COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation of the ENERGY STAR programme in the European Union in the period 2006 – 2010
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, United States, computer, electrical equipment, energy consumption, energy saving, labelling, office equipment

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.6.2011 
COM(2011) 337 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the implementation of the ENERGY STAR programme in the European Union in the 
period 2006 – 2010 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the implementation of the ENERGY STAR programme in the European Union in the 
period 2006 – 2010 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Information  and  communication  technologies,  including  office  equipment  (i.e.  computers, 
displays, imaging equipment, servers etc.), are one of the fastest growing electricity end-users 
in the EU and worldwide. Office equipment consumes 17%1 of electricity used in the tertiary 
sector,  while  ICT  equipment  and  services  represent  about  8%  of  total  electrical  power 
consumption  in  the  EU.  As  new  applications  and  functionalities  appear  on  the  market  and 
ownership rates increase, the energy consumption of these devices is set to rise threefold by 
20302.  Existing  technologies  allowing  significant  decreases  in  power  consumption  are  not 
fully implemented because of persistent market failures, such as lack of information or split 
incentives.  Providing  consumers  with  accurate,  comparable,  and  clear  information  on  the 
energy efficiency of office equipment helps to decouple growth in the functionality and use of 
ICT from its energy use. 

Office equipment is traded globally. Although the manufacturing base is increasingly moving 
to  Asia,  a  large  share  of  research  and  development,  marketing,  and  even  manufacturing 
facilities are located in the EU and the US. The trade in this market segment between the EU 
and the US is falling but remains substantial. The US is our biggest export market for office 
equipment  and  the  annual  value  of  EU-US  trade  in  this  market  segment  exceeds  EUR  10 
billion  (with  about  EUR  4  billionin  exports  to  the  US,  and  EUR  6  billion  in  imports  to  the 
EU)3. 

The  increasing  energy  consumption  of  office  equipment  and  the  global  nature  of  the  ICT 
market provide a strong rationale for international regulatory cooperation in this domain. It is 
against this background that the EU and the US signed an Agreement on the coordination of 
energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment4 (hereafter the ‘Agreement’) in 
December  2000.  The  Agreement,  which  was  renewed  in  2006  for  a  second  5-year  period, 
provides  the  basis  for  the  implementation  of  the  ENERGY  STAR  programme  in  the  EU 
(hereafter  ‘the  programme’).  ENERGY  STAR  is  a  voluntary  energy-efficiency  labelling 
programme  run  by  the  US  Environment  Protection  Agency  (hereafter  ‘EPA’).  It  is 
implemented  in  several  other  economies,  including  Japan,  Canada  and  Australia,  through 
agreements similar to that with the EU. 

1 
2 

3 
4 

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/publications.htm 
Gadgets and Gigawatts — Policies for Energy Efficiency Electronics © OECD/IEA, 2009, [figure 127], 
[page 287], quoting Grochowski, E. and M.Annavaram (2006), Energy per Instruction Trends in Intel 
Microprocessors, Technology@Intel Magazine, March 2006. 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-GI-10-001/EN/KS-GI-10-001-EN.PDF 
OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 26 
‘Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of 
energy efficient 
labelling programs for office equipment’; OJ L 172, 26.06.2001, p. 3. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
On the basis of the Agreement, the EPA and the Commission jointly manage the ENERGY 
STAR  programme  for  office  equipment.  That  includes  cooperating  on  the  development  of 
product specifications and the mutual recognition of products registered in the EU and the US.  

ENERGY  STAR  is  an  integral  part  of  the  EU’s  energy  efficiency  policy  as  set  out  in  the 
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency5. It aims to ‘pull’ the office equipment market up towards 
greater efficiency and thus complements the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC6, which acts to 
‘push’ the market through mandatory or voluntary minimum efficiency requirements. 

As the Agreement will expire in December 2011, this communication assesses the merits of 
its possible renewal (section 5) on the basis of: 

–  Experience in the implementation of the programme in the EU (section 2) 

–  An assessment of the effectiveness of the programme in improving the energy efficiency of 

office equipment (section 3) 

–  Planned modifications to the US Energy Star programme (section 4) 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAMME IN THE EU 

The programme has been implemented in the EU by "Council Decision 2006/1005/EC7" and 
by  "Regulation  (EC)  No  106/2008  on  a  Community  energy-efficiency  labelling  programme 
for office equipment"8. 

2.1.  Main elements 

The following key aspects for the implementation of the programme can be singled out: 

–  Unity:  product  specifications  are  jointly  developed  by  the  EPA  and  the  European 
Commission  assisted  by  Member  States  (EU  Energy  Star  Board,  EUESB).  The 
specifications thus have the same levels of stringency in the US and the EU and essentially 
enter 
in  both.  Moreover,  products  registered  by  one 
‘management  entity’  (EPA  or  EC)  are  recognised  as  meeting  ENERGY  STAR 
specifications on the territory of the other party to the Agreement.  

into  force  simultaneously 

–  Dynamism:  product  specifications  are  regularly  revised  with  the  aim  of  setting  a  policy 
framework  that  continuously  drives  office  equipment  towards  greater  efficiency.  Since 
2000  the  specifications  have  been  revised  3  times,  each  time  with  more  stringent  energy 
efficiency levels. Under the current Agreement, product specifications aim to represent not 
more than 25 per cent of models for which data are available at the time the specifications 
are set. 

5 
6 
7 

8 

COM(2006)_545 final 
OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10. 
Council  Decision  2006/1005/EC  of  18  December  2006  concerning  the  conclusion  on  behalf  of  the 
Community  of  the  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
European  Community  on  the  coordination  of  energy-efficient  labelling  programmes  for  office 
equipment; OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 24. 
OJ L 39, 13.02.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Incentives: In 2008 the programme was significantly strengthened with the inclusion of an 
obligation  for  the  central  government  authorities  of  Member  States  and  the  European 
institutions  to  specify,  for  public  procurement,  energy  efficiency  requirements  ‘not  less 
demanding’  than  ENERGY  STAR  criteria9.  Public  procurement  is  the  primary  driver  for 
product registration in the EU. 

2.2 

Scope 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  Agreement,  ENERGY  STAR  has  included  specifications  for 
computers,  monitors/displays  and  imaging  equipment  (copiers,  printers,  scanners,  etc.).  The 
specifications have already been revised 3 times to adjust to technological progress and drive 
greater  efficiency.  The  first  specifications  for  servers  are  expected  to  enter  into  force  in  the 
first quarter of 2011. In addition, the EPA and the Commission are currently cooperating on 
the  development  of  criteria  for  three  further  product  groups  (data  centre  storage, 
uninterruptible power supplies and small network equipment). These 7 product groups, taken 
together,  are  estimated  to  cover  practically  all  the  electricity  consumption  of  office 
equipment. The graph below (which covers consumer electronics as well as office equipment) 
indicates that products covered by the Agreement are, together with television sets, the largest 
electricity end-users within the combined ICT/consumer electronics sector. It also shows that 
while  the  power  consumption  associated  with  some  products,  such  as  computers,  will 
stabilise, power consumed by other equipment, such as servers and data centre storage, will 
grow significantly. These are therefore the products on which future attention should focus. 

9 

OJ L 39, 13.02.2008, p. 3, Article 6. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Graph 1. ICT total electricity consumption in the EU by 2020 under a business-as-usual 
scenario (including the impact of existing policy measures, including ENERGY STAR)10 

thin  clients,  small-scale  servers).  The 

The  current  Computer  specifications  have  been  effective  since  July  2009  and  have  been 
revised  twice  since  2006.  They  cover  a  broad  spectrum  of  products  (desktops,  laptops, 
workstations, 
levels 
approximately  40 %  more  stringent  than  the  previous  levels.  The  new  criteria  for  imaging 
equipment  also  entered  into  force  in  July  2009.  Here,  in  addition  to  requirements  strictly 
linked  to  energy  efficiency,  the  criteria  include  provisions  on  duplexing  (i.e.  double-sided 
printing),  which  is  important  due  to  the  significant  environmental  impact  of  paper  use.  The 
new  criteria  for  displays,  which  entered  into  force  in  October  2009  will  speed  up  the 
transition to new, more energy-efficient technologies such as LED backlights.  

latest  specifications  set 

The work on servers and data centre storage is focuses on data collection with the aim of 
understanding  the  relationship  between  hardware  and  software  configuration  and  energy 
performance  in  both  active  and  idle  states.  The  development  of  specifications  on 
uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) benefits from EU experience acquired in this product 
group  acquired  thanks  to  the  development  of  a  Code  of  Conduct  on  UPS  by  the  Joint 
Research  Centre  (JRC).  The  final  product  group,  small  network  equipment,  includes  such 
items  as  modems  and  routers.  Here  again,  synergies  will  be  sought  with  the  EU  Code  of 
Conduct on Broadband Equipment managed by the JRC. 

2.3 

Promotion and registration of ENERGY STAR products and partners  

The  dedicated  portal  www.eu-energystar.org  provides  information  for  the  relevant  actors, 
including  e.g.  programme  participation  guidelines  for  manufacturers,  an  interface  for 
searching the database of ENERGY STAR registered products on the EU market, advice on 
the proper configuration and use of power management, etc. The average number of visits per 
day increased between 2006 and 2010 by approximately 25%. 

The  number  of  manufacturers  participating  in  the  programme  has  increased  significantly, 
from 16 companies in 2006 to 74 in 2010. This sharp rise can be attributed to the provisions 
on public procurement that were introduced in 2008. Indeed, 60 % of programme participants 
indicated  public  procurement  as  the  primary  driver  for  their  participation.  The  provision  of 
common public procurement specifications across the EU appears to be important, as 65 % of 
respondents to a survey addressed to programme participants11 indicated that they take part in 
public tenders in Member States other than where they are established. 

There  are  no  data  on  the  percentage  of  consumers  familiar  with  the  ENERGY  STAR  logo. 
However, it can be assumed to be relatively low as only 27 % of participating manufacturers 
indicated  consumer  information  as  the  primary  driver  for  their  participation.  This  is  not 
surprising as the programme targets office equipment, and therefore not private consumers but 
the tertiary sector. Hence, public procurement remains the strongest driver for participation in 
the programme.  

10 

11 

Impacts  of  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  on  Energy  Efficiency,  Bio  Intelligence 
Service, September 2008 
Of the 74 partner companies, 30 responded to the survey. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

IMPACTS 

This section aims to quantify the impact of the ENERGY STAR programme in the EU by (a) 
assessing  how  fast  the  market  is  moving  towards  greater  efficiency,  (b)  estimating  how 
accurate  the  data  reported  by  manufacturers  are,  and  (c)  evaluating  the  impact  of  the 
programme on energy savings. This analysis is primarily based on a continuous market survey 
conducted between 2008 and 201012. 

3.1 

Penetration of ENERGY STAR products on the market  

In  order  to  assess  how  fast  the  market  is  moving  toward  efficiency  levels  specified  under 
ENERGY  STAR  an  analysis  of  the  market  has  been  conducted  on  a  regular  basis.  Graph  2 
below  shows  the  percentage  of  total  models  on  the  market  meeting  ENERGY  STAR 
specifications.  

Graph  2.  Percentage  of  total  models  on  the  market  meeting  ENERGY  STAR 
specifications between 2008 and 2010 

The  graph  shows  that  ENERGY  STAR  is  effective  in  moving  the  market  towards  greater 
efficiency — the percentage of products meeting the specifications increases year on year by 
20 percentage points and more. Between the first half of 2008 and the first half of 2009, for 
all  products  combined  (i.e.  computers,  displays  and  imaging  equipment),  the  percentage  of 
models  meeting  the  specifications  increased  from  45%  to  as  much  as  66%.  Then,  in  the 
second half of 2009 with the introduction of new, more demanding specifications this number 
decreased significantly to 30%, but started increasing sharply again.  

The  penetration  of  ENERGY  STAR  models  has  grown  faster  in  some  product  areas  than 
others.  It  has  typically  been  high  in  the  monitor  and  imaging  equipment  products  market 
where ENERGY STAR model penetration is generally high. After reaching between 60 and 
80% of the market, the penetration of ENERGY STAR models stagnates, which shows that 
some market segments are not reached by the Programme. 

12 

EU ENERGY STAR Final Report, IDC, October 2010. In order to count the total number of models on 
the  market  IDC  used  the following  sources:  (a)  distributor  and  channel resell  information,  (b) vendor 
information, (c) IDC tracker database 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
3.2 

Compliance and accuracy of reported data 

In line with the Agreement, each management entity (i.e. the Commission and the US EPA) is 
responsible  for  enforcing  the  provisions  of  ENERGY  STAR  on  its  territory,  including 
tracking non-compliance. Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 gives the Commission 
and  Member  States  joint  responsibility  for  enforcing  the  programme  in  the  EU.  Whereas 
Member  States  are  responsible  for  ensuring  conformity  with  the  Regulation  on  their  own 
territory, the Commission has a coordinating role and has to take corrective action in cases of 
abuse. 

As part of its tasks, the Commission has conducted an inquiry to check the accuracy of data 
reported by manufacturers. The inquiry was not based on the testing or measuring of products 
but  rather  on  a  comparison  of  the  reported  values  with  the  values  reported  for  the  same 
models elsewhere. Although the analysis revealed a visible improvement in the quality of the 
various criteria recorded in the EU ENERGY STAR database over the last three years, there 
were discrepancies between the values reported under ENERGY STAR and elsewhere for a 
relatively large number of criteria/products.  

However,  the  results  of  this  survey  cannot  be  the  basis  for  assessing  the  scale  of  non-
compliance under ENERGY STAR, which can be done only through actual product testing. 
Such testing performed by the EPA in 200913 on a sample of 120 products revealed that: 

•  100% of tested ENERGY STAR computer monitors and 95% of ENERGY STAR printers 

met ENERGY STAR criteria; 

•  80% of tested non-ENERGY STAR computer monitors and 40% of non-ENERGY STAR 

printers also met the ENERGY STAR criteria. 

These  results  show  that  the  level  of  compliance  is  high  within  the  ENERGY  STAR 
programme.  At  the  same  time,  the  high  percentage  of  non-ENERGY  STAR  products  that 
meet the criteria of the programme suggests that these criteria have to be revised more often 
in  order  to  ensure  that  the  programme  differentiates  efficient  from  inefficient  products. 
Depending on the product group, compliance with the new specifications becomes routine for 
a  significant  part  of  the  market  2  to  4  years  after  their  introduction  (more  so  in  the  case  of 
monitors, less so in the case of imaging equipment, and especially computers). At that point 
the specifications no longer represent state of the art energy  efficiency.  As  the graph below 
shows, a significant proportion of both ENERGY STAR products and non-ENERGY STAR 
products can have efficiency levels significantly above the ENERGY STAR criteria.  

13 

EPA Evaluation Report: ENERGY STAR Program Integrity Can Be Enhanced Through Expanded Product Testing, Report No. 10-P-0040, 
November 30, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20091130-10-P-0040.pdf.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Graph 3. Results of testing 40 computer monitors against ENERGY STAR criteria.14 

This leads to the following conclusions: 

–  According  to  the  available  test  results,  compliance  rates  are  high  enough  to  preserve  the 
integrity of the programme. The sample of tested products was relatively low, however, so 
such  tests  should  be  performed  more  regularly,  by  both  management  entities,  in  order  to 
ensure that any trend towards low compliance is detected. 

–  After a certain time, as energy efficiency levels in general improve, ENERGY STAR does 
not single out the most efficient products on the market, so the criteria have to be revised 
regularly.  

3.3 

Energy savings 

The  assessment  of  the  energy  savings  associated  with  ENERGY  STAR  was  based  on  sales 
data from Eurostat (Prodcom), vendors and other sources, as well as data from the ENERGY 
STAR  database  on  the  energy  consumption  of  products,  Ecodesign  preparatory  studies,  the 
UK  Market  Transformation  Programme,  etc.  Sales-based  savings  calculations15  are 
approximate  as  these  depend  upon  assumptions  about  how  the  market  would  be  structured 
without  ENERGY  STAR.  With  that  caveat,  these  calculations  indicate  that  the  impact  of 
ENERGY  STAR  is  relatively  significant.  It  is  estimated  that  without  ENERGY  STAR  the 
electricity consumption of new office equipment sold in the EU in the last three years would 
have been approx. 67 TWh. ENERGY STAR succeeded in reducing this by around 11 TWh, 
i.e. by approx. 16 %. This translates into more than EUR 1.8 bn saved on energy bills and 3.7 
Mt of avoided CO2 emissions. It needs to be noted that these numbers represent a ‘snapshot’, 

14 

15 

EPA Evaluation Report: ENERGY STAR Program Integrity Can Be Enhanced Through Expanded Product Testing, Report No. 10-P-0040, 
November 30, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20091130-10-P-0040.pdf. The term 'Percent Exceeding 
Standard' on the y axis should be understood as meaning 'percent by which standard is exceeded. 
The calculation only took into account ENERGY STAR specifications in force between 2008 and 2010, 
and only the savings achieved with those specifications within this three-year period. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
i.e. they do not take into account the current impact of earlier (pre-2008) specifications, or the 
future  impact  of  current  specifications.  If  these  two  elements  are  taken  into  account,  it  is 
estimated that ENERGY STAR will succeed by 2020 in reducing the energy consumption of 
the installed base of computers, displays and imaging equipment in the EU by more than 30%. 
The graph below depicts this trend for computers and displays. 

a
/
h
W
T

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

84,8

54,9

No policy

ENERGY
STAR

2005

2010

2015

year

2020

Graph  4.  Expected  impact  of  ENERGY  STAR  on  the  electricity  consumption  of 
computers and displays by 202016 

Precise  estimates  of  the  remaining  saving  potential  linked  to  a  revision  of  existing 
specifications is not available yet as this process has only been initiated recently, but it can be 
assumed  that  it  remains  significant.  Indeed  the  ENERGY  STAR  database  includes  products 
that  consume  less  than  a  quarter  of  the  current  ENERGY  STAR  threshold.  In  addition,  as 
shown  on  Graph  1  the  energy  consumption  of  products  that  are  not  yet  covered  by  the 
Agreement will rise sharply in the coming years, and therefore needs to be addressed too. 

4. 

PLANNED  MODIFICATIONS  TO  THE  US  ENERGY  STAR  PROGRAMME  AND  THEIR 
EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE AGREEMENT  

As  of  February  2011,  the  EPA  requires  all  products  seeking  certification  under  the 
programme in the US to be tested in third-party certified laboratories and to be systematically 
checked  after  their  qualification.  This  overhaul  is  the  result  of  an  inquiry  by  the  federal 
auditing authority (General Accounting Office), which showed that there is potential for fraud 
due to insufficient surveillance (although no fraud was uncovered).  

16 

These estimates were made as part of an Impact Assessment for a Regulation implementing Directive 
2009/125/EC  with  regard  to  Ecodesign  requirements  for  computers,  servers  and  displays.  The  model 
did not take into account the impact of specifications that were introduced between 2000 and 2005. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The Commission aims at ensuring that these changes do not breach the Agreement and do not 
negatively  impact  EU  manufacturers  participating  in  the  programme.  The  issue  was 
extensively  discussed  in  the  framework  of  the  EU-US  Energy  Council  and  the  High  Level 
EU-US Regulatory Cooperation Forum. As a result the EPA confirmed that under the current 
Agreement products registered in the EU will still be recognised in the US, and therefore will 
not have to be third-party certified17. Beyond the current Agreement this solution would not 
be acceptable to the US as the EPA considers it would lead to a permanent 'leakage' of their 
product-registration  system  (manufacturers  would  register  in  the  EU  to  avoid  the  cost  and 
time  necessary  to  get  third-party  certification).  This  chapter  will  therefore  consider  possible 
options for the future of ENERGY STAR in the EU, taking into account their expected impact 
on  manufacturers,  their  ability  to  transform  the  market  towards  greater  efficiency  and  their 
exposure to fraud. 

4.1. 

Option 1: introduce third-party certification in the EU 

Under this option the ENERGY STAR Agreement would be extended for another 5 years and 
the EU would introduce third-party certification. It is expected that this approach would have 
the following consequences: 

–  The compliance rate would go up. However, given that the latest tests of office equipment 
showed a 95% compliance rate with self-certification, the additional gains are expected to 
be minimal. 

–  The  cost  of  product  registration  would  go  up,  in  a  way  that  would  unevenly  impact 
different  market  operators.  The  internal  laboratories  of  major  manufacturers  are  already 
today  accredited  to  the  international  standards  that  form  the  basis  of  the  new  US 
requirements. Furthermore for such companies, due to the scale of their operations, the cost 
of  external  certification  can  be  relatively  easily  absorbed.  For  this  market  segment, 
feedback  received  from  two  major  manufacturers  indicates  a  30%  increase  in  the  cost  of 
product registration. For SMEs, however, the additional burden of new requirements would 
be proportionally greater. Given that ENERGY STAR is the basis for public procurement, 
the new requirements would create unequal conditions in access to public tenders.  

–  The number of programme partners would decrease. 60% of companies participating in the 
EU  ENERGY  STAR  that  provided  feedback  to  a  questionnaire  on  these  issues  indicated 
that they would drop out if third-party certification was introduced.  

–  The  new  testing  requirements  will  add  at  least  one  month  to  the  process  of  product 
registration. The industry points out that, due to the short product development cycle for IT 
equipment, this may lead to a situation where the approval to use the label will come after 
a given model is launched on the market. 

It follows from these points that third-party certification would be disproportionate in the EU 
and  could  negatively  impact  the  programme  decreasing  its  impact  on  the  market.  This 
conclusion is in line with the outcome of a consultation of Member States and stakeholders as 
part of the EU Energy Star Board carried out in June 2010. 

17 

As  the  new  US  certification  requirements  apply  only  to  newly  registered  products,  thos  products  in 
recepit of  a  certification  in  the  EU before the  expiry  of  the  current  agreement  will  not need  to  be  re-
registered in the US after the current agreement expires. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Option 2: maintain self-certification in the EU 

Maintaining self-certification in the EU would mean that the next Agreement would no longer 
be  uniform  for  both  parties:  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  would  need  to  be  dropped, 
and  there  would  therefore  be  two  distinct  product  registration  systems.  An  important 
consideration in this case is the impact on EU manufacturers. 

Although 85 % of office equipment imported to the EU comes from Asia, EU-US trade in this 
market segment remains significant. The value of EU office equipment exports to the US in 
2008 was close to 4 billion euros (around half of it computers), compared to 13 billion euros 
for  electrical  machinery  and  20  billion  euros  for  passenger  cars.  As  indicated  above,  even 
though exports to the US are systematically falling (from 24 % of exports in 2004 to 15 % in 
2008), it remains the EU's biggest export market for office equipment 

In the light of the above numbers the principle of mutual recognition would at first appear to 
be  a  vital  part  of  the  ENERGY  STAR  Agreement.  However,  among  those  that  provided 
feedback  on  its  future,  only  one  manufacturer  participating  in  the  EU  ENERGY  STAR 
programme indicated that it registers products in the EU that are then exported to the US. This 
indicates  that  the  partners  in  the  EU  programme  almost  entirely  focus  on  the  domestic  EU 
market.  It  can  be  therefore  assumed  that  EU  exports  to  the  US  come  mainly  from  big 
companies that have so far registered their products directly in the US and can better absorb 
the cost of new US registration requirements. It can also be assumed that a large part of EU 
exports  in  this  market  segment  comes  from  niches  where  the  EU  industry  has  a  strong 
position  and  which  are  not  covered  by  ENERGY  STAR  specifications,  such  as 
telecommunication equipment or specialised software. 

This conclusion is reinforced by the structure of the EU ICT industry. Whereas in certain sub-
segments of this industry EU companies rank among the biggest players worldwide (notably 
in telecoms, specialised electronics e.g. automotive or medical, specialised software), they are 
absent  among  the  biggest  manufacturers  of  office  machinery  and  computers18.  EU 
employment in this latter sub-segment of the ICT industry is systematically falling, whereas 
in related sub-segments, notably telecoms and computer services, it has witnessed spectacular 
increases19.  That  being  said  there  remains  a  manufacturing  base  located  in  the  EUwhich  is 
divided into two distinct tiers. Tier one is composed of subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. 
Almost a dozen large US and Japanese manufacturers have manufacturing sites located in EU 
Member  States  (usually  EU15).  Tier  two  is  mainly  composed  of  SMEs  which  are  more 
dispersed  geographically  than  multinationals  with  a  significant  presence  in  EU10.  These 
companies  tend  to  focus  on  the  desktop  market.  Their  business  is  centred  either  around 
building  PCs  from  components  sourced  locally,  or  adding  value  to  the  value  chain  (e.g. 
creating software for specialised applications), or simply reselling products bought outside of 
the EU. Due to the limited scale of their operations these companies do not compete with the 
large  multinationals  on  price  on  global  markets  but  rather  on  creating  customised  solutions 
adapted  to  the  local  market.  Therefore  the  bulk  of  the  revenues  of  these  companies  often 
comes not from selling hardware but servicing it. Most of these manufacturers compete in the 
low price market segment and their profit margin can be relatively low (around 5%). This is 
the typical profile of partners in the EU ENERGY STAR Programme. 

18 

19 

OECD Information Technology Outlook: 2008 
 - OECD © 2008 - ISBN 9789264055537 
Mapping  the  ICT  in  EU  Regions:  Location,  Employment,  Factors  of  Attractiveness  and  Economic 
Impact, JRC- IPTS, 2008 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore  from  the  point  of  view  of  EU  manufacturers,  maintaining  a  lightweight  product 
registration  system  is  more  important  than  keeping  mutual  recognition.  ‘Tier  one 
manufacturers’ will need to go through third-party certification in the US irrespectively of the 
approach chosen in the EU, whereas ‘tier two manufacturers’ are focused on the domestic EU 
market and from their perspective maintaining a light product registration system is vital.  

At the same time it needs to be ensured that the same conditions for acquiring the ENERGY 
STAR  label  in  the  US  are  applied  to  US  and  non-US  manufacturers.  The  US  originally 
planned  to  require  that  Certification  Bodies  (through  which  the  product  registration  system 
will be run) have a ‘significant North American presence’. Further to objections raised by the 
EU  and  Korea  this  condition  was  withdrawn  and  the  requirements  were  harmonised  with 
international standards. As a result US ENERGY STAR Certification Bodies are now present 
in several Member States.  

Finally, although tests of ENERGY  STAR  office  equipment  showed  high  compliance  rates, 
sticking  to  self-certification  would  require  a  thorough  enforcement  of  the  programme.  It  is 
believed  that  the  integrity  of  ENERGY  STAR  could  be  ensured  through  spot  checks 
combined  with  direct  consequences  for  fraudulent  products.  The  Commission  will  seek  to 
assist Member States in the proper enforcement of the programme.  

4.3 

Option 3: replace ENERGY STAR with alternative regulatory instruments 

ENERGY STAR has been successful in driving the market towards greater efficiency. At the 
same time the changes planned by our US partners will, if not implemented in the EU, void 
the principle of mutual recognition and take away some of the rationale for concluding a new 
agreement. Accordingly, this section briefly discusses the alternative to ENERGY STAR, i.e. 
mandatory energy labelling under Directive 2010/30/EC20.  

ENERGY  STAR  is  a  component  of  a  wider  policy  mix  targeting  the  energy  efficiency  of 
products.  This  framework  also  includes  the  Ecodesign  Directive  and  Energy  Labelling 
Directives  mentioned  above.  Whereas  Ecodesign  ‘pushes’  the  market  by  setting  minimum 
efficiency  requirements,  Energy  Labelling  and  Energy  Star  ‘pull  it’  by  providing 
manufacturers  with  an  incentive  to  compete  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  their  products. 
Ecodesign therefore complements the two labelling instruments by ensuring a faster and more 
complete  market  transformation.  It  can  also  impact  those  market  segments  where  labelling 
instruments  are  not  effective.  This  is  for  example  the  case  of  gaming  PCs,  where  energy 
efficiency is not an important consideration in consumer purchasing decisions. Ecodesign is 
therefore not an alternative to ENERGY STAR but a complement to it, although it has to be 
applied carefully to such fast-evolving equipment as ICT.  

A  possible  alternative  to  ENERGY  STAR  is  the  Energy  Label.  The  comparative  A-G  label 
which is displayed at the point of sale is widely recognised by consumers in the EU and has 
led to a spectacular increase in the efficiency of products covered.  

Compared  to  ENERGY  STAR,  the  energy  label  may  be  seen  as  having  the  following 
advantages and drawbacks: 

Advantages 

20 

OJ L 153/1, 18.06.2010, p. 1 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  It  is  mandatory.  This  ensures  that  the  energy  efficiency  of  all  products  on  the  market  can  be 
compared.  It  also  allows  all  market  segments  to  be  reached,  whereas  with  ENERGY  STAR 
manufacturers do not have an incentive to drive efficiency in certain segments. 

–  It is widely recognised by EU consumers. In the case of office equipment, however consumer 
recognition appears to play a smaller role than, for example, public procurement requirements. 

Drawbacks 

–  Unlike  ENERGY  STAR,  it  is  not  linked  at  EU  level  to  mandatory  public  procurement 

provisions. 

–  The legislative process is slower and less flexible which can be a problem in the case of such 
fast-evolving and complex products as ICT. Although the revised Energy Labelling Directive 
provides for some intrinsic dynamism (empty classes ‘above A’ to be populated as the market 
evolves),  the  development  cycle  of  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling  requirements  typically 
takes 3-4 years compared to 1 year in the case of ENERGY STAR. This is due to the fact that 
in  the  case  of  mandatory  instruments  such  aspects  as  the  impact  on  the  different  market 
segments or the comparability of the different applications have to be considered much more 
carefully than in the case of a voluntary scheme. Because of this the development of mandatory 
instruments often cannot keep pace with the ever-shortening ICT product development cycles. 
In addition, in the case of ICT the development of a mandatory label applicable to all products 
would be  extremely complex due to the heterogeneity of product configurations, applications 
and  use  patterns  (e.g.  ENERGY  STAR  is  based  on  a  use  pattern  typical  for  the  office 
environment and not representative of household applications). 

–  A  move  from  ENERGY  STAR  to  the  Energy  Label  would  fragment  the  international 
regulatory framework resulting in additional costs to the industry and to the public sector. This 
should be avoided given the global nature of this market.  

Although  the  energy  label  has  certain  advantages  compared  to  ENERGY  STAR,  the  latter 
appears to be better suited for office equipment. ENERGY STAR currently offers a readily-
available  solution  for  addressing  the  energy  efficiency  of  office  equipment.  However,  the 
validity  of  this  conclusion  will  be  continuously  monitored  and  the  arguments  listed  in  this 
section will be assessed for specific products covered by the Agreement, depending on market 
and technology developments.  

4.4. 

Conclusion 

The  dynamism  and  voluntary  nature  of  ENERGY  STAR  make  it  a  policy  tool  particularly 
well  suited  for  ICT  products.  A  part  of  the  programme's  success  can  be  attributed  to  its 
lightweight product registration process. A switch to third-party certification would put SMEs 
at a disadvantage compared to bigger companies. This should be avoided as the Programme is 
linked to mandatory public procurement and SMEs constitute the majority of its participants. 
It could also lead to a decrease of the number of partners and hence decrease the impact of 
ENERGY STAR on the market. An analysis of the profile of manufacturers participating in 
the  Programme  and  of  the  office  equipment  market in the EU in general shows that mutual 
recognition is not a key component of the EU-US Agreement. The aim should be to preserve 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
the  core  element  of  the  Programme  and  its  principal  aim  -  product  specifications  jointly 
developed and implemented by the EU and the US that provide an incentive to continuously 
drive the energy efficiency of office equipment. This would be ensured by Option 2 identified 
above. Under this option the EU would maintain its impact on the development of ENERGY 
STAR specifications, which are de facto the global standard for the energy efficiency of ICT. 

5. 

CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE AGREEMENT 

The  agreement  presently  in  force  expires  in  December  2011.  During  the  last  4  years  the 
programme  has  helped  make  office  equipment  more  energy-efficient  and  save  consumers 
money.  Its  impact  on  the  market  has  amplified  as  it  has  grown  more  popular  with 
manufacturers. It is strongly supported by the industry as it provides a flexible and dynamic 
policy framework, particularly well suited for such fast-evolving products as ICT. At the same 
time, the changes planned by the US present a challenge for the future of the Agreement. It is 
therefore  recommended  that  the  European  Union  continue  participating  in  the  ENERGY 
STAR programme, albeit with certain necessary adjustments. More specifically, the following 
suggestions for the prolongation of the Agreement are made: 

–  The  EU  and  the  US  should  still  cooperate  on  the  development  of  product  specifications, 
i.e. the same level of requirements would be introduced approximately at the same time by 
both entities. 

–  Given  the  resolve  of  the  US  to  introduce  third-party  certification  to  the  programme,  the 
Agreement should continue under two distinct product registration systems. The end of the 
mutual  recognition  principle  can  be  deplored,  but  it  is  not  expected  to  negatively  impact 
manufacturers participating in the EU programme. The Commission will nonetheless take 
appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  the  US  requirements  do  not  put  EU  exporters  at  a 
disadvantage. 

–  Given that public procurement has been indicated by manufacturers as the primary driver 
for their participation in the programme, and also considering that a significant proportion 
of  them  participate  in  public  tenders  in  Member  States  other  then  where  they  are 
established,  the  public  procurement  clause  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  106/2008  should  be 
kept.  The  possibility  of  extending  it  beyond  central  government  authorities  should  be 
explored. 

–  In  the  light  of  evidence  that,  due  to  the  rapid  evolution  of  the  market  and  technology, 
ENERGY  STAR  does  not  always  designate  the  most  efficient  products  on  the  market, 
specifications should be regularly and frequently revised.  

–  Although available data shows a high degree of compliance the Commission and Member 
States should closely cooperate on the thorough enforcement of the Programme and should 
review the effectiveness of this enforcement no later than 18 months after the conclusion of 
the Agreement. 

–  The  Commission  will  continuously  monitor  the  impact  of  the  changes  proposed  by  the 
USA and of the ENERGY STAR Programme on energy savings and manufacturersat least 
one year before the expiry of a new Agreement it will analyse possible future options for 
addressing  the  energy  consumption  of  office  equipment,  including  replacing  ENERGY 
STAR with alternative policy instruments. 

EN 

13 

   EN