation of the participation. 

Participants in the EVER study identified the lack of external incentives as one of the 
main barriers for maintaining EMAS. 

21 

Document COM(2004)745: report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
incentives for EMAS registered organisations and the annex to this report, documents SEC(2004)1375 
confirm that practically all Member States apply measures that provide some sort of external incentives 
for EMAS-registered organisations. These incentives vary considerably and range from e.g. waiver of 
the  obligation  to  nominate  a  waste  or  waste  water  representative  for  EMAS  registered  organisations; 
direct financial support for the training of employees of EMAS registered companies to the provision of 
reduced loans for EMAS registered industries. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There is a clear link between the number of support initiatives in the Member States 
and the uptake of the scheme in the individual Member States, with high uptake in 
those Member States with a higher number of initiatives. 

The chart below shows the number of information, financial, and technical assistance 
initiatives undertaken by Member States22 between 2001 and 2005.23 

DE  UK  ES  FI 

PL  DK  SV  LA  SL  NL  EL  CZ  PT  CY  HU  LIT  LU 

financial 

30 

2 

14 

5 

0 

6 

technical 

6 

11 

22 

7 

14 

7 

0 

3 

1 

7 

0 

9 

5 

6 

5 

6 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

information 

35 

53 

21 

40 

22 

16 

25 

14 

13 

10 

9 

14 

14 

11 

11 

0 

1 

4 

0 

0 

2 

total 

71  66  57  52  36  29  28  22  22  21  20  18  16  14  14  5 

2 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

information

technical

financial

GER UK

SPA FIN

POL DK

SWE

LAT

SLK NL

GRE

NOR

CZR

POR

CYP

HUN LIT

LUX

The result of the uneven promotion and support of the scheme in Member States is 
currently a very incoherent picture of EMAS uptake in the EU. Most organisations 
are  registered  in  only  a  few  Member  States  (those  who  promoted  the  system,  like 
Germany,  Italy  and  Spain).  The  table  below  gives  the  number  of  EMAS  registered 
organisations and sites per Member State at the end of May 2007. 

Germany 
Spain 
Italy 
Austria 
Denmark 
Sweden 
The UK 
Portugal 
Greece 
Finland 
Belgium 

organisations

1464
905
755
252
96
71
69
61
56
41
42

sites 

1954 
1090 
1046 
488 
249 
72 
369 
66 
59 
48 
336 

22 
23 

No information available on Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Malta and Slovenia. 
Overall  analysis  of  EMAS  promotions  survey  carried  out  by  DG  Environment  in  2006.  Not  yet 
published. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Czech Republic 
France 
The Netherlands 
Ireland 
Hungary 
Poland 
Slovakia 
Estonia 
Slovenia 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Cyprus 
Bulgaria 
Romania 
TOTAL 

28
13
11
6
13
7
5
2
1
1
0
0
8
0
0
1
3908

30 
13 
15 
6 
16 
7 
5 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
1 
5887 

2.2.6.  Organisational and financial barriers for implementation of EMAS 

The  main  organisational  costs  of  implementation  of  EMAS  are  staff  costs, 
verification and registration costs. In the majority of cases, considerable consultancy 
costs are incurred in the development of the EMAS prior to verification. The studies 
identified that one of the main barriers to achieving the first EMAS registration are 
the  total  costs  of  implementation  (including  consultancy  costs).  These  costs  vary 
according to the level of ambition of the specific EMAS to be developed and of the 
size of the organisation involved, which is illustrated by the following examples. 

Kirklees  Metropolitan  Council  (UK)  with  400.000  inhabitants,  17.000  employees 
and  a  council  area  of  over  40.000  hectares  spends  about  157.000  €  for  operation 
costs  including  environmental  auditing,  environmental  training,  verification  and 
salaries of two officials.24 

Volkswagen spent up to 90.000 € on the internal  costs for the first implementation of 
EMAS within Volkswagen site at Wolfsburg (50.000 employees) in 1995.25 

The lack of resources other than financial ones is identified by both literature and the 
respondents in the EVER study as another internal barrier for the uptake of EMAS. 
Barriers are the insufficient availability of management time, inadequacy of human 
resources  such  as  personnel  with  the  proper  skills,  expertise  and  technical 
background. 

Especially for SMEs this is a relevant problem. A study carried out by the Strategic 
SME  group  in  200526  shows  that  the  SME  respondents  identified  as  the  most 
important barriers for implementing an environment management system: 

•  lack of time (36% of the respondents) 

•  lack of staff resources (31% of the respondents) 

24 

25 
26 

ECO management and audit scheme toolkit for local authorities –Global to local ltd. 2004 available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/local/pdf/la_toolkit_commission_020204_en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/casestudies/vw_en.htm  
EVER: Evaluation of EMAS and Eco-label for their revision; report 2: research findings; p. 37. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  lack of know-how in the enterprise (21% of the respondents) 

The  cost  of  registration  was  also  identified  as  a  significant  issue  for  smaller 
organisations, especially micro-organisations. Where a number of Member States do 
not  require  any  fee  for  registration27,  some  of  the  fees  required  for  the  first 
registration in Member states28 may even have a prohibitive effect. 

The  costs  for  external  consulting  and  verification  are  identified  as  being  a  higher 
barrier  for  implementation  of  EMAS  than  the  registration  fees.  The  amount  to  be 
spent  on  consulting  and  verification  vary  considerably  from  organisation  to 
organisation  and  depend  on  the  number  of  days  (which  depends  again  on  the  tasks 
conferred upon the consultant or verifier) and the fees charged by the consultant or 
verifier.29 

2.2.7.  Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS 

Organisations  can  benefit  in  many  ways  from  implementing  EMAS.  For  example, 
more sustainable use of resources gives financial advantages; a better public image; 
reduced  risk  of  non-compliance  with  environmental  legislation;  improved  relations 
with environmental regulators and other stakeholders, and proper risk management, 
which  in  turn  may  prompt  lenders  and  insurers  to  offer  better  financial  terms. 
However,  the  benefits  of  participating  in  EMAS  are  difficult  to  measure  and  are 
therefore often based on subjective estimates. 

47%  of  the  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  believed  that  the  monetary  costs 
outweighed  the  monetary  benefits,  whereas  24%  believed  it  was  the  other  way 
around.  Still  the  majority  of  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  (73%)  considered 
EMAS a success; 64% of the respondents who believed that the monetary costs from 
adopting  EMAS  outweighed  the  benefits,  considered  that  the  financial  and  non-
financial benefits outweighed the costs.30 

The  over  all  benefits  depend  often  on  a  wide  variety  of  both  internal  and  external 
factors  that  can  be  different  for  each  organisations,  which  is  illustrated  by  the 
following examples. 

Volkswagen  spent  up  to  90.000  €  on 
the  internal  costs  for  the  first 
implementation  of  EMAS  within  Volkswagen  site  at  Wolfsburg  (50.000 
employees). According to Volkswagen, the costs of audits and man days used 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy  (for  public  authorities), 
Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain. 
Different  fees  for  first  registration  are  required.  These  range  from  18€  to  2234  €  [Austria:  508,70  €; 
Denmark: 140 – 280 €;  Finland: 125 – 250 €; Ge rmany: 230 – 880 €; Ireland:  1350 €; Italy: 50 – 1500 
€; Poland: maximum of 250 €; Portugal: 750 – 2234 €; Slovakia: 54 – 1345 €; Slovenia 18 €; United 
Kingdom 1220 – 2160 €. No information available for Malta] 
For a medium-size organisation with about 50 employees, average consulting costs are average about 
12.000 €, whereas the cost for verification range from about 500 to 8000 €. It is however difficult to 
give exact figures for consulting and verification costs. Prices charged by consultants and verifiers are 
market-based and differ considerably: the fees in some Member States are five times higher as in other 
Member states and vary between 250 and 1250 € per day. The number of days used for consulting and 
verification are also different from Member State to Member state as this depends to a large extent on 
"cultural" differences. 
Even  though  there  is  no  systematic  statistical  information  available  on  the  reasons  for  leaving  the 
EMAS  system,  companies  mention  as  the most  important  reason  the  insufficient  cost-benefit  ratio. A 
considerable  number  of  organisations  leaving  the  EMAS  system,  maintain  partly  their  environmental 
management system depending upon the needs of the organisation. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in EMAS implementation are covered on the one hand through savings due to 
improved  waste  separation  and  recovery,  intensified  measures  for  energy 
savings  and  reduced  material  input  through  innovative  production  processes 
and  on  the  other  hand  through  savings  as  a  result  of  reduced  fees  (-30%)  in 
permit procedures with regard to the Federal Ambient Pollution Control Act 
in Lower Saxony and Hessen as well as savings as a result of application of an 
especially developed software “SEBU” to evaluate environmental impacts and 
better logistics31. 

€  on 
(UK) 
Kirklees  Metropolitan  Council 
implementation of EMAS. It recognises that these costs have more than paid 
back  not  only 
through  resource  savings  arising  from  environmental 
management activities, but also through the availability of additional external 
funding opportunities. 

spent  about  157.000 

Resource savings resulted from: 

•  building energy savings (145.000 €), 

•  fuel cost savings from 45 projects supported by the Council's Energy and 

Water Conservation fund (137.000€), 

•  fuel  cost  savings  from  switching  a  number  of  vehicles  over  to  dual  fuel 

(79.000 €), 

•  waste disposal savings (15.800 €) in spite  of increased waste disposal taxes 
and  savings  in  vehicle  insurance  and  fuel  consumption  costs  after 
employee  training  in  improved  driver  awareness  and  ECO  driving 
techniques (31.700 €). 

Examples of the external funding obtained relate to the: 

•  establishment of a regional Energy Agency and Energy Efficiency Advice 

centre (332.400 €), 

•  fitting  a  number  of  water  conservation  devices  in  Council  owned  houses 

(292.900 €) and 

•  funding  for  a  "Food  Futures"  project  aimed  at  encouraging  the  use  of 
locally produced food in order to reduce the amount of travel that food had 
to be transported.32 

A recent OECD study33 shows that environmental-commercial "win-win" situations 
exist,  mainly  at  the  level  of  the  individual  organisation.  These  "win-wins"  are  not 
induced through public policy, but emerge as a consequence of incentives internal to 
the organisation. Organisations are undertaking initiatives to improve environmental 
performance  which  are  in  their  private  commercial  interest  (cost  savings,  reduced 
liabilities, etc.) and public authorities are focusing only on the measures that would 
otherwise not be undertaken. 

31 
32 

33 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/casestudies/vw_en.htm 
ECO management and audit scheme toolkit for local authorities –Global to local ltd. 2004 available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/local/pdf/la_toolkit_commission_020204_en.pdf 
Environmental  Policy  and  Corporate  Behaviour,  Edited  by  N  Johnstone;  Empirical  Policy  Analysis 
Unit,  OECD  Environment  Directorate,  France;  published  by  Edward  Elgar  Publishing  Limited;  © 
OECD, 2007. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
The study also shows that most of the "win-win" opportunities relate to supply-side 
factors (such as cost savings) rather than demand-side opportunities.  

However the EVER study highlights that competitive advantages directly related to 
the  market  response,  such  as  higher  customer  satisfaction,  increase  in  turnover  or 
market share and better relations with stakeholders, particularly with reference to the 
relation with institutional actors and with the local communities, are currently among 
the motivations that would drive potential new applicants to the participate in EMAS. 
The  fact  that  these  competitive  advantages  are  currently  limited,  this  might  deter 
would-be participants, as well as not motivating existing participants to remain in the 
scheme. 

2.2.8.  Coexistence of other environment management systems  

Different national environment management systems currently exist. 

The  last  years,  alternative  and  simplified  environment  management  systems  have 
been developed in a number of countries. Most of them are limited territorially to the 
country or a specific region. A number of these management systems are set up as a 
"staged approach" and aim at offering a stepwise approach to ISO 14001 or EMAS. 
Other environment management systems present themselves as alternatives to EMAS 
or  as  systems  for  markets  that  are  currently  not  covered  by  EMAS.  These 
environment  management  systems  are  therefore  competing  with  EMAS  and  ISO 
14001.  

international  standard  for 
The  standard  ISO  14001 
environmental management systems. The requirements of ISO 14001 are integrated 
into the EMAS Regulation. The EMAS Regulation contains a number of important 
additional requirements that go beyond the ISO 14001 standard.34 

is  currently 

the  only 

The existence of this variety of environment management systems leads to a lack of 
clarity about the added value of EMAS. 

Under most of the national systems, registration is easier to obtain than registration 
under EMAS. Also under ISO 14001 certification is easier to obtain than registration 
under  EMAS.  As  a  result,  some  of  these  environment  management  systems  have 
achieved  greater  success  and  wider  take-up  than  EMAS  in  the  EU.  Especially  ISO 
14001, with some 35,000 certifications in Europe, has achieved greater success with 
organisations that have international presence or trade abroad, which is due both to 
the  fact  that  certification  under  ISO  114001  is  easier  to  obtain  and  to  the  fact  that 
ISO  14001  is  the  only  standard  for  environmental  management  systems  that  is 
globally applicable. 

The  existence  of  alternatives  emphasises  the  effects  of  the  other  drivers  of  low 
uptake  of  EMAS,  as  organisations  are  both  unclear  about  the  differences  between 
schemes  and  are  more  likely  to  choose  an  alternative  management  scheme  where 
they perceive disadvantages with EMAS. It suggests that the added value and uptake 
of  EMAS  would  increase  if  it  more  clearly  differentiated  itself  from  other 
management schemes, particularly on geographic scope and quality as an indicator of 
performance. 

34 

See section 4 (4) at p. 34-35. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.9. 

Insufficient integration with other community policies / instruments 

The  evaluation  studies  have  highlighted  that  there  is  a  request  from  virtually  all 
stakeholders to better integrate EMAS with other legislation at EU and national level, 
in  order  to  allow  candidate  and  participating  organisations  an  easier  and  more 
effective  implementation  of  these  other  pieces  of  legislation.  This  would  be  an 
incentive for  organisations to join the  scheme which is  presently not existing,  or at 
least not clear. 

2.2.10.  Limited geographical scope of EMAS  

Under the first EMAS Regulation, only industry could participate in the scheme. 

The possibility for all "organisations" to participate in EMAS was introduced at the 
first  revision  of  the  EMAS  Regulation.  An  important  number  of  public  sector 
organisations, notably local authorities, have since joined the scheme. However, the 
scope of EMAS remained limited to the European Union, which is one of the reasons 
that ISO14001 achieved greater success is because it is also recognised outside of the 
EU, which appeals to organisations outside of the EU, or EU organisations that have 
international presence or trade abroad. 

2.2.11.  Lack of clarity on how the system works 

The  current  Regulation  is  complemented  by  a  number  of  different  guidance 
documents. These documents are of quite a different nature and the requirements for 
participating organisations and other actors are not always clearly grouped together 
so that  the entire  process of  registration for each actor is not  described  in  a logical 
step-by-step approach.  

This makes it difficult for a considerable number of organisations, especially SMEs 
and  small  public  authorities,  to  clearly  identify  the  applicable  procedures  and 
requirements for implementing EMAS. 

2.3. 

Affected parties 

Participating  organisations  are  affected  by  the  current  lack  of  rewards  (institutional 
or  market-related)  when  participating  in  EMAS  and  non-participating  organisations 
are  deterred  by  this  negative  aspect  of  the  scheme.  In  addition  many  companies 
simply  do  not  know  about  the  scheme.  This  impacts  negatively  on  the  overall 
environmental impact of EMAS, as the scheme does not attract enough participants. 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  have  developed  structures,  bodies  (competent 
bodies, accreditation bodies) and continue to invest in a scheme whose take-up in the 
market,  albeit  continuously  increasing,  is  not  enough  to  make  a  significant  overall 
positive impact on the environment yet. Even the Member States that decided not to 
invest any means to support EMAS have had to create and maintain structures so that 
the  scheme  can  function  properly.  It  can  be  argued  that  these  fixed  costs  would  be 
better used if the uptake of the scheme were higher. 

2.4. 

Evolvement of the problem in case no action will be taken 

All  things  being  equal,  the  scheme  would  continue  to  run  as  it  is,  with  its  current 
problems. Even though there is an encouraging rise in annual registrations after the 
first  revision  of  the  Regulation,  notably  due  to  the  registration  of  local  authorities, 
leaving the scheme as it is, would not provide a chance for its much wider diffusion, 
especially  by  SMEs  and  small  public  authorities.  Without  some  big  'push',  the 
continued  low  take-up  of  the  scheme  in  many  Member  States  would  likely 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
undermine  its  credibility  and  its  overall  environmental  impact  would  remain  low. 
The  visibility  of  the  scheme  would  not  increase  and  continued  uneven  distribution 
between  the  Member  States  is  likely  to  prevail.  Member  States  would  criticise  the 
Commission for not taking positive action to support the scheme in the future. 

2.5. 

Community action 

The adoption of the current EMAS Regulation has been seen as necessary in order to 
ensure an equal implementation of EMAS throughout the Community. The rationale 
for EMAS as a community wide management system is its ability to serve the single 
market, offering one accredited management system which a European firm can use 
in different Member States and allowing communication of improved environmental 
performance  across  Member  State  boundaries  through  use  of  the  EU-wide  EMAS 
brand.  The  effectiveness  of  EMAS  in  contributing  to  improved  environmental 
performance of European organisations could be better achieved at Community level. 
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionally enshrined in the 
rules,  procedures  and  essential 
Treaty, 
requirements regarding EMAS whilst the measures that can be adequately performed 
at national level are left to the Member States. 

the  Regulation  provides  common 

In the current situation however, EMAS has not reached its full potential in terms of 
number  of  registrations  and  thus  has  not  reached  its  full  potential  in  terms  of 
environmental  performance  improvement.  The  identification  of  the  underlying 
drivers for the low uptake of the scheme make clear that there is a need for further 
harmonisation on Community level. 

Most of the underlying drivers of the low uptake of the scheme, as described above, 
are fundamental problems that lie within the EMAS Regulation itself. To tackle these 
problems requires changes to the Regulation that cannot be dealt by Member States. 
Indeed, the right to act is already mentioned in Article 15 of the current Regulation, 
where it states: "the Commission shall review EMAS in light of the experience gained 
during  it  operation…and  shall,  if  necessary,  propose  to  the  European  Parliament 
and Council the appropriate amendments". 

Even  though  the  revision  proposal  contains  more  detailed  rules,  procedures  and 
obligations, it continues to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 
by  leaving  the  technical  implementation  of  the  Regulation  to  the  Member  States 
through the functioning of the competent bodies and accreditation bodies. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
3. 

3.1. 

OBJECTIVES  

Policy objectives  
EMAS represents a direct response to some of the key principles embodied in the 6th 
Environmental Action Programme, in particular the concept of broadening the range 
of instruments and of promoting an approach of shared responsibility with business 
in the area of environmental protection.  

Overall objectives 

The  overall  objective  of  EMAS  is  the  promotion  of  sustainable  production  and 
consumption  patterns,  by  providing  a  framework  for  the  effective  management  of 
environmental  impacts  and  for  continuous  improvement  in  the  environmental 
performance of all organisations (small or large, from the private or public sector) in 
Europe, above and beyond compliance with environmental legislation as a minimum. 

Operational objectives 

The  general  operational  objective  is  to  revise  the  EMAS  scheme,  as  required  by 
Article 15 of the EMAS Regulation, in order to achieve a wider uptake of the scheme 
and to better encourage continuous improvement in the environmental performance 
of all organisations.  

In addition, the Regulation should be in line with the strategy on better Regulation, 
developed  in  the  context  of  the  renewed  Lisbon  strategy  aiming  at  simplifying  and 
improving existing Regulation, to better design new Regulation and to reinforce the 
respect and the effectiveness of the rules while reducing administrative burdens. 

To  achieve  these  objectives,  the  revision  of  the  EMAS  Regulation  aims  at 
essentially: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

ensuring that it will be the best indication for external stakeholders and national 
enforcement  authorities  that  EMAS  organisations  comply  with  all  relevant 
environmental  legislation  and  continuously  improve  their  environmental 
performances. 

raising its attractiveness for participating organisations and  

increasing  its  user-friendliness,  particularly  for  SMEs  and  small  public 
authorities. 

3.2. 

Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies  

EMAS  has  been  primarily  created  as  a  tool  to  improve  the  environmental 
performance of all types of European organisation. It therefore contributes mainly to 
the  environmental  pillar  of  the  renewed  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy. 
Indirectly,  by  improving  the  overall  performance  of  participating  organisations  and 
by raising awareness of environmental and health issues among their employees and 
workers, the scheme also contributes to the economic and social pillar of the renewed 
Sustainable Development Strategy.  

In  particular,  the  evaluation  study  confirms  that  EMAS  organisations  are  better 
prepared  to  comply  with  environmental  legislation,  they  professionalise  and 
systematise  their  processes  (especially  the  smaller  organisations)  and  hence  save 
costs and resources, and improve their image. This provides for a better competitive 
situation of participating organisations. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
As outlined later, one of the objectives of the EMAS revision will be to improve the 
synergies  between  the  EMAS  Regulation  and  other  pieces  of  legislation  at  EU, 
international or Member State level, such as public procurement, integrated pollution 
prevention  and  control,  environmental 
impact  assessment,  SEVESO,  ETS, 
environmental  liability,  waste,  water  framework  directives.  This  falls  within  the 
'better Regulation' exercise that the Commission has engaged itself into and equally 
contributes further to the realisation of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Based on the results of existing studies and feedback from stakeholders, three broad 
options have been analysed for the EMAS revision: 

1) 

2) 

3) 

continuing with the present approach, 

phasing out the scheme, and  

substantially modifying the scheme. 

4.1. 

Policy option 1: continuing with the present approach - (base scenario)  

This option aims at continuing with the current approach, as set out in section 2 of 
this document. No substantive changes to the scheme's content and level of ambition 
will be introduced. Changes considered could only be of administrative / institutional 
nature, in order to just make the current scheme run better. 

Some  Member  States  and  interested  parties  have  expressed  their  preferences  for 
continuing with the present approach. The rationale is that after the last revision of 
the scheme -EMAS was introduced in 1995 and revised in 2001- it may be better to 
leave  potential  and  current  participants  some  time  to  accustom  to  EMAS  as  it 
currently is, especially as the number of registrations, especially from institutions and 
public  authorities,  is  rising  again  and  EMAS  has  high  political  support  in  several 
Member States.  

In  this  option,  the  only  measure  to  be  envisaged is the re-writing of  the  text of  the 
Regulation and the guidelines in a more logical and easier-to-understand way. 

4.2. 

Policy option 2: phasing out the scheme 

This option aims at abolishing EMAS in the medium term. 

The rationale for this option is, as a limited number of stakeholders argued, that since 
the scheme has missed some of its targets (i.e.: broad diffusion), it should be phased 
out and other initiatives should be encouraged instead. 

Phasing out of EMAS requires the reduction of all resources allocated to the scheme, 
so that the individual existing EMAS registrations will remain valid for at least one 
life cycle of registration. With no further public support or visibility, the number of 
EMAS registrations will decline and eventually stop, after which the Regulation can 
be repealed. 

In  practical  terms,  the  Commission  could  start  by  reducing  its  own  staff  and 
abandoning  any  actions  on  EMAS  (no  further  promotion,  pilot  projects,  helpdesk, 
etc).  Member  States  could  in  their  turn  gradually  reduce  staff  involvement  in  the 
implementation of the EMAS Regulation. 

4.3. 

Policy option 3: substantially modifying the scheme 

This  option  aims  at  achieving  an  optimal  use  of  the  EMAS  scheme  in  terms  of  its 
diffusion through a fundamental revision of the scheme aimed at: 

(d) 

ensuring that EMAS will be a stronger guarantee towards external stakeholders 
and  national  enforcement  authorities  that  participating  organisations  comply 
with  all  relevant  environmental  legislation  and  continuously  improve  their 
environmental performances, 

(e) 

raising its attractiveness for participating organisations and 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
(f) 

increasing its user-friendliness. 

Now the underlying drivers of the low uptake of the scheme are known, this action 
would aim to introduce measures in order to remedy these underlying drivers and to 
improve the scheme. 

The table below shows the causes that have been identified as contributing to the low uptake of the scheme 
as well as the options for improvement that are considered in this option. 

underlying drivers of the problem 

sub-options for improvement 

Lack  of  clarity  with  regard  to  the  applicable 
legal environmental requirements 

The  system  of  reporting  is  not  harmonised  or 
uniform 

Measures aimed at ensuring that the scheme is the best indication 
for external stakeholders and national enforcement authorities as 
regards performance improvement and legal compliance. 

strenthening and ameliorating the rules on legal compliance 

harmonising and strenghtening reporting by the introduction of: 

core performance indicators and 

sectoral reference documents 

Procedures  for  accreditation  and  supervision  of 
verifiers are not harmonised 

harmonising  procedures  for  accreditation  and  supervision  of 
verifiers 

Measures  aimed  at  raising  the  attractiveness  of  the  scheme  for 
participating  organisations,  particularly  for  small  organisations, 
including  SME  and  small  public  authorities,  by  reducing  the 
administrative  burden  for  participating  organisations  and  by 
increasing the visibility of participation in EMAS. 

Uneven promotion and marketing of the scheme 
in Member States 

increasing promotion and support for the scheme 

Uneven support in the Member States of EMAS 
by  way  of  financial,  fiscal  and  market-related 
measures 

Organisational  and 
implementation of EMAS 

financial  barriers 

for 

reducing burdens and creating incentives 

Lack of clarity about the benefits of EMAS 

Coexistence  of  other  environment  management 
systems 

clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 

Insufficient  integration  with  other  community 
policies / instruments 

creating possibilities for operational links and sysnergies with other 
EU legislation/instruments 

Limited geographical scope of EMAS 

making EMAS global 

Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly 

Lack of clarity on how the system works 

re-writing text Regulation 

integration of Guidelines in the Regulation 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3.1.  Measures  aimed  at  ensuring  that  the  scheme  is  the  best  indication  for  external 
stakeholders and national enforcement authorities that EMAS organisations comply 
with  all  relevant  environmental  legislation  and  continuously  improve  their 
environmental performances. 

4.3.1.1.  Sub-option 1: legal compliance 

The  requirement  of  legal  compliance  is  perceived  as  one  of  the  most  significant 
benefits of EMAS as this requirement improves an organisations capability to meet 
the applicable environmental legal and regulatory requirements. However it appears 
not  always  to  be  clear  for  organisations  to  exactly  define  the  legal  environmental 
requirements they are obliged to meet. 

This  option  should  therefore  aim  at  strengthening  and  clarifying  the  existing 
requirements  for  EMAS  organisations  to  comply  with  all  relevant  environmental 
legislation  and  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  organisations  are  able  to  identify  all 
relevant legal environmental requirements at an early stage. One of the possibilities 
to  do  so  is  to  introduce  in  the  new  regulation  a  mechanism  ensuring  that 
organisations  can  seek  advice  from  the  bodies  charged  by  the  Member  States  with 
the  task  of  providing  such  assistance  and  that  Member  States  Regulators  can  be 
involved  in  the  process  of  identifying  the  applicable  environmental  legislation  and 
defining the  state  of  compliance of this legislation at an early stage before the  first 
EMAS  registration.  This  will  result  in  a  dialogue  between  the  organisation  and  the 
regulator  and  offers  EMAS  as  a  tool  for  Member  States  regulators  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden of registered organisations. 

4.3.1.2.  Sub-option 2: reporting – core performance indicators 

The lack of harmonisation with regard to reporting on environmental performance of 
EMAS  organisations  makes  it  difficult  to  compare  either  performance  of  different 
organisations or performance of one organisation over different reporting periods. As 
a result the (potential) benefits of EMAS participation are often unclear. 

The option aims therefore to strengthen and clarify existing environmental reporting 
requirements  for  EMAS  organisations  with  the  use  of  core  performance  indicators 
for  measurement  of  the  progress  in  the  organisations  environmental  performance. 
This  will  help  the  scheme  to  better  focus  on  the  current  EU  political  priorities. 
"Generic" indicators, focusing on key environmental areas such as energy efficiency; 
material  efficiency;  waste;  biodiversity  and  emissions,  in  particular  CO2  emissions, 
would  be  introduced  in  the  revised  Regulation.  It  should  be  mandatory  for 
organisations to report on this core set of generic indicators. 

4.3.1.3.  Sub-option 3: development of sectoral reference documents 

In addition to the introduction of core performance indicators on which reporting will 
be  obligatory,  the  new  regulation  should  also  aim  at  introducing  performance 
indicators for individual sectors on which reporting will be voluntary. A mechanism 
should  be  established  that  can  lead  to  the  development  of  reference  documents  for 
specific  sectors  that  include  best  practices,  benchmarks  and  performance  indicators 
for  individual  sectors  that  will  be  used  by  participating  organisations  as  a  guide  in 
setting  up 
their 
environmental  performance.  This  process  should  address  the  direct  and  indirect 
environmental aspects of the different operation / activities of the organisations. 

their  environment  management  system  and  evaluation  of 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
4.3.1.4.  Sub-option 4: harmonising procedures for accreditation and verification 

The  fact  that  under  the  current  system  the  procedures  for  accreditation  and 
verification are not harmonised, results in the existence in uneven requirements for 
accreditation,  verification  and  the  control  of  verifiers  activities.  This  creates  an 
unclear situation for organisations and may potentially undermine the credibility of 
EMAS. 

Regulation  (EC)  N°  xxxx/2008  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
[…………….  date]  setting  out  the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market 
surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  organises  accreditation  at  the 
antioanl  and  European  levels.  This  regulation  sets  the  over  all  framework  for 
accreditation. Taking into account the specificities of the voluntary EMAS scheme, 
the  option  aims  to  complement  these  rules,  in  so  far  as  necessary  and  where 
appropriate, with more specific rules. 

In order to guarantee a high quality verification and validation process for all EMAS 
registered organisations, clear and specific rules for verification and validation are to 
be defined in order to come to a harmonized and reliable system, which will improve 
the consistency in the implementation of the scheme. 

4.3.2.  Measures  aimed  at  raising  the  attractiveness  of  the  scheme  for  participating 
organisations,  particularly  for  SMEs  and  small  public  authorities,  by  reducing  the 
administrative burden for participating organisations and by increasing the visibility 
of participation in EMAS. 

4.3.2.1.  Sub-option 5: promotion and support 

The  lack  of  knowledge  of  EMAS  and  therefore  the  lack  of  reward  for  the  market, 
stakeholders  and  public  institutions,  is  identified  by  the  respondents  in  the  EVER 
study as one of the main barriers for the growth of the scheme. Because EMAS and 
its  logo  has  not  become  a  "trade  mark"  to  the  public  and  the  stakeholders, 
participants in the scheme do not see many competitive rewards of taking up EMAS. 
In  order  to  increase  awareness  of  the  actors  in  the  scheme,  including  the  public  at 
large,  promotion  and  marketing  of  the  scheme  should  be  increased  by  different 
initiatives: 
• 

information  and  promotion  campaigns  by  the  European  Commission  and  the 
Member  States.  If  carried  out  on  a  regular  basis,  experience  can  be  used  and 
resources  can  be  moderate.  Examples  are  the  participation  in  conferences  and 
workshops, advertising on TV and radio, the creation of a yearly European EMAS 
award  event  in  order  to  promote  the  EMAS  Regulation  by  rewarding  those 
organisations that have achieved an outstanding performance of specific, yearly to 
be defined aspects of the environment management and audit system, etc. Studies 
confirm  that  the  measures  to  encourage  improved  environmental  management 
should  in  most  cases  be  restricted  to  programmes  involving  the  provision  of 
technical assistance and information.35 

35 

"The  firm,  Environmental  Management  and  Environmental  Measures:  lessons  from  a  Survey  of 
European Manufacturing Firms". – N. Johnstone, P. Scapecchi, B. Ytterhus and R. Wolf in Journal of 
Environmental Planning and Management; vol. 47, N° 5. 685-707, September 2004. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  introduction  in  the  revised  regulation  of  requirements  for  Member  States  to 

promote and carry out marketing campaigns for EMAS on a regular basis 

•  increased  promotion  activities  by  the  European  Commission  in  order  to  better 
explain  the  benefits  of  the  scheme.  Allocation  of  a  permanent  budget  for 
marketing  activities  for  EMAS;  making  examples  of  "best  practices"  publicly 
accessible on the Europa website 

4.3.2.2.  Sub-option 6: reducing burdens and creating incentives 

The EVER study made it clear the promotion and support measures have an impact 
on the uptake of the scheme. 

Practice  in  a  number  of  Member  States  shows  that  the  putting  in  place  of  different 
incentives of different types, result in a considerable raise in EMAS registrations. 

Over  the  last  years  legislation  has  been  put  in  place  in  Italy,  on  both  national  and 
regional level: 
•  on  legal  requirements  for  air  emission,  water,  waste  and  soil36,  including  the 

following features  

– 

– 

– 

a higher score for EMAS registered organisations concerning release of 
permits for the use of water (rivers, lakes);  

an  EMAS  registration  replaces  application  for  renewal  of  permits  for 
waste management activities; 

lower (up to 50%) financial guarantees related to company’s liability in 
the  waste  treatment  field  for  EMAS  (and  ISO  14001)  registered 
organisations; 

•  on IPPC37 (Directive 96/61/CE)  

– 

– 

allowing EMAS registered organisations to use the EMAS registration 
for application for renewal of permits; 

a  renewal  of  permits  at  8  years  interval  for  EMAS  registered 
organisations (instead of at the normal interval of 5 years); 

•  Landfills38 (Directive 99/31/CE): 

– 

a  renewal  of  permits  at  8  years  interval  for  EMAS  registered 
organisations (instead of at the normal interval of 5 years); 

•  Reduced  time  (max  120  days)  for  releasing  permits  for  EMAS  registered 

organisations. (Regione Emilia-Romagna); 

•  Reduction  of  regional  taxes  for  EMAS  registered  organisations  in  Toscana, 

Veneto, Marche; 

•  reduction of applicable fees for inspection activities in Regione Marche for EMAS 

registered organisations. 

Thus, over the last years legislation has been put in place in Spain, on both national 
and regional level: 

36 
37 
38 

Law n. 152/2006. 
Decree 59/2005. 
Decree 36/2003 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  on IPPC39 (Directive 96/61/CE) containing exemptions of inspections for EMAS 

registered organisations 

•  on  environmental  liability40  (Directive  Directive  2004/35/CE41):  providing  for 

reductions and exemptions for EMAS registered organisations 

•  on financial support: most of Regional Governments give financial support to new 
EMAS  registrations  every  year  in  form  of  lumps  sums  or  a  percentage  of  total 
costs incurred 

•  providing that registration under EMAS is free of charge in Spain 

As  the  graphic  shows,  Italy  and  Spain  show  a  considerable  higher  raise  in  uptake  of  the 
scheme than the average uptake throughout the European Union. 

Therefore  the  implementation  of  financial,  fiscal  and  market-related  institutional 
measures  will  be  effective  possibilities  to  increase  the  number  of  participants. 
Because  the  Competent  Bodies  and  environmental  Ministries  and  authorities 
currently backing the scheme, usually do not offer significant direct support funding 
and are not able to establish long running support mechanisms, the economic benefits 
connected with the scheme itself should be raised. 

In order to stimulate and endorse this option, different measures would be introduced 
into the new Regulation: 

•  Introduction of obligations for Member States to: 

– 

consider EMAS as a favourable and preferential condition for access to 
public  funds.  Member  states  will  have  a  wide  range  of  general 
economic support funds in which EMAS can be used as an assessment 
or selection criterion for the approval of the applicants projects and in 
which, at the same time, organisations have to commit to continue their 
EMAS participation / registration. 

39 
40 
41 

Royal Decree 509/ of 20 April 
Law of 9/3/2007 
Directive  2004/35/CE  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  April  2004  on 
environmental  liability  with  regard  to  the  prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage  as 
modified by Directive 2006/21/EC. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
– 

– 

consider  granting  tax  breaks  for  EMAS  registered  organisations  and 
application  of  such  measures  where  appropriate.  It  is  up  to  the  MS  to 
identify the appropriate fiscal measures. These types of tax brakes are to 
be  applied  at  direct  taxation,  such  as  income  taxes  or  similar  taxes 
imposed  on  business  revenue  or  environmental  taxes.  Introduction  of 
the  obligation  in  the  revised  EMAS  regulation  will  guarantee  a  level 
playing field for the national economic systems. 

implement national provisions for supporting the use of EMAS so that 
the  "power"  in  the  market  of  EMAS  organisations  increases.  Green 
purchasing  procedures  might  be  a  way  to  do  so  as  these  incentives 
increase  the  market  demand  for  EMAS  registration  and  can  be  very 
effective. 

•  Simplifying  the  procedures  for  registration  by  introducing  the  registration  of 
clusters of organisations and the possibility for corporate registration in addition 
to the existing registration for individual organisation. These measures would aim 
to have a direct cost-saving effect and make participation more attractive. 

•  Widen  the  use  of  the  logo.  Under  the  current  regulation,  the  use  of  the  logo  is 
restricted  to  a  number  of  specific  cases:  on  validated  information,  on  validated 
environmental statements, on registered organisation's letterheads, on information 
advertising  an  organisation's  participation  in  EMAS  and,  under  even  more 
restricted conditions, in or on adverts for products, activities and services. Its use 
is  explicitly  forbidden  on  products  or  their  packaging  and  in  conjunction  with 
comparative claims concerning other products, activities and services. In addition, 
there exist two versions of the logo and the guidance document on the use of the 
logo is perceived by the participating organisations as very complicated. The logo 
is  therefore  not  very  attractive  for  many  (potential)  EMAS  organisations.  The 
option  aims  to  simplify  the  use  of  the  EMAS  logo  by  using  one  version  of  the 
logo only and by allowing it to be used on information advertising an organization's 
participation in EMAS including easier use on or in adverts for products, activities and 
services  and  also  on  products  or  their  packaging,  provided  that  there  is  no 
confusion  with  environmental  product  labels.  These  measures  would  enable 
organisations  to  use the  logo as  a more attractive communication  and  marketing 
tool, they would raise awareness by customers and therefore the attractiveness of 
the scheme for participating organisations; 

•  Improve,  facilitate  and  widen  the  use  of  the  environmental  report.  Under  the 
current Regulation, the contents of environmental reports are not harmonised due 
to  the  fact  that  the  environmental  performance  measurement  is  not  harmonised. 
The  format  of  most  environmental  reports  is  often  ineffective  for  external 
communication purposes. As a result, the environmental reports are nor used for 
communication purposes very much. 

The  option  aims  at  ensuring  that  the  contents  of  the  environmental  report  will  be 
better harmonized through the use of core performance indicators and that the format 
will be improved so that it will be a better communication tool towards stakeholders 
This,  the  environmental  report  can  become  a  more  attractive  communication  and 
marketing  tool  for  participating  organisations,  which  will  raise  awareness  by 
customers. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
4.3.2.3.  Sub-option 7: clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 

The  link  between  EMAS  and  the  ISO14001  environmental  management  system 
should be clarified in the Regulation for organisations that wish to opt for the latter 
as well as for EMAS. The text of the revised Regulation should in particular enable 
organisations  to  identify  the  common  requirements  and  the  differences  between 
EMAS and ISO 14001. 

The  new  regulation  therefore  invites  Member  States  to  clarify  the  links  and 
complementarities with other environment management schemes so that registration 
or  participation  in  national  environment  management  schemes  can  be  taken  into 
account when an organisation applies for registration under EMAS and vice versa. 

4.3.2.4.  Sub-option 8: links with other EU legislation/instruments 

The current EMAS regulation obliges Member States in its article 10(2) to consider 
how  EMAS  registration  can  be  taken  into  account  in  the  implementation  and 
enforcement of environmental legislation, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication 
of  effort  by  both  organisations  and  enforcement  authorities.  In  its  report  to  the 
Council  and 
incentives  for  EMAS  registered 
organisations42, the Commission emphasizes how EMAS can support Member States 
both  in  policy  making  and  implementation  in  order  to  alleviate  the  burden  of 
regulatory pressure and streamlining their own resources. 

the  European  Parliament  on 

The  aim  of  this  option  is  to  stimulate  further  reduction  of  the  regulatory  and 
administrative burden by introducing elements that create synergies with, and allow 
for,  closer  operational  links  between  EMAS  and  other  EU  legislation  and 
instruments. 

At  the  same  time,  as  part  of  the  better  Regulation  initiatives  in  the  Community, 
references  to  the  revised  EMAS  Regulation  should,  where  appropriate,  be 
incorporated into other EU legislation. 

The  introduction  of  core  performance  indicators  and  the  reinforcement  of  legal 
compliance  will  allow 
the  environmental  statements  of  EMAS  registered 
organisations (performance reports) to be used as a reference point in the context of 
other  EU  legislation  (e.g.  in  Green  Public  Procurement,  Integrated  Pollution 
Prevention  Control).  This  would  then  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  EMAS 
registered organisations by way of regulatory flexibility. Regulatory flexibility may 
include both regulatory relief (substitution of legal requirements without changes in 
environmental legislation as such) or deregulation (changes in the legislation itself).43 

Examples of ways to apply regulatory flexibility are to use EMAS: 

•  as  a  factor  in  risk  assessment,  with  effects  on  site  inspections  frequencies, 

insurance, governmental fees and penalties;44 

42 

43 

44 

COM(2004)745 report to the Council and the European Parliament on incentives for EMAS registered 
organisations 
Till  now,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  identify  and  collect  evidence  on  the  effects  of  these  measures 
because most of the measures introduced by member states are very recent and in many cases not yet 
fully effective. 
Some of these measures are already now applied in UK, DE, PT, NL, CZ and IT 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  as  a  substitute  for  certain  legal  requirements,  such  as  periodical  reporting, 

authorisation and permit procedures etc. 45 

•  a condition enabling for a longer duration of environmental permits.46 

4.3.2.5.  Sub-option 9: EMAS global 

One of the important reasons that organisations chose for ISO 14001 rather than for 
EMAS  is  the  fact  that  ISO  14001  is  globally  recognised  and  EMAS  is  limited  to 
organisations  in  the  EU.  The  option  aims  to  make  EMAS  global.  The  same 
requirements  will  apply  to  outside  EU  organisations.  Organisations  outside  the  EU 
wishing to participate in EMAS have to apply for registration at a Competent Body 
in one of the EU Member States and be verified by an EU verifier. 

Making EMAS global will, by enhancing the visibility and raising awareness, raise 
the attractiveness of the scheme not only to organisations outside of the EU that have 
presence  or  trade  with  the  EU,  but  also  to  organisations  in  the  EU  that  have 
international  presence  or  trade  abroad.  Organisations  can  then  use  EMAS  as  a 
communication tool to their international customers. 

4.3.3.  Measures aimed at making the scheme more user-friendly 

4.3.3.1.  Sub-option 10: re-writing text Regulation 

Literature, the EVER study and the public consultation have confirmed that currently 
organisations experience difficulties to exactly understand the requirements and the 
different steps in the EMAS system. This option consists therefore of the re-writing 
of the text of the Regulation in a more logical and easier-to-understand way to make 
it  easier  for  candidate  organisations,  notably  SMEs  and  small  public  authorities,  to 
apply,  as  they  should  more  clearly  understand  what  their  exact  requirements  are 
under  the  scheme  and  what  the  different  steps  in  the  EMAS  registration  procedure 
are. 

4.3.3.2.  Sub-option 11: integration of Guidelines in the Regulation 

The EMAS-Regulation is complemented by a number of different guidelines that are 
of  a  different  character.47  Due  to  this  situation,  organisations  have  expressed  that 
they perceived it difficult to understand because the exact obligations and mechanism 
under  the  current  legal  situation.  This  option  consists  of  integrating  into  the  new 
Regulation  those  elements  of  the  different  existing  non-binding  EMAS  Guidelines 
that  have  proved  to  be  useful  for  implementation  and  interpretation  of  the 
Regulation. These elements will, in the form of annexes, form an integral part of the 
new Regulation and thus improve legal certainty and clarity of requirements. 

4.4. 

Options discarded at an early stage 

The  option  of  making  EMAS  mandatory  to  all,  or  even  to  only  certain  types,  of 
specific  organisations  (e.g.  very  polluting  companies,  very  large  local  authorities), 
was discarded at an early-stage, as this would change the voluntary character of the 
instrument, which is specifically defined by the 6th EAP as one of the elements of the 
strategic  approaches  to  meeting  environmental  objectives,  especially  within  the 

45 
46 
47 

Already now applied in DE, AT, IT, SE, NL and LU. 
Already now applied in LU, SL, DE and IT. 
see before description of system and legal instruments in Section 2(1)(a). 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
context  of 
improving  collaboration  and  partnership  with  enterprises  and 
organisations  with  a  view  to  improving  the  environmental  performance  of  these 
enterprises and organisations.48 

The  option  of  lowering  the  standard  of  EMAS  to  make  it  easier  so  that  more 
organisations would join was considered, but discarded at an early stage, as there are 
already  many  competing  similar  schemes  with  lower  ambitions  than  EMAS  and 
lowering  the  EU  scheme  to  their  level  would  mean  that  EMAS  would  become  just 
another one of them, hence adding no value to having EMAS. 

48 

Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme. Official Journal of the European Communities 
of 10/09/2002; L 242 p.1 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

5.1. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

Expected economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the short-listed 
options 

5.1.1.  Environmental impact 

the  REMAS  project  confirm 

The  evaluation  study  and 
that  organisations 
participating in EMAS, already now, do improve their environmental performances. 
As indicated before on pages 8-10 of this document, EMAS is even identified by the 
REMAS project as the best of all currently existing similar systems when it comes to 
overall environmental performance on the site. 

(i)  The option of continuing with the present approach will not increase the level 
of  environmental  performance 
individual  EMAS 
organisations  would  achieve.  This  as  such  is  not  a  problem,  as  the  level 
environmental  performance  is  already  satisfactory  and  is  continuously 
improving. However, perhaps more importantly, this option will not generate a 
significant increase in the number of organisations using the scheme. Currently 
there are about 5000 EMAS registered sites, with an annual growth of 500 per 
year over recent years. 

improvement 

that 

The  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  scheme,  which  results  from  the 
combined  effect  of  the  environmental  performance  of  single  EMAS 
organisations  multiplied  by  the  number  of  organisations  participating  in  the 
scheme, will therefore remain at the current level, which does not use the full 
potential of the scheme. 

(ii)  The option of phasing out the scheme will have a direct negative impact on 
the environmental performance of individual organisations, as some, maybe a 
majority,  of  the  organisations  which  are currently  participating  in  the  scheme 
will  downgrade  the  higher  level  of  environmental  performance  that  they 
needed  to  maintain  in  order  to  remain  registered  with  the  EMAS  scheme.  As 
the  individual  environmental  performance  of  registered  organisations  under 
EMAS has been identified in the EVER study as being the best of all currently 
existing similar schemes, a negative impact on the environment will also occur, 
though  to  a  lesser  extent,  when  organisations  move  from  EMAS  to  other 
systems, like the ISO 14001 standard. 

indirect  negative 
The  discontinuation  of  EMAS  will  also  have  an 
environmental impact on global level. The evaluation study confirms that, like 
other  EU  policies,  EMAS  tends  to  be  perceived  as  a  benchmark  for  best 
practice.  Thus,  many  organisations  follow  the  principles  of  EMAS,  even 
though they do not register with the scheme for cost or other reasons. Many 
environmental programs or systems, including ISO14001, openly take EMAS 
as the highest reference, which they emulate to some extent. Without EMAS it 
their 
might  be  expected 
environmental  performance  and  that  existing  similar  systems  to  EMAS  will 
relax, rather than strengthen their environmental requirements.  

those  organisations  will  downgrade 

that 

The  phasing-out  of  EMAS  will  also  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
environment  as  some  5000  organisations  will  discontinue  being  EMAS 
registered,  and  about  500  annually  expected  additional  registrations  will  not 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
be realised. 

Some stakeholders argued that because EMAS missed its objective in terms of 
diffusion in the market, it should be phased out and other initiatives, namely 
ISO 14001, should be instead encouraged and supported because the number 
of ISO14001 registrations largely exceeds the number of EMAS registrations. 

After careful analysis, this option has been discarded. As indicated before at 
pages 8-10, EMAS has been identified in the REMAS study as being the best 
of  all  currently  existing  similar  schemes  with  regard  to  the  individual 
environmental performance improvement of registered organisations.  

The  strength  of  the  EMAS  system,  which  is  the  reason  why  the  European 
Union  and  the  Member  States  have  tried  to  position  EMAS  as  the  best 
standard for environmental management, is believed to be those features that 
go  beyond  the  other  existing  environment  management  systems,  being  the 
following: 

•  EMAS  requires  annual  continual  improvement  of  the  environmental 
performance  of  the  organisation,  checked  and  verified  by  an  independent 
environmental  verifier,  where  ISO  14001  only  requires  continual 
improvement of the EMS;  

•  EMAS requires legal compliance, checked and verified by an independent 
environmental  verifier  in  the  initial  environmental  review  and  in  the 
environmental  auditing  (non-compliance  leads  to  non-validation  and  non-
registration), where ISO 14001 requires only that an organisation makes a 
commitment to be legal compliant; 

•  EMAS  requires  an  initial  environmental  review  as  part  of  the  EMS  as  a 
basis for the definition of an appropriate environmental policy and for the 
implementation of the EMS. This requires the collection of all significant 
environmental aspects of the organisation in question and its relevant legal 
requirements, where ISO 14001 does not include such requirement; 

•  EMAS requires that all environmental aspects of the organisation have to 
be  considered  for  the  determination  of  significant  environmental  aspects, 
where ISO  14001 requires only that a procedure is defined to  identify all 
environmental aspects; 

•  In  EMAS  the  internal  environmental  auditing  includes  an  environmental 
management  system  audit,  an  environmental  performance  audit  and  an 
environmental compliance audit, where the internal audit under ISO 14001 
is an environmental management system audit; 

•  EMAS  requires  an  environmental  statement,  which  is  an  additional 
element of the scheme that goes beyond the establishment, implementation 
and  maintenance  of  an  EMS.  This  requirement  ensures  that  organisations 
enter  into  an  open  dialogue  with  the  public  and  other  interested  parties 
the 
including 
environmental impact of their activities, products and services in order to 
identify the public's and other interested parties' concerns. ISO 14001 does 
not include such requirement; 

local  communities  and  customers  with 

regard 

to 

•  EMAS 

requires  employee 

involvement 

in 

the  development  and 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
implementation  of  the  system.  It  is  generally  recognised  that  increased 
awareness  and  involvement  of  employees  has  the  potential  to  drastically 
improve  the  environmental  performance  of  an  organisation  .  ISO  14001 
does not include such requirement. 

(iii)  The option of substantially modifying the scheme will need the introduction 

of a number of different measures. 

A number of these measures have a direct positive environmental impact on 
the  performance  of  individual  organisations.  These  are  the  following 
measures: 

•  The strengthening of the requirement of legal compliance will improve an 
organisations  capability  to  meet  the  applicable  environmental  legal  and 
regulatory  requirements.  There  is  evidence  that  organisations  that  are 
effectively  legal  compliant,  have  also  a  high  standard  of  environmental 
performance. 

•  The 

sectoral  performance 

reporting  on  generic  and 

indicators 
corresponding  to  environmental  priorities  such  as  energy  efficiency; 
material  efficiency;  waste;  biodiversity  and  emissions,  in  particular  CO2 
emissions,  should  position  EMAS  not  only  as  a  process  leading  to 
environmental improvement, but as a performance-based scheme showing 
the concrete results obtained by the registered organisation in terms of key 
environmental  performances.  This  should  strengthen  the  added-value  of 
EMAS  compared  to  other  Environmental  Management  Schemes,  in 
particular  for  those  organisations  which  are  willing  to  demonstrate  their 
environmental  performance  on  the  basis  of  clear  specifications  based  on 
agreed  priorities.  This  will  also  allow  the  measurement  of  environmental 
improvements  made  individually,  sectorally  and  globally  by  EMAS 
registered organisations. 

Once  this  positive  direct  environmental  impact  is  recognised  by  the  market, 
this will also lead to an increase in the uptake of the scheme and this have an 
indirect positive environmental impact. 

Most of the measures have an indirect environmental impact as they lead to an 
increased attractiveness of the scheme. These are the following measures: 

•  laying down, more specific rules on accreditation for EMAS in addition to 
the  system  set  up  by  Regulation  (EC)  N°  xxxx/2008  of  the  European 
parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  […………….  date]  setting  out  the 
requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the 
marketing  of  products  and  harmonising  procedures  for  verification  and 
validation  for  EMAS  improves  the  consistency  in  the  implementation  of 
the scheme. This will increase the strength of the scheme and will have a 
positive impact on the number of participating organisations. 

•  Increasing  awareness  of  the  actors  in  the  scheme,  including  the  public  at 
large, will increase market-demand and the competitive advantages of the 
scheme,  thus  raising  the  attractiveness  for  organisations  to  participate. 
Promotion  and  support  actions  undertaken  by  national  authorities  and  on 
Community level, will have an indirect  positive  impact  on  the  number  of 
participating organisations, as the lack of "reward" resulting from the lack 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
of  knowledge  and  demand  for  EMAS  is  identified  by  the  respondents  in 
the EVER study as one of the main barriers for the growth of the scheme. 

•  Making  the  system  more  attractive  by  reducing  burdens  and  creating 
incentives  through  the  implementation  of  financial,  fiscal  and  market-
related  institutional  measures,  will  be  a  strong  impulse  for  the  number  of 
EMAS  participants,  which  could  initiate  a  snowball  effect,  leading  go 
many  more  registrations,  as  these  measures,  described  earlier  in  this 
document  on  pages  33-34,  have  been  identified  as  the  most  desirable 
according  to  the  organisations  that  are  or  consider  implementation  of  the 
scheme. 

•  Clarifying  links  and  complementarities  with  other  schemes  so  that 
registration or participation in national environment management schemes 
can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards EMAS, will 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  organisations  participating  in 
EMAS.  The  uptake  of  EMAS  will  then  not  be  a  separate  and  isolated 
process,  but  is  more  a  next  step  to  the  system  leading  to  the  highest 
environmental performance.  

•  linking  EMAS  with  other  EU  legislation/instruments  so  that  EMAS 
registration  can  be  taken  into  account  in  the  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  environmental  legislation,  will  equally  make  the  system 
more  attractive.  The  impact  in  terms  of  retaining  registered  organisations 
and attracting new applicants is likely to be high. 

•  Making EMAS global will have as result a considerable raise in uptake of 
the  scheme,  as  the  fact  that  EMAS  is  limited  to  the  EU  is  one  of  the 
important  reasons  that  organisations  chose  for  ISO  14001  rather  than  for 
EMAS  

•  Making EMAS global will lead to an additional increase in uptake of the 
scheme by many multinational export-based EU companies and also many 
companies based in third countries, exporting to the EU. At the same time 
globalisation  of  EMAS  will  have  an  indirect  environmental  effect  on  the 
environmental performance through easier co-operation for environmental 
improvement within those supply chains that include companies located or 
operating in third countries. 

•  Measures  aimed  at  making  the  scheme  more  user-friendly,  such  as  the 
rewriting of the text of and the integration of Guidelines in the regulation 
will  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  participating  organisations, 
especially SMEs and small public authorities, as the difficulties in exactly 
understanding  the  requirements  and  the  different  steps  in  the  EMAS 
system  is  identified  as  an  obstacle  by  mainly  SMEs  and  small  public 
authorities. 

These  factors  will  have  a  multiplier  effect  on  the  already  increased 
environmental performance of individual organisations and will thus result in 
an over all direct and strong positive environmental impact. 

The  substantial  modification  of  EMAS  will  also  have  other  indirect  positive 
environmental  impacts  on  global  level.  Like  numerous  other  EU  policies, 
EMAS  has  been  used  as  the  model  according  to  which  a  number  of 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
environment  management  systems  have  been  developed,  often  with  lower 
impact or requirements than the EU system. It can therefore be expected that 
national or international environment management systems will be influenced 
by  the  strengthened  EMAS  Regulation.  In  addition,  it  can  also  be  expected 
that organisations will follow the principles of EMAS even in case they do not 
register with the scheme. 

This  option  of  substantially  modify  will  therefore  enable  the  EU  to  deliver 
better and more focused environmental benefits, both directly and indirectly. 
The  result  of  these  positive  impacts  should  drastically  increase  the  overall 
environmental impact of the scheme. 

It  is  at  this  stage  not  possible  to  predict  the  exact  increase  in  uptake  of  the 
scheme.  Quantitative  data  on  costs  and  the  impact  of  the  different  measures 
are  not  available.  Moreover,  a  number  of  options  are  interrelated  or  are 
market-based. 

This being said, the objective is in the long run (10 years after the entry into 
force  of  the  revised  EMAS  Regulation)  to  have  a  number  of  registered 
organisations  or  sites  that  equals  the  number  of  organisations  or  sires 
currently  certified  under  the  ISO  14001:2004  standard  on  environmental 
management systems (35.000). As an intermediate objective (5 years) the aim 
is to reach a number of EMAS registered sites that equals the average of the 
three Member States with currently the highest number of registered sites per 
million  of  inhabitants.  This  results  in  an  envisaged  total  of  23.000  EMAS 
registered  sites  5  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  revised  EMAS 
Regulation.49 

5.1.2.  Economic impact 

Confirmed  by  a  number  of  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  and  a  recent  OECD 
study,50  environmental-commercial  "win-win"  situations  exist  for  organisations 
participating  in  EMAS.  This  is  also  illustrated  before  on  pages  21-23  of  this 
document.  Organisations,  especially  private  sector  organisations,  but  also  public 
sector  organisations,  undertake  initiatives  to  improve  environmental  performance 
which are  in their private commercial  interest. Indeed, by implementing a series of 
best available techniques and good environmental practices, savings are generated as 
a  result  of  increased  efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  organisation.  In  addition, 
indirect  economic  impacts  can  result  from  EMAS,  such  as  the  availability  or 
development of new markets, improved image of the organisation and better over-all 
performance  as  a  result  of  increased  wellbeing  and  motivation  of  an  organisation's 
personnel through involvement in the scheme. 

49 

50 

2007  gives  an  average  of  48,27  EMAS  registered  sties  per  million  inhabitants  in  the  three  Member 
States with the highest number of EMAS registered sites per million inhabitants. These Member States 
are Austria (61,85 sites / million inhabitants), Denmark 50,60 sites / million inhabitants) and Belgium 
(32,37  sites  /  million  inhabitants). On  a  total  of 478,5  million  inhabitants  in  the  European Union,  the 
total envisaged number of EMAS registered sites after 5 years after the entry into force of the revised 
EMAS Regulation will thus be 23.000. 
Environmental  Policy  and  Corporate  Behaviour,  Edited  by  N  Johnstone;  Empirical  Policy  Analysis 
Unit,  OECD  Environment  Directorate,  France;  published  by  Edward  Elgar  Publishing  Limited;  © 
OECD, 2007. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore, it can be said that EMAS contributes to the development of a profitable 
economic strategy both for the individual organisations and on macro-level. 

(i)  The  option  of  continuing  with  the  present  approach  will  not  drastically 
change the current level of EMAS-related spending by the Commission or the 
Member States. 

The  total  amount  of  spending  by  the  Commission  on  EMAS51  is  relatively 
small when compared to the overall budget of DG Environment. Although it 
was  not  possible  to  collect  precise  information  on  the  amount  of  financial 
resources spent on EMAS by Member States, it is expected that this amount is 
also relatively small when compared to their overall environmental budget. 

Because  of  the  voluntary  nature  of  EMAS,  the  scheme  has  no  mandatory 
negative  economic  impact  on  organisations:  only  those  that  join  the  scheme 
are  faced  with  the  economic  consequences  (positive  –  cost  reduction,  better 
image, etc; and negative – cost of  implementation, 3rd party verification and 
registration) of implementing and running it. As the system is voluntary, it can 
be  assumed  that  most  organisations  will  only  join  EMAS  when  the  positive 
economic consequences outweigh the costs involved with the first registration 
and  the  implementation  (registration  fees,  investment  in  cleaner  technology 
etc.).  Even  where  this  might  not  immediately  be  so,  the  evaluation  study 
confirms that all in all, EMAS pays itself back in the long run, as participating 
organisations,  especially  the  smaller  ones,  professionalise  and  systematise 
their  processes  and  as  a  result,  reduce  their  costs  and  improve  their  use  of 
resources, as well as improve their image and relationship with stakeholders. 

However, the study also highlights that the bureaucracy of the scheme and the 
fact that some of its requirement-related administrative set-up sometimes bear 
unnecessary costs to organisations, especially smaller ones. In that sense, the 
option of keeping EMAS as it is, does not provide the chance to improve the 
economic impact of the scheme on participating organisations. 

(ii)  The  option  of  phasing  out  the  scheme,  although  there  will  obviously  be 
immediate savings of current running costs, will have direct negative economic 
consequences  for  Member  States  which  are  running  the  EMAS  scheme, 
especially for new ones that have recently invested in setting up the structures 
for running and promoting it (accreditation body, competent body, promotion 
and  technical  assistance  activities,  etc).  There  will  obviously  be  also  direct 
negative  economic  consequences  for  the  EMAS  verifiers  in  the  different 
Member States.52 

It  will  also  have  direct  negative  economic  consequences  on  the  5,000  plus 
sites  in  the  EU  that  have  invested  in  implementing  and  running  a  scheme 
which will no longer exist and whose benefits will disappear. 

the  Commission, 

For 
the  financial  and  human  resources  saved  by 
discontinuing  EMAS  will  be  very  small,  and  arguably,  not  worth  the 
downgrading of the environmental level that closing the scheme would cause. 

51 
52 

507.000 € for 2007, which includes limited promotion activities at EU level. 
Currently there are around 300 EMAS-verifiers accredited, of which 200 are accredited in Germany. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(iii)  The option of substantially modifying the scheme requires the introduction of 
a number of different measures of which some have a direct positive economic 
impact for participating organisations. These are the following measures: 

•  The introduction of core performance indicators will enable organisations 
to  reach  a  higher  level  of  continuous  environmental  and  therefore 
economic improvement. 

•  At 

the  same 

time,  a  positive  economic 

impact  for  participating 
organisations  will  be  the  result  of  cost  reduction  through  simplifying  the 
procedure for registration of clusters of organisations and the introduction 
of the possibility of corporate registrations. 

•  The introduction of closer operational links between EMAS and other EU 
legislation  and 
in  direct  cost-savings  for 
participating  organisations  as  this  will  avoid  duplicate  reporting  and 
verification. 

instruments  will  result 

•  The  introduction  of  tax  incentives  as  a  means  to  support  the  uptake  of 
EMAS  would  have  a  negative  impact  on  MS  tax  revenues,  but  it  can  be 
expected  that  when  Member  States  are  considering  introduction  of 
supporting  tax  measures,  they  would  assess  the  impact  of  those  tax 
measures and only introduce measures where they had a net benefit. 

Other measures, that create incentives and raise benefits of the scheme, have 
an indirect economic impact as they lead to an increased attractiveness and a 
higher uptake of the scheme. These measures, also listed before as generating 
a  higher  environmental  impact  as  result  of  the  higher  uptake  of  the  scheme, 
are the following: 

•  further harmonising procedures for accreditation in addition to the system 
set up by Regulation (EC) N° xxxx/2008 of the European parliament and 
of  the  Council  of  […………….  date]  setting  out  the  requirements  for 
accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products 
and  harmonising  verification  and  validation  requirements  and  procedures 
will increase the strength of the scheme and will have a positive impact on 
the number of participating organisations. 

•  Increasing  awareness  of  the  actors  in  the  scheme,  including  the  public  at 
large,  by  promotion  and  support  actions  both  on  Community  and  on 
Member  state  level,  will  raise  the  attractiveness  for  organisations  to 
participate.  Promotion  and  support  actions  undertaken  by  national 
authorities and on Community level, will have an indirect positive impact 
on  the  number  of  participating  organisations,  as  the  lack  of  "reward" 
resulting from the lack of knowledge and demand for EMAS is identified 
by the respondents in the EVER study as one of the main barriers for the 
growth of the scheme. 

The  introduction  such  measures  will  be  a  strong  impulse  for  the 
number  of  EMAS  participants,  but  they  cannot  be  implemented 
without  considerable 
the  European 
Commission and the Member States. 

resource  deployment  by 

•  Making  the  system  more  attractive  by  reducing  burdens  and  creating 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
incentives  through  the  implementation  of  financial,  fiscal  and  market-
related  institutional  measures,  will  also  result  in  a  higher  uptake  of  the 
scheme,  as  these  measures,  have  been  identified  as  the  most  desirable 
according  to  the  organisations  that  are  or  consider  implementation  of  the 
scheme. 

•  Clarifying  links  and  complementarities  with  other  schemes  so  that 
registration or participation in national environment management schemes 
can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards EMAS, will 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  organisations  participating  in 
EMAS.  The  uptake  of  EMAS  will  then  not  be  a  separate  and  isolated 
process,  but  is  more  a  next  step  to  the  system  leading  to  the  highest 
environmental performance.  

•  linking  EMAS  with  other  EU  legislation/instruments  so  that  EMAS 
registration  can  be  taken  into  account  in  the  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  environmental  legislation,  will  equally  make  the  system 
more  attractive.  The  impact  in  terms  of  retaining  registered  organisations 
and attracting new applicants is likely to be high. 

•  Making EMAS global will have as result a considerable raise in uptake of 
the  scheme,  as  the  fact  that  EMAS  is  limited  to  the  EU  is  one  of  the 
important  reasons  that  organisations  chose  for  ISO  14001  rather  than  for 
EMAS. Making EMAS global will lead to an additional increase in uptake 
of the scheme by many multinational export-based EU companies and also 
many companies based in third countries, exporting to the EU. At the same 
time globalisation of EMAS will have an indirect environmental effect on 
the  environmental  performance 
for 
environmental  improvement  within  those  supply  chains  that  include 
companies located or operating in third countries. 

through  easier  co-operation 

Making  EMAS  global  will  imply  an  increase  in  the  economic 
resources  to  run  the  scheme,  such  as  promotion  activities  in  third 
countries.  This  option  also  implies  a  raise  in  the  costs  for  Member 
States  in  case  the  registration  has  to  be  done  in  one  of  the  EU 
Member  States.  As  the  systems  in  the  Member  sates  are  already  in 
place, the economic impact may be rather moderate. 

•  Measures  aimed  at  making  the  scheme  more  user-friendly,  such  as  the 
rewriting of the text of and the integration of Guidelines in the regulation 
will  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  participating  organisations, 
especially  SME  and  small  public  authoritie,  as  the  difficulties  in  exactly 
understanding  the  requirements  and  the  different  steps  in  the  EMAS 
system is identified as an obstacle by mainly SMEs. 

It  should  be  born  in  mind  that  EMAS  is  a  voluntary  scheme  and  that  two 
different  types  of  organisations  can  participate:  private  sector  and  public 
sector organisations. 

It  can  be  expected  that  the  motivation  of  private  sector  organisations  to  join 
the  scheme  will  primarily  be  of  an  economic  nature  and  that  these 
organisations  will  therefore  join  the  scheme  only  if  the  total  economic 
benefits  outweigh  the  costs  –  as  a  way  of  improving  the  situation  of  their 
business.  In  the  private  sector,  this  decision  will  include  indirect  monetary 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
benefits of the system – for example the reputational benefits – and these are a 
driver  for  uptake  of  EMAS.  It  depends  therefore  also  on  the  perception  of 
these  indirect  benefits  how  many  private  sector  organisations  will  decide  to 
join  the  scheme.  As  the  measures  for  the  substantial  modification  of  the 
scheme  will  increase  these  indirect  benefits,  the  rise  in  uptake  should  be 
considerable.  (84%  of  the  respondents  in  the  EVER  study  considered  the 
competitive  advantage  of  the  "improved  image"  an  important  factor  in  the 
decision to join the scheme. 

The  decision  for  public  sector  organisations  is  not  primarily  based  on 
economic  considerations,  but  can  bring  economic  gains.  Main  reason  for 
public  sector  organisations  for  implementing  EMAS  is  contributing  to 
environmental protection  and improvement and the  intention to set the good 
example.  Introduction  of  the  measures  aimed  at  making  EMAS  the  best 
system, will therefore have a high impact on the uptake by public authorities. 
Constraint by budgetary limits, the introduction of measures reducing costs or 
enabling cost savings on other fields, will equally have a positive impact on 
the uptake of EMAS by local authorities. 

Re-launching the EMAS scheme, as well as putting in place the structures to 
implement the changes proposed to the new Regulation will require some up-
front investment both by the Commission and the Member States. 

Particular  attention  has  been  put  to  minimise  as  much  as  possible  the 
additional  cost  of  new  measures  to  be  introduced  into  the  revised  scheme. 
However, some of these investments are inevitable during the communication 
campaign  associated  with  the  launch  of  a  new  scheme,  and  some  other 
investments  will  be  the  price  to  pay  for  a  higher  positive  environmental 
contribution of the scheme, at single organisation level, or overall. 

5.1.3. 

Social and employment impacts 

The EMAS has not been aimed at, or designed to provide a significant positive social 
impact in Europe. However, the evaluation study confirms that EMAS has a positive 
social  impact  on  participating  organisations,  as  the  specific  EMAS  requirement  to 
involve  employees  and  workers  in  the  implementation  process  of  the  scheme 
increase their work satisfaction and morale, as well as knowledge of environmental 
issues, which they can replicate in, and outside of their work environment. 

(i)  The  option  of  continuing  with  the  present  approach  will  not  change  the 
requirement to involve employees and workers in the EMAS implementation, 
and running process. It will therefore not have any positive or negative impact 
on the current positive social impact of the scheme. 

(ii)  The  option  of  phasing  out  the  scheme  will  have  a  small  negative  social 
impact,  as  some,  maybe  even  a  majority  of  the  organisations  which  are 
currently  participating  in  the  scheme  will  downgrade  the  higher  level  of 
employee information and participation that they needed to maintain to remain 
registered with the scheme. 

(iii)  The  option  of  substantially  modifying  the  scheme  will  not  change  the 
requirement to involve employees and workers in the EMAS implementation, 
and  running  process.  It  can  however  be  expected  that  the  satisfaction  and 
morale  of  the  employees  and  workers  will  rise  with  the  improvement  of  the 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
environmental and economic performance of the organisation. In addition, the 
expected  significant  increased  uptake  of  EMAS  in  the  market  will  in  turn 
increase the overall positive social impact of the scheme. 

5.2. 

Positive and negative impacts of the different options 

5.2.1.  Option 1: continuing with the present approach 

Pros  This  option  will  provide  stability  for  New  Member  States  which  just  started 
implementing the scheme and current users. No significant extra effort will be 
required  by  the  Commission  or  by  the  Member  States  at  the  different 
organisational and co-ordination levels. By maintaining EMAS as a voluntary 
tool,  the  Community  still  has  at  its  disposal  an  instrument  based  on  an 
approach  of  shared  responsibility  with  business  in  the  area  of  environmental 
protection,  as  one  of  the  essential  elements  laid  down  in  the  sixth 
Environmental  Action  Programme53  as  a  means  to  improve  collaboration  and 
partnership  with  enterprises  as  a  strategic  approach  to  meeting  environmental 
objectives. Voluntary commitments are an essential part thereof. 

Cons This  option  will  not  provide  the  opportunity  of  improving  and  strengthening 
the system and thereby its much wider diffusion, especially outside the EU and 
towards  SMEs  and  small  public  authorities.  Slightly  expanding  EMAS 
expenditures will still require a management effort by the Commission and the 
Member States. Without some bigger 'push', the continued low take-up of the 
scheme  in  many  Member  States  will  undermine  its  credibility  and  its  overall 
positive impact, both environmental, economic and social, will remain modest 
and below the full potential of the scheme. 

The visibility of the scheme will not increase and uneven distribution between 
the  Member  States  is  likely  to  prevail.  Member  States  would  criticise  the 
Commission for not taking positive action to support the scheme in the future. 
As a result, the obstacles for a higher uptake of EMAS will continue to exist. 

When  the  present  approach  will  simply  be  maintained,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
encouraging  a  wider  uptake  of  the  Community's  eco-management  and  audit 
scheme (EMAS), as pointed out by the sixth Environment Action Programme 
as one of the actions to be undertaken. In addition, recognising that there is a 
need to improve the functioning of the voluntary instruments that have been 
designed for industry, that these tools have a great potential but have not been 
fully  developed,  the  mid-term  review  of  the  sixth  Community  Environment 
Action Programme54 called upon the Commission to revise these schemes in 
order  to  promote  their  uptake  and  reduce  administrative  burdens  in  their 
management. When continuing the present approach, these actions will not be 
undertaken and it will be impossible to meet these objectives. 

53 

54 

Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down 
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242 of 10/09/2002, p.1. 
COM(2007)  225  final:  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions on the Mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, adopted by 
the Commission on 30/04/2007; not yet published. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.2.  Option 2: phasing out the scheme  

Pros  Gradual phase-out means a less evident loss of credibility for the Commission 
and  lower  level  of  conflict  with  some  Member  States  than  if  it  terminated 
abruptly the scheme. Financial and human resources would be set free for new 
initiatives in the field of the environment. 

Cons This option will have negative environmental and economic impacts. This will 
be  the  case  for  those  organisations  that  will  abandon  the  scheme,  but  it  will 
have  equally  an  upstream  and  a  downstream  effect  of  the  organisations 
applying  EMAS  as 
into  account  environmental 
these  generally 
considerations when selecting their suppliers and service providers. 

take 

Phasing  out  of  the  scheme  that  is  currently  regarded  as  the  scheme  with  the 
potential  entails  the  risk  of  having  significant  negative  influence  on  the 
overall  perception  of  EU  environmental  policy,  as  phasing  out  the  scheme 
would send the signal that the Commission is downgrading its environmental 
policy. The Community would loose an environmental instrument in its policy 
mix.  It  would  also  loose  an  opportunity  to  influence  and  raise  the  level-
playing  field  for  private  similar  voluntary  initiatives  to  deliver  meaningful 
environmental improvements to participating organisations.  

Terminating  EMAS,  one  of  the  two  EU  voluntary  instruments  (EMAS  and 
Eco-label) might also be interpreted as a move towards more command-and-
control  policies.  Several  Member  States  and  other  EU  institutions  would 
likely criticise the Commission heavily and relevant communities which have 
been involved with the implementation of the scheme and want it to continue 
would also likely attack the Commission for letting them down. 

As  set  out  above  the  objectives  defined  by  the  sixth  Environmental  Action 
Programme  and  confirmed  by  the  mid-term  review  of  the  sixth  Community 
Environment  Action  Programme,  can  not  be  met  when  the  scheme  will  be 
abandoned. 

Finally,  there  would  also  be  a  loss  of  opportunity  to  turn  EMAS  into  a 
successful instrument. 

5.2.3.  Option 3: substantially modifying the scheme 

As the obstacles for a higher uptake of EMAS are now well understood, this option 
of substantially modify the scheme offers an opportunity to correct the weak points 
identified  by  the  studies  that  have  been  carried  out  and  confirmed  by  stakeholders. 
Through introduction of a number of substantive changes, EMAS can become what it 
was  originally  designed  to  be:  a  sizeable  voluntary  alternative  to  traditional 
command and control legislation, which addresses all types of organisations, which 
is  business  friendly  and  which  helps  the  EU  achieve  its  overall  environmental 
objectives and priorities. 

It  might  be  difficult  to  reach  agreement  on  some  of  the  suggested  changes, 
particularly  related  to  providing  incentives  to  EMAS  organisations.  A  number  of 
radical  changes  will  also  require  some  up-front  investment  by  the  Commission 
and/or  the  Member  States.  It  is  however  felt  that,  even  where  the  measures  have 
budgetary  implications  for  Commission  or  Member  States,  the  benefits  of  the 
measures proposed outweigh these negative cost-aspects. Thus, negative impacts on 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
member  state  tax  revenues  might  be  compensated  for  example  by  an  increase  of 
taxes on the most polluting companies. 

To  mitigate  the  budgetary  implications,  a  smooth  transition  is  needed  towards  the 
revised Regulation. 

The substantial modification of the scheme implies the introduction of a number of 
changes and measures, that are set out in Section 4 of this document. The pro's and 
con's of each of these measures is considered below. 

Sub-option  1:  clarifying,  improving  and  strengthening  the  legal  compliance 
mechanism. 

pros 

•  improves  an  organisations  capability 

to  meet 

the  applicable 

environmental legal and regulatory requirements 

•  ensuring that organisations seek advice and opinion from the Member 
the  applicable 
State  Regulators 
environmental  legislation  and  on  the  state  of  compliance  of  this 
legislation at an early stage before the first EMAS registration 

the  process  of 

identifying 

in 

•  result  in  a  dialogue  between  the  organisation  and  the  regulator  and 
offers  EMAS  as  a  tool  for  Member  States  regulators  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden of registered organisations. 

cons 

•  implication of Member state regulators creating budgetary implications 

Sub-option  2  and  3:  reporting  –  core  performance  indicators  and  sectoral 
reference documents 

pros 

•  harmonisation with regard to reporting on environmental performance 

•  compare either performance of different organisations or performance 

of one organisation over different reporting periods 

•  more clarity on the (potential) benefits of EMAS 

•  can  lead  to  the  development  of  best  practices,  benchmarks  and 

performance indicators for individual sectors 

cons 

•  none 

Sub-option  4:  further  harmonising  procedures  for  accreditation,  verification  and 
validation 

pros 

•  improve  the  consistency  in  the  implementation  of  the  scheme 

throughout Europe 

cons 

•  none 

Sub-option 5: increase of promotion and support 

pros 

•  raises awareness of all stakeholders, including not only the actors in the 

scheme and the public at large 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
•  experience can be used and resources can be moderate 

cons 

•  allocation of a permanent budget for marketing activities for EMAS is 

necessary 

Sub-option 6: reducing burdens and creating incentives 

pros 

•  raises attractiveness of the scheme for participating organisations 

•  positive impact on the uptake of the scheme 

a 

Introduction of obligations for Member States to: 

- 

- 

consider  EMAS  as  a  favourable  and  preferential  condition  for 
access to public funds. 

pros 

•  creates market-related advantage 

•  cons  •  adds complexity to award of public funds 

consider  granting  tax  breaks  for  EMAS  registered  organisations 
and application of such measures where appropriate. 

pros 

•  creates market-related advantage 

•  increases attractiveness of the scheme 

•  guarantees  a  level  playing  field  for  the  national 

economic systems 

cons 

•  budgetary 
revenues 

implications 

for  Member  states 

tax 

- 

implement national provisions for supporting the use of EMAS  

pros 

cons 

•  increases market power of EMAS organisations 

•  budgetary implications for Member states 

b 

Simplifying  the  procedures  for  registration  by  introducing  the 
registration  of  clusters  of  organisations  and  the  possibility  for 
corporate registration  

pros 

•  direct cost-saving effect for organisations 

•  makes participation in EMAS more attractive 

cons 

•  decrease  in  income  for  Member  States  as  result  of 
combined  (cluster/corporate)  registration,  but  at  the  same 
time this will be compensated by increase in uptake from 
EMAS and more registrations 

c  Widen the use of the logo.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
pros 

•  allowing  use  of  logo  on  information  advertising  an 

organization's participation in EMAS 

•  easier  use  on  or  in  adverts  for  products,  activities  and 

services 

•  use of logo also on products or their packaging 

•  EMAS more attractive for organisations 

cons 

•  maybe  difficult 

that  no  confusion  with 
environmental  product  labels  will  be  created  with  use  of 
EMAS logo on products and their packaging 

to  ensure 

d 

Improve, facilitate and widen the use of the environmental report.  

pros 

•  better  harmonized  through  the  use  of  core  performance 

indicators 

•  format  will  be  improved  so  that  it  will  be  a  better 

communication tool towards stakeholders 

•  become  a  more  attractive  communication  and  marketing 

tool for participating organisations 

•  raise awareness by customers 

cons 

•  none 

Sub-option 7: clarifying links and complementarities with other schemes 

pros 

•  registration  or  participation  in  national  environment  management 
schemes can be taken into account and may serve as a first step towards 
EMAS 

•  uptake of EMAS will then not be a separate and isolated process, but is 
more  a  next  step  to  the  system  leading  to  the  highest  environmental 
performance 

•  positive impact on the number of organisations participating in EMAS 

cons 

•  none 

Sub-option 8: links with other EU legislation/instruments 

pros 

•  reduction of regulatory and administrative burden 

•  clear incentive for higher uptake of EMAS 

•  Regulatory  flexibility  possible  by  way  of  regulatory  relief  or 
deregulation (EMAS as a factor in  risk assessment; as a substitute for 
certain legal requirement or as a condition enabling longer duration of 
environmental permits) 

cons 

•  none 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Sub-option9: EMAS global 

pros 

•  enhance the visibility and raise awareness 

•  raise the attractiveness of the scheme to organisations outside of the EU 

that have presence or trade with the EU 

•  raise  the  attractiveness  of  the  scheme  to  organisations  in  the  EU  that 

have international presence or trade abroad 

cons 

•  none 

Sub-options 10 and 11: re-writing text Regulation and integration of Guidelines in 
the Regulation 

pros 

•  system easier to understand for organisations, notably SMEs 

•  improve legal certainty and clarity of requirements 

cons 

•  moderate budgetary implications for Commission 

5.3. 

Impacts in the EU and outside the EU 

The current scope of application of the EMAS Regulation is limited to the EU and its 
impact  on  organisations  outside  the  EU  is  therefore  minimal.  Opening  EMAS  to 
organisations outside the EU will enable those that have expressed an interest in the 
scheme,  to  participate.  This  presents  an  opportunity  to  increase  the  overall 
environmental  impact  of  the  scheme,  through  a  higher  overall  number  of 
organisations participating in the scheme. 

5.4. 

Impacts likely to change over time 

As experience showed, most strikingly in Germany, Italy and Spain with the current 
Regulation,  initial  investment  (financially,  politically,  or  technically)  from  the 
Member  State  created  a  positive  atmosphere  for  the  development  of  the  scheme, 
whose gradual higher up-take in the market created higher interest by other candidate 
organisations,  and  in  turn  higher  number  of  organisations  joining  the  scheme.  It  is 
expected  that  with  the  new  measures  introduced  in  the  revised  EMAS  Regulation, 
which will make it more attractive for candidate organisations, the same 'snow ball' 
effect will be replicated to a larger scale, this time also in other Member States. 

5.5. 

Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected 

The very concept of the current scheme is that any type of organisation, big or small, 
from  the  private  or  public  sector  from  any  region  in  the  EU,  can  participate 
voluntarily in the scheme as long as they meet its strict environmental performance 
improvement  requirements  over  and  above  compliance  with  environmental 
legislation as a minimum requirement. 

With  the  proposed  measure  to  open  EMAS  registration  to  organisations  outside  of 
the EU, the geographical impact would be extended. 

5.6. 

Potential obstacles to compliance 

Member  States  are  currently  the  main  actors  in  the  proper  functioning  and 
development of the EMAS scheme in the EU. They run EMAS accreditation bodies, 
Competent  Bodies,  promote  the  scheme,  particularly  to  SMEs  and  small  public 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
authorities, and provide incentives to EMAS organisations. As the evaluation study 
has shown, the scheme currently receives very uneven support from Member States 
governments, even though this is an obligation under the current Regulation.  

Even  more  than  in  the  current  Regulation,  Member  States  will  be  asked  to  support 
and promote the scheme, and in particular,  provide significant incentives to EMAS 
organisations,  which,  if  they  implement  the  new  EMAS,  will  be  implementing  the 
best available environmental performance improvement scheme. 

If  Member  States  do  not  play  their  part  in  the  running  of  the  revised  EMAS 
Regulation,  the  revised  strategy  to  increase  the  number  of  EMAS  organisations  to 
significantly  increase  the  robustness  of  the  scheme  and  at  the  same  time  provide 
more incentives to organisations so that they join the scheme, will not work.55 

55 

Even though COM(2004)745: report from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament 
on  incentives  for  EMAS  registered  organisations  confirms  that  Member  States  apply  measures 
providing  some  sort  of  external  incentives  for  EMAS  registered  organisations,  there  is  demand  and 
potential for improvement The decision on what (combination of) incentives will be applied, needs to 
be designed in such a way that they meet the aspirations of the organisations concerned and the needs of 
national regulators. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

The  positive  and  negative  impacts  of  each  of  the  short  listed  options  have  been  analysed, 
mainly from the point of view of their economic and environmental impact. 

In terms of economic impacts, the criteria taken into account were: 

(1) 

(2) 

the  financial  and  administrative  effort  needed  by  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States to implement and run the proposed changes, and 

the  efforts  needed  by  the  participating  and  candidate  organisations  to 
implement and run the proposed changes. 

In terms of environmental impact, the criteria taken into account were: 

(1) 

the  impact  on  the  environmental  performance  of  single  organisations 
participating in the scheme, and 

(2) 

the impact on the number of organisations participating to the scheme. 

All  options  have  been  studied  and  discussed  in  details  within  the  Commission  and  with 
stakeholders  and  interested  parties.  After  consideration  of  the  pros  and  cons  of  each  three 
options raised by all parties consulted (see before for analysis of the environmental, economic 
and social impact of each option) that option of substantially modify the EMAS scheme was 
selected. 

This substantial modification of the EMAS scheme appears to be the best means to remedy 
the  difficulties  that  currently  exist  and  to  provide  the  market  with  an  environment 
management scheme that is the most robust and strict. In order for such initiative to become 
effective, it needs to be accompanied by the necessary incentives to encourage organisations 
to join the scheme. 

This  option  of  substantial  modification  would  therefore  enable  the  EU  to  deliver  better  and 
more focused environmental benefits, both directly and indirectly. The result of these positive 
impacts should drastically increase the overall environmental impact of the scheme. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

7.1. 

Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 

The overall objective of the EMAS scheme is to provide a sizeable positive overall 
contribution  to  the  state  of  the  environment  in  Europe  -  and  if  EMAS  is  extended 
globally  -  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  This  contribution  can  be  broken  down  in  two 
separate components: the increase in the environmental performance of participating 
organisations,  multiplied  by  the  increase  in  the  number  of  organisations  using  the 
scheme. These two components need to be followed, in order to monitor the progress 
of the scheme towards meeting its objectives. 

The introduction in the revised Regulation of mandatory reporting of environmental 
performance,  using  pre-defined  Core  performance  indicators  will  also  allow  for  a 
better  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  environmental  performances  improvements  by 
EMAS organisations. These core performance indicators would apply to all types of 
organisation  and  should  focus  on  performance  in  a  number  of  key  environmental 
areas,  such  as  energy  efficiency,  material  efficiency,  waste,  biodiversity  and 
emissions.  It  should  be  mandatory  for  organisations  to  report  on  the  core  set  of 
generic indicators. These indicators should also address the best available operation 
and  maintenance,  and  also  establish  benchmarking  for  each  specific  type  of 
activities. 

7.2. 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  successful  implementation  of  the  revised  EMAS 
scheme is expected to continue to take place, as it currently does under the existing 
EMAS  Regulation,  under  the  form  of  regular  meetings  with  all  Member  States. 
Twice  a  year  minimum,  Member  States  meet  with  the  Commission  in  Comitology 
meetings  (so  called  article  14  meeting  of  the  EMAS  Regulation)  to  discuss  their 
EMAS achievements, problems, share experience and decide on the future direction 
of the scheme.  

Additionally, the Commission contracts out an EMAS helpdesk. One of its tasks is to 
collect  and  publish  monthly  statistics  on  the  number  of  EMAS  registrations,  per 
sector and per country. 

EN 

56 

   EN