COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Building the Single Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, eco-label, environmental impact, marketing standard, organic product, single market

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.4.2013  
COM(2013) 196 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Building the Single Market for Green Products 

Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and 
organisations 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{SWD(2013) 111 final} 
{SWD(2013) 112 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Building the Single Market for Green Products 

Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and 
organisations 

1. 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

INTRODUCTION 
The Resource Efficiency Roadmap1 set an ambitious milestone for 2020: providing 
the  right  incentives  for  citizens  and  public  authorities  to  choose  the  most  resource 
efficient  products  through  appropriate  price  signals  and  clear  environmental 
information. The Roadmap also recognised that the internal market has an important 
role  in  rewarding  resource-efficient  products.  This  initiative  -  "Building  the  Single 
Market for Green Products" – is an important step in this direction.  

The market uptake of resource efficient products is currently low despite the capacity 
of  producers  to  provide  such  products  and  the  increasing  demand  by  consumers. 
There  are  barriers  for  both  producers  and  consumers  to  supply  and  purchase  these 
products,  many  of  them  stemming  from  the  ambiguity  of  what  constitutes  truly  a 
'green'  product  and  a  'green'  organisation.  This  Commission  initiative  is  a  step 
towards  removing  this  ambiguity  by  improving  the  way  how  environmental 
performance of products and organisations is measured and communicated.  

The Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament introduces two 
methods  for  measurement  and  a  set  of  principles  for  communicating  the 
environmental  performance  of  products  and  organisations.  It  is  accompanied  by  a 
Commission Recommendation that encourages Member States and the private sector 
to  use  these  methods,  as  appropriate,  ensuring  that  the  normal  functioning  of  the 
internal market is enhanced.  

This initiative proposes a testing phase during which stakeholders together with the 
Commission  will  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  methods  proposed,  and  the 
feasibility  of  using  them  throughout  the  Single  Market.  The  results  of  the  testing 
phase will be subject to an independent peer review process which will also consider 
alternative  methods.  If  the  test  phase  is  successful,  the  Commission  will  consult 
further  with  stakeholders  on  how  best  to  secure  the  benefits  of  this  initiative. 
Discussions  will  also  be  pursued  with  international  partners  on  methodological 
development with a view to ensure the compatibility and synergies with other widely 
used methods. 

The objective of these actions is to allow and facilitate, in the medium term, a higher 
uptake of green products and of greener practices by companies in the EU market by 
contributing  to  the  removal  of  potential  barriers  to  the  free  circulation  of  green 
products in the Single Market.  

1 

COM(2011) 571 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

2.1. 

The environmental and resource efficiency challenges 

At  the  United  Nations  Conference  on  Sustainable  Development  (Rio+20)  held  in 
2012, the international community recognised that "fundamental changes in the way 
societies  produce  and  consume  are  indispensable  for  achieving  sustainable 
development  globally"2.  Nearly  two-thirds  of  the  world’s  ecosystems  have  been 
classified by the UN as 'in decline'3, biodiversity is being lost at a rate estimated to be 
100  times  higher  than  natural  extinction  rate,  and  the  risks  and  trends  related  to 
climate  change  are  well  documented4.  The  OECD  has  warned  that  the  continued 
degradation and erosion of 'natural capital' is bringing about irreversible changes that 
could endanger two centuries of rising living standards5.  

2.2. 

The environmental benefits of green products and green organisations 

'Green products' can be defined as those that use resources more efficiently and cause 
less  environmental  damage  along  their  life  cycle,  from  the  extraction  of  raw 
materials, to their production, distribution, use, up to the end of life (including reuse, 
recycling  and  recovery)  compared  to  other  similar  products  of  the  same  category. 
'Green  products'  exist  in  any  product  category  regardless  of  being  ecolabelled  or 
marketed as green; it is their environmental performance that defines them as 'green'.  

Higher  market  uptake  of  such  products  combines  societal  benefits  of  reduced 
environmental  damage  with  higher  satisfaction  of  consumers  as  well  as  potential 
economic benefits for producers and consumers through more efficient use of natural 
resources.  

Moreover, green companies trigger additional environmental benefits. They improve 
their own processes, influence their suppliers and others up and down the value chain 
and  generate  innovation.  A  company  that  integrates  what  is  called  'life-cycle 
thinking'  into  its  strategies  and  decision-making  is  minimising  the  environmental 
impact of its activities both directly and indirectly.  

2.3. 

The economic benefits of green products and green organisations 

The global market for 'low carbon' and 'environmental' goods and services (which is 
a subset of the total market of green products) is estimated at €4.2  trillion with an EU 
share of 21%6. This market has been growing at an annual rate averaging 4%, even 
during the economic recession7, this contributing to make of the green economy one 
of  the  sectors  with  the  strongest  job  growth  potential8.  There  is  an  increasing 
competition between companies to gain market share in this market. Green products 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 

for 

Secretariat 

instance  CBD 

A  10-Year  Framework  of  Programmes  on  sustainable  consumption  and  production  patterns. 
A/CONF.216/5. 
UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability report ‘Resilient People, Resilient 
Planet: A future worth choosing’, 2012. 
See 
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php 
Environmental Outlook to 2050 (OECD 2012). 
Department  for  Business,  Innovations  and  Skills  (2012):  Low  Carbon  Environmental  Goods  and 
Services. 
Green Seal (2009): Green Buying Research. 
In 2012, the number of people projected to work in eco-industries specifically across the EU is expected 
to be 3.4 million, an increase from 2.7 million in 2008, demonstrating that even in the current economic 
climate  there  is  job  growth  potential  in  the  green  sector.  See  "Annual  Growth  Survey  2013", 
COM(2012) 750 final, http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_en.pdf. 

(2006)  Global  Biodiversity  Outlook 

and 

2 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
can  help  cut  costs  to  manufacturers  during  production  (less  resources  used  means 
less  production  costs)  or  to  consumers  during  use  (i.e.  the  white  goods  in  the  top 
class of the Energy Labelling Directive9). Green products are also in general easier to 
recycle or reuse, thus contributing to better and less costly waste management for the 
society as a whole.  

However, in relative  terms  green products still represent a marginal part of the EU 
consumer good market10. Evidence suggests that there is a considerable demand for 
such products if offered at a competitive price and therefore an untapped potential in 
the  internal  market11.  This  would  also  have  a  positive  employment  effect:  overall, 
improving the resource-efficiency of EU economies could lead to the creation of up 
to 2.8 million jobs by 2020.12 

Green  companies  tend  to  be  at  the  forefront  of  innovation.  Through  lower  costs, 
improved productivity, security of supply and less exposure to environmental risks, 
European  companies  enjoy  a  competitive  advantage  on  eco-innovation.  Without 
further action to support this, competitiveness in this sector is at risk13. 

THE PROBLEMS THAT THE PROPOSAL INTENDS TO TACKLE  

The lack of a common definition of what a 'green product' is, and what makes a 
'green organisation' 

There is no widely accepted, science-based definition of what a green product and a 
green  organisation  actually  are.  There  are  different  methods  currently  used  for 
measuring  and  benchmarking  environmental  performance14,  but  they  vary  and  give 
different results when applied to the same product or organisation. Indeed, due to the 
number  of  methodological  choices  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  user,  even  results 
obtained  using  the  same  method  are  often  not  comparable.  Such  comparability  is 
important  to  allow  competition  based  on  environmental  performance,  and  to  allow 
consumers and businesses to take informed decisions. 

Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication 
by  labelling  and  standard  product  information  of  the  consumption  of  energy  and  other  resources  by 
energy-related products, OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1–12. 
Numerous studies have shown that the market share of products with better environmental performance 
is  relatively  small,  up  to  5%  in  some  product  categories  in  certain  Member  States.  See  the  Impact 
Assessment report for more details. 
See Impact Assessment report.  
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  'Exploiting  the  employment  potential  of  green  growth', 
SWD(2012) 92 final, accompanying the Communication "Towards a job-rich recovery". 
Denmark,  Sweden  and  Finland  score  among  the  highest  globally  in  clean  technologies  but  so  do 
important competitors such as the US. China and India are already scoring higher than the Netherlands, 
Austria,  Belgium,  France  and  Spain.  See  Global  Cleantech  Innovation  Index  2012  report,  CleanTech 
Group and WWF. 
Methods for measuring environmental performance of products and organisations can be grouped into 
two  main  categories:  1)  measuring  environmental  performance  through  direct  impacts  (i.e.  impacts 
directly attributable to the product/organisation, such as for instance the hazardous waste resulting from 
production). Within these methods, some cover a single environment impact (e.g. Scope 1 of the GHG 
Protocol,  covering  greenhouse  gases),  while  others  cover  several  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  EMAS 
Key  Performance  Indicators).  2)  Measuring  environmental  performance  through  direct  and  indirect 
impacts (i.e. including impacts in other phases of the life cycle, e.g. extraction, logistics, use, end of life 
– Life Cycle Assessment). Within these methods, some cover a single environmental impact (e.g. again 
Scope  1  of  the  GHG  Protocol),  while  others  cover  several  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  the  EU 
Ecolabel). 

3. 

3.1. 

9 

10 

11 
12 

13 

14 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
One  of  the  biggest  failings  of  some  methodological  approaches  for  measuring 
environmental  performance is  that they are incomplete. They do not look at all the 
direct and indirect impacts of the product or organisation in question – i.e. the whole 
life cycle. Many indicators focus on the 'in-use' phase (e.g. water consumption of a 
washing  machine),  but  ignore  the  costs  of  production,  disposal,  or  the  potential  for 
re-use and recycling. Some assessments focus on one environmental indicator, which 
could mean others are ignored, leading to so-called 'burden shifting'. For example, a 
new  low-energy  product  may  require  a  rare  or  hazardous  material.  This  might  be 
favourable  for  energy  saving,  but  may  be  detrimental  from  the  point  of  view  of 
resource depletion or impacts at the end of life of the product. Either way it should be 
accounted  for  in  a  full  life  cycle  assessment,  so  that  decisions  for  improving 
environmental performance can be taken based on complete information. 

3.2. 

Unnecessary costs for business  

Environmental  considerations are increasingly  part  of  the  operations  and  marketing 
strategies for a large number of companies, and for their investors. Such companies 
are increasingly using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)15 as a tool to assess their own, 
or their suppliers' green credentials and to measure (and improve) the environmental 
performance of their products.  

The  number  of  footprint  methods  (e.g.  carbon  footprint,  water  footprint)  is  rapidly 
increasing,  in  parallel  with  a  proliferation  of  national  and  private  sector  initiatives. 
This fact can generate significant costs for businesses, especially in case they need to 
use  different  methods  or  if  they  have  to  comply  with  labelling  and  verification 
requirements  for  different  countries  and  retailers.  The  relative  costs,  and  the 
associated burdens, are much higher for SMEs. 

European  business  is  well  aware  of  the  situation:  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation linked to this initiative considered the lack of consistency as one of the 
most  important  barriers  to  the  display  and  benchmarking  of  environmental 
performance (72.5% agreement). When asked what was the main driver for this, the 
existence of multiple initiatives in the EU (70.8%) and the multiple ways of reporting 
(76.3%) obtained the highest score in the replies16. 

3.3. 

Obstacles to the free movement of products marketed as green 

In  addition  to  the  extra  costs,  the  proliferation  of  methods  may  also  reduce  the 
opportunity  for  producers  of  green  products  to  trade  them,  even  within  the  EU. 
Companies may want to trade across national borders, but find that the requirements 
related to the environmental information for the products they intend to sell change 
across those borders. 

15 

16 

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a well-established methodological tool that applies life cycle thinking in 
a  quantitative  way  on  environmental  analysis  of  activities  related  to  processes  or  products.  A  central 
characteristic of life cycle assessment is the holistic focus on products or processes and their functions, 
considering upstream and downstream activities. So for instance, the LCA of a product includes all the 
production processes and services associated with the product through its life cycle, from the extraction 
of raw materials through production of the materials which are used in the manufacture of the product, 
over the use of the product, to its recycling and/or ultimate disposal of some of its constituents. Such a 
complete life cycle is also often named "cradle to grave ".  
See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/sustainable.htm  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Box  1  –  Concrete  obstacles  to  trade  in  products  marketed  as  green  within  the 
Single Market 

The following scenario is becoming the normal (but inefficient) way to market green 
products  in  Europe:  a  given  company  wishing  to  market  its  product  as  a  green 
product in UK, France, Italy and Switzerland would need to apply different schemes 
in  order  to  compete  based  on  environmental  performance  in  the  different  national 
markets.  In  France,  it  would  need  to  carry  out  an  environmental  assessment  in  line 
with the French method (BP X30-323); in the UK, it would need to apply the PAS 
2050  or  the  WRI  GHG  Protocol;  in  Switzerland,  it  would  need  to  apply  the  Swiss 
approach  (currently  under  development);  in  Italy,  it  would  need  to  join  the 
governmentally  recognised  carbon  footprint  scheme,  and  carry  out  yet  another 
analysis. The same company would also need to develop an Environmental Product 
Declaration (EPD) based on ISO 14025 for the Swedish market. They may then need 
to undertake multiple EPDs as there are at least six competing EPD systems around 
the world with their own specificities, even if they are all based on ISO 1402517.  
Assuming  a  €  10,000  cost  for  a  study  necessary  to  comply  with  a  scheme,  the 
company  will  have  to  multiply  this  cost  for  each  market  it  intends  to  enter.  In  this 
scenario, the company would incur a cost of up to € 50,000 per product to be able to 
compete based on environmental performance in 5 European national markets. 

In order to be able to compete based on environmental performance, companies are 
de  facto  obliged  to  join  different  private  or  public  schemes  dominant  in  individual 
markets,  based  on  different  methods.  In  other  words,  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition in the Single Market appears unable  to dismantle non-technical hurdles 
to intra-EU trading: even without legal requirements, exporters still need to use the 
national  communication  methods  (e.g.  national  eco-label  schemes)  familiar  to 
domestic consumers in order not to be disadvantaged vis-à-vis local producers. 

The lack of consumers' trust in green claims 
Surveys show that EU consumers would be keen on buying more green products18. 
However, the same surveys tell that there is a 'value-action gap' and a 'trust gap'. For 
example: while 75% of EU citizens say they are ready to buy green products, only 
17% had actually done so in the month before the survey. The reasons given for this 
vary,  including  both  a  lack  of  trust  on  the  environmental  information  provided  by 
producers  and  retailers,  and  a  limited  availability  of  green  products  at  affordable 
prices.  Furthermore,  often  the  environmental  performance  of  products  is  not 
communicated  in  a  way  that  is  comparable,  thus  limiting  the  ability  to  make 
informed choices.  

The  number  of  green  claims  is  growing,  but  they  are,  at  the  same  time,  becoming 
more  superficial  and  vague  in  their  use  of  terminology19.  This  contributes  to 
deteriorating  consumer  trust:  48%  of  consumers  do  not  trust  the  environmental 

3.4. 

17 
18 

19 

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Japan, South-Korea and Taiwan. 
Special  Eurobarometer  295  "Attitudes  of  European  citizens  towards  the  environment",  2008,  p.  27; 
Eurobarometer  Europeans’  attitudes  towards  the  issue  of  sustainable  consumption  and  production, 
2009. 
OECD  (2011);  Environmental  Claims  -  Findings  and  Conclusions  of  the  OECD  Committee  on 
Consumer Policy. - DEFRA (2010); Assessment of Green Claims on Product Packaging. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

  
                                                 
performance  information  communicated  on  products20.  Increasingly,  the  perception 
is that companies are competing on the basis of their claims rather than on the basis 
of the underlying environmental performance. 

4. 

THE EU POLICY RESPONSE 

4.1. 

The objective of EU action 

The general objective of the EU action in this area is to contribute to improving the 
availability  of  clear,  reliable  and  comparable  information  on  the  environmental 
performance of products and organisations to all relevant stakeholders, including to 
players along the entire supply chain. To achieve this objective, the Commission, on 
the  basis  of  many  years'  work  with  stakeholders  and  the  scientific  community,  is 
providing two methods to assess and benchmark environmental performance. These 
methods are robust (science-based), comprehensive (in that they will cover the whole 
life  cycle  of  products  or  organisations  and  a  range  of  environmental  aspects)  and 
eventually will support the comparability of performances. These methods have been 
consulted  and  tested  with  industry  involvement  in  2011/2012  and  will  be  further 
tested  and  improved,  notably  by  the  development  of  simplified  rules  for  specific 
product groups and sectors, and assessed to define to what extent they can be readily 
applied by companies, in particular by SMEs, or by policy-makers.  

The  EU  action  aims  to  reduce  the  current  uncertainty  on  what  constitutes  a  green 
product  and  a  green  organisation.  It  is  a  step  towards  a  more  integrated  internal 
market, where products and organisations that are genuinely green are recognised by 
consumers.  It  is  anticipated  that  an  increase  in  the  uptake  of  green  products  will 
contribute  to  economic  recovery  and  will  further  strengthen  the  competitive 
advantage of EU companies in eco-innovation21. 

The  generic  concept  of  green  product  as  the  product  that  has  a  reduced 
environmental impact over the life cycle compared to an alternative product will thus 
be  operationalized  by  two  elements:  1)  the  method  to  measure  life  cycle 
environmental impacts; and 2) the product category-specific rules which will provide 
the  benchmark  necessary  to  define  a  truly  green  product.  The  same  approach  will 
also be implemented for organisations. 

4.2.  Methodological  work  to  measure  the  environmental  impact  of  products  and 

organisations 

in 

For a number of years, the Commission, together with  a range  of stakeholders, has 
the  Integrated  Product  Policy  (IPP) 
been  working 
Communication22  introduced  the  concept  of  Life  Cycle  Thinking  in  EU  policy 
making.  It  was  followed 
the  Sustainable  Consumption  and 
Production/Sustainable  Industry  Policy  Action  Plan23,  leading  the  publication  in 

in  2008  by 

this  area: 

in  2003 

20 

21 
22 

23 

Flash  Eurobarometer  256  on  Europeans'  attitude  towards  SCP,  2009.  Moreover,  the  Flash 
Eurobarometer  332  of  2012, p. 11,  showed that  almost  1/3  of  EU  consumers  encountered  misleading 
information about the environmental impacts of a product. See the Impact Assessment report for more 
evidence. 
For a more detailed analysis of this relationship, please refer to the Impact Assessment Report. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  Integrated 
Product Policy - Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking. COM/2003/0302 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  Sustainable  Consumption 
and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan. COM/2008/0397 final. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
2010  of  the  International  Reference  Life  Cycle  Data  System  (ILCD)  Handbook24, 
which provided technical guidance for detailed LCA studies and the technical basis 
to derive product category-specific criteria, guides, and simplified tools. 

In 2010, the Council of the European Union called on the Commission to develop a 
harmonised method for the calculation of the environmental footprint of products25. 
Since  then,  the  Commission  has  been  working  on  the  basis  of  existing  LCA 
approaches  and 
introducing  further  methodological 
specifications necessary to achieve more consistent, comparable and accurate results. 
This work, supported by a consultation process as well as by a road-testing exercise 
in  collaboration  with  industry27,  has  culminated  in  the  development  of  the  Product 
Environmental  Footprint  (PEF)  and  Organisation  Environmental  Footprint  (OEF) 
methods28. 

international  standards26, 

These  two  methods  introduce  several  important  improvements  compared  to  other 
existing methods, among others: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

a  clear  identification  of  the  potential  environmental  impact  categories29  to  be 
looked at in order to perform a comprehensive LCA;  

the requirement to quantify data quality;  

setting minimum data quality requirements;  

clearer  technical  instructions  for  addressing  some  critical  aspects  of  a  LCA 
study (such as allocation, recycling)30. 

The  PEF  and  OEF  methods  require  that  for  making  comparisons,  Product 
Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) and Organisation Environmental 
Footprint  Sector  Rules  (OEFSR)31  are  developed.  These  will  tailor  the  general 
provisions of the PEF and OEF methods into product category or sector specific rules 
that will allow to focus on the 3 or 4 most relevant environmental impacts amongst 
the 14 key environmental impacts indicators and the most relevant processes or life 
cycle stages for a given product category or sector. In this way the results of separate 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 
31 

and 

Rationale, 

Alignment, 

for  Products  and  Organizations: 
2011, 
JRC, 

http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-General-guide-for-LCA-DETAIL-online-
12March2010.pdf  
See  the  Council  conclusions  of  20  December  2010  inviting  the  Commission  "to  develop  a  common 
method  on  the  quantitative  assessment  of  environmental  impacts  of  products,  throughout  their  life-
cycle". 
Analysis  of  Existing  Environmental  Footprint  Methods 
Recommendations, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Deliverable.pdf  
The  road-testing  was  conducted  in  2011-2012.  The  methodologies  were  tested  for  10  products 
(agriculture,  retail,  construction,  chemicals,  ICT,  food,  manufacturing  -  footwear,  televisions,  paper), 
and for 10 organisations (retail, food, energy production, water supply, feed, public sector, ICT, mining, 
chemicals and paper manufacturing). See Annex 9 of the Impact Assessment report for details. 
The 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/product_footprint.htm  
Climate change; ozone depletion; human toxicity - cancer effects; human toxicity - non-cancer effects; 
particulate  matter/respiratory 
ionising  radiation;  photochemical  ozone  formation; 
acidification; eutrophication – terrestrial; eutrophication – aquatic; ecotoxicity - freshwater aquatic; land 
use; resource depletion - water; resource depletion – mineral and fossil fuel. 
See the Impact Assessment report for a detailed explanation of the technical elements of PEF and OEF. 
PEFCRs  are  a  set  of  rules  that  complement  general  methodological  guidance  for  PEF  studies  by 
providing further specification at the level of a specific product category. OEFSRs are a set of rules that 
complement general methodological guidance for OEF studies by providing further specification at the 
sectorial level. 

the  process  of  developing  PEF  and  OEF: 

final  draft  methods  and  details  about 

inorganics; 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
assessments  will  be  comparable  within  a  given  product  category  or  sector, 
independently of who carries them out. 

For example, in the case PEFCR is developed for detergents the category rules will 
define  a  'model  product'  that  is  seen  as  representative  for  the  detergents  product 
category  in  the  EU  market,  and  calculate  the  model's  life  cycle  environmental 
performance. The environmental performance of this representative product becomes 
the benchmark (which will then have to be continuously adapted and reviewed in line 
with technological developments) to which the performances of other detergents sold 
on  the  market  will  be  compared  to.  These  performances  are  communicated  to  the 
consumer, who can therefore easily compare alterative products while shopping. 

In  the  future,  these  crucial  developments  should  allow  the  environmental  footprint 
methods to be applied in the market and in policies as a reliable tool to differentiate 
products or organisations at a reduced cost.  

The  Commission  is  also  supporting  specific  activities  aimed  at  the  development  of 
sector  and  product  category  specific  methods32.  The  Commission  will  continue 
working on and promoting compatibility between these methods, as appropriate. 

4.3. 

The current package of proposals as a first phase of a new policy development 

This  Communication  will  guide  the  activities  of  the  Commission  in  the  next  three 
years.  

The  Commission,  in  consultation  with  stakeholders,  will  gradually  incorporate  the 
methods  as  appropriate  in  its  Eco-Management  and  Audit  Scheme  (EMAS),  Green 
Public Procurement (GPP) and in the EU Ecolabel33.  

4.3.1.  The Commission Recommendation  

Together  with  this  Communication,  the  Commission  adopts  a  Recommendation  on 
the use of the PEF and OEF methods to measure and communicate the environmental 
performance of products and organisations The Commission invites Member States 
and  stakeholders  to  use  PEF  and  OEF  methods  in  relevant  voluntary  policies  and 
initiatives  involving  the  measurement  and  communication  of  the  life  cycle 
environmental performance of products and organisations. The methods are integral 
part of the Recommendation. 

4.3.2.  The pilot phase: testing the implementation of the environmental footprint methods 

The  Commission  will  organise  a  three-year  testing  with  the  participation  of 
volunteering stakeholders. The objectives of this pilot phase are to: 

• 

set  up  and  validate  the  process  of  the  development  of  PEFCRs  and  OEFSRs, 
including  the  development  of  environmental  benchmarks34  for  each  of  them. 
Where product category or sector-specific rules already exist and are used by 
stakeholders, the Commission will use these as a basis for the development of 
PEFCRs and OEFSRs; 

32 

33 

34 

ICT  carbon  footprint  method  developed  under  COM(2010)245  final  A  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe, 
Envifood  Protocol  developed  by  the  Food  SCP  Roundtable;  standardisation  work  related  to 
"Sustainability of construction works" under CEN Technical Committee 350. 
E.g.  use of  PEF  studies  as  a means  to  identify  relevant  environmental  impacts  in  the  development  of 
Ecolabel or GPP criteria; the use of OEFSRs in EMAS Sectoral Reference Documents. 
Setting a benchmark involves the identification of the average model available in the market, and the 
definition classes of environmental performance based on this analysis.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
• 

• 

• 

make the application of the environmental footprint methods easier, especially 
for SMEs, by testing innovative ways of managing the process and through the 
development of tools; 

test different compliance and verification systems for PEF and OEF, including 
ex-ante  verification  (i.e.  conformity  assessment)  and  ex-post  verification  (i.e. 
market  surveillance),  in  order  to  set  up  and  validate  proportionate,  effective 
and efficient compliance and verification systems;  

test  different  approaches  for  business-to-consumer  and  business-to-business 
communication in collaboration with stakeholders. 

The Commission will issue a call for volunteers in 2013, inviting stakeholders (also 
from third countries) to participate in or lead the process of developing PEFCRs and 
OEFSRs. The selection of the product categories and sectors participating in the pilot 
will be based on considerations such as the magnitude of environmental impacts; the 
willingness  of  stakeholders  to  contribute  or  lead;  the  need  to  ensure  that  diverse 
products (including complex products) and sectors (with dynamic supply chain) are 
included;  the  availability  of  existing  work35;  and  the  availability  of  information  in 
terms of life cycle data. The success of this pilot phase will be assessed on the basis 
of the diversity and representativeness of the products and sectors selected as well as 
including  proper 
the  number  and  relevance  of 
representation of SMEs and NGOs, and also considering the costs, benefits and time 
involved  in  implementing  the  methods.  The  Commission  will  regularly  report  to 
Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  on  progresses,  using  the  IPP/SCP  Regular 
Meeting36. 

the  stakeholders 

involved, 

The Commission is open to evaluate alternative approaches to PEF and OEF able to 
achieve objectives comparable to those listed above. To that respect, the Commission 
intends  to  submit  the  final  results  of  the  pilot  phase  to  an  independent  peer-review 
process,  assessing  these  results  against  those  of  possible  alternative  methods 
proposed  by  stakeholders.  In  order  to  be  eligible  for  this  peer-review  comparative 
analysis  the  alternative  methods  should  have  been  tested  by  the  proponent 
stakeholders under similar testing conditions. This independent peer-review analysis 
will help the Commission to select the most promising and feasible option to deliver 
the policy objectives identified in this Communication. 

4.3.3. 

'Green  claims'  and  the  improvement  of  guidance  on  the  Unfair  Commercial 
Practices Directive 

There is no EU legislation specifically harmonising all green claims and marketing. 
The EU has regulated the use of claims by either requirements in specific legislation 
regulating different types of products performance (such as for example the Energy 
Star  Regulation37);  or  by  setting  general  rules  for  preventing  misleading 
environmental claims, leaving to national authorities the task to interpret and enforce 

35 

36 
37 

E.g.  product  category  rules developed  in  the  framework of  the  French Grenelle  II  experimentation or 
developed  by  other  international  schemes  like  the  Swedish  EPD  or  the  Japanese  Eco-leaf,  EMAS 
Sectoral Reference Documents. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/ipp_wg.htm  
Regulation 106/2008 of the European Parliament and of Council of 15 January 2008 on a Community 
energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
them on a case-by-case basis38 as provided for by the Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive (UCPD)39 

In  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the  UCPD,  in  2009  the  Commission  has 
issued  specific  guidance  to  promote  the  use  of  clear,  accurate  and  relevant 
environmental  claims  in  marketing  and  advertising.  The  Commission  intends  to 
provide  further  guidance  in  this  respect,  to  ensure  an  adequate  and  uniform 
enforcement in Member States. To do so, in the context of the implementation of the 
Consumer  Agenda40,  the  Commission  has  already  started  a  dialogue  with  relevant 
stakeholders  in  order  to  identify  the  challenges  and  best  practices,  and  to  agree  on 
key recommendations for future action41.  

4.3.4.  Communicating the environmental performance of products and organisations 

Inadequate  communication  can  confuse  or  mislead  recipients,  obstruct  decision-
making and undermine the trust in environmental claims. For this reason, and based 
on the experience of the multi-stakeholder dialogue, the Commission recommends a 
set of principles to be applied when communicating the environmental performance 
of products and organisations.  

Transparency.  Economic  operators  should  release  information  not  only  on  the 
environmental performance of the products and organizations concerned, but also on 
the  way  the  information  has  been  generated,  namely  on  the  assessment  procedure, 
method, data source, criteria, etc.  

Availability  and  accessibility.  Economic  operators  should  display  the  information 
concerning environmental performance of the product in relation to the most relevant 
environmental  impacts  in  a  simple  and  immediately  understandable  format.  The 
essential information should be complemented by making available for consultation 
detailed  information  through  additional  channels,  such  as  websites,  smartphone 
applications, etc.  

Reliability.  The  information  communicated  should  be  scientifically  accurate  and 
verifiable to ensure users' confidence in the green claim.  

Completeness. Economic operators should provide information on all environmental 
impact categories that are relevant for the product and the organisation concerned in 
a cost-effective way. 

Comparability. Economic operators should make consistent methodological choices 
in  order  to  guarantee  the  comparability  of  environmental  performance  information 
related to a specific product category or to sector over time. Whenever possible, they 
should  use  methods  that  enable  the  comparison  of  environmental  performance 
between products belonging to the same product category and between organisations 
operating in the same sector.  

SEC(2009)  1666  –  Chapter  2.5  Misleading  Environmental  Claims 
implementation/application of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices. 
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair 
business-to-consumer  commercial  practices  in  the  internal  market  (‘Unfair  Commercial  Practices 
Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. 
A European Consumer Agenda – Boosting Confidence and Growth, COM(2012) 225 Final. 
The  Multi-stakeholder  Dialogue  on  Environmental  Claims  (MDEC),  chaired  by  DG  SANCO,  JUST, 
and ENV. A report presenting the main findings and conclusions of the MDEC were presented on 18th 
of March at the 2013 European Consumer Summit, http://www.european-consumer-summit.eu. 

in  Guidance  on 

the 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

38 

39 

40 
41 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
(6) 

Clarity.  Economic  operators  should  present  the  information  in  a  way  that  is  clear, 
precise and fully understandable for the users. The content of the information should 
be clear as well: its range and complexity should be adjusted to the target audience, 
to the characteristics of the product and to the purpose of the communication.  

The  use  of  existing  and  common  approaches,  standards  and  methods,  such  as  the 
PEF and OEF, would greatly help ensuring that these principles are met.  

4.4. 

The second phase: evaluation and future policy 

After the pilot phase, the Commission will evaluate progress before deciding on the 
way forward (the "second phase"). As part of this, it will assess whether the methods, 
product and sector performance benchmarks, and incentives were successful so that 
they can be applied in policy tools. In particular, the Commission will assess whether 
they can be further integrated in a wider range of already existing or new instruments 
to  improve  the  environmental  performance  of  products  on  the  EU  market,  having 
regard to the use of possible appropriate tools, including European standards. Based 
on the results of this assessment the Commission will produce appropriate proposals, 
as  indicated  in  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  new  EU  Environmental  Action 
Programme to 202042. 

5. 

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

The  world  is  moving  fast  in  the  area  of  measurement  and  communication  of 
environmental performance, similarly to what is happening at Member States level. 
For example, Switzerland is considering presenting in 2013 a legislation introducing 
multi-criteria life cycle assessment for products and its communication to consumers. 
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada are also using LCA approaches in policy 
making. The US Environmental Protection Agency is leading the development of a 
guidance  document  on  how  to  develop  Product  Category  Rules.  The  Sustainability 
Consortium is one of the biggest private initiatives related to the determination and 
communication  of  the  environmental  footprint  of  products;  new  initiatives,  such  as 
the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are also emerging. 

These  on-going  efforts  are  positive  but  there  is  concern  that  the  majority  of  these 
initiatives are being developed in relative isolation, while the increasingly globalised 
and  complex  supply  chains  would  require  a  more  coordinated  approach  that,  for 
example, could bring in more exchangeability and inter-operability of existing tools 
and  platforms.  It  can  be  expected  that  some  methodological  development  at 
international  level  will  take  place.  However,  more  focussed  and  ambitious  actions 
and improved consensus building would be required.  

The EU intends to cooperate actively with key trading partners to encourage a more 
coordinated approach to methodological developments at international level, through 
an open and transparent consultation process accessible to all interested stakeholders, 
among  other  avenues  in  the  context  of  the  10-Year  Framework  of  Programmes  on 
Sustainable Consumption and Production which was adopted at the Rio+20 summit. 
Progress will be reported to Member States and other stakeholders in the context of 
the IPP/SCP Regular meetings.  

42 

COM(2012) 710 Final. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
The  EU  is  also  providing  financial  support  to  UNEP  for  its  capacity  building 
like 
activities 
environmental footprint, life cycle assessment methods and data gathering.  

in  developing  countries  and  emerging  economies  on 

issues 

The  progressive  application  of  PEF  and  OEF  methods  across  the  EU  will  generate 
benefits also to business outside the EU, because it will provide two single references 
for companies desiring to enter the EU market, compared to the current patchwork of 
schemes  applied  at  national  level.  This  would  reduce  the  administrative  costs  for 
exporters and further expand the offer of green products in the Single Market.  

EN 

13 

   EN