Taking the EU resource efficiency agenda forward : a policymaker and business perspective.
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU environmental policy, clean technology, conservation of resources, energy efficiency, environmental protection, management of resources, sustainable development

Taking the EU Resource 
Efficiency Agenda Forward 

A policymaker and business perspective 

mmmll 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN 978-92-79-47618-1 
doi: 10.2779/19745  
KH-01-15-315-EN-N 

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

REPORT 
COMMISSION BY: 

PREPARED 

FOR 

THE 

EUROPEAN 

Paul Ekins, Teresa Domenech and Michelle O’Keeffe 
UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources (UCL ISR) 
April 2015 

Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors 
and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission 
does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the 
Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held 
responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

April 2015  2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Table of Contents 

1.  Executive Summary.................................................................................... 5 
2. 
Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 
3.  The European resource efficiency agenda up to 2014....................................... 7 
3.1.  Policy and Strategy............................................................................... 7 
3.2.  Decision-making Dynamics .................................................................... 9 
4.  The new European context: 2014 onwards ................................................... 10 
4.1. 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 10 
4.2.  The European Parliament..................................................................... 11 
4.3.  The European Commission................................................................... 12 
4.4.  The reassessment of the EU resource efficiency agenda ........................... 15 
4.5.  Conclusions ....................................................................................... 15 
5.  Research approach ................................................................................... 16 
5.1. 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 16 
5.2.  The policymaker perspective ................................................................ 16 
5.3.  The business perspective..................................................................... 17 
5.4.  Stakeholder discussion ........................................................................ 18 
6.  The policymaker perspective ...................................................................... 18 
6.1. 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 18 
6.2.  The role of the EU in the resource efficiency agenda ................................ 20 
6.3.  Key priorities in the resource efficiency agenda....................................... 21 
6.4.  Systemic  barriers  to  resource  efficiency  and  role  of  policy  in  easing  the 
transition.................................................................................................... 23 
6.5.  Framework conditions for resource efficiency.......................................... 24 
6.6.  Policy strategies and policy instruments for resource efficiency ................. 25 
6.7.  The circular economy package.............................................................. 26 
7.  The business perspective........................................................................... 36 
7.1.  Business and the Resource Efficiency Agenda ......................................... 36 
7.2.  Business-wide survey.......................................................................... 40 
7.3.  Business Insights ............................................................................... 42 
7.4.  The Role for the European Commission.................................................. 47 
8.  Discussion ............................................................................................... 48 
9.  Conclusions ............................................................................................. 51 
References ........................................................................................... 53 
10. 
Appendix A: Participants ........................................................................ 55 
11. 
Policymakers .................................................................................. 55 
Businesses ..................................................................................... 55 
Appendix B: Business survey/interview outline .......................................... 57 

11.1. 
11.2. 

12. 

April 2015  3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

April 2015  4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

1. Executive Summary 

Resource efficiency has been gaining increasing attention from policymakers in Europe 
in recent years as a consequence of changes in commodity markets, with an agenda 
driven  by  issues  of  supply  security,  environmental  protection  and  potential  for 
economic and competitive gains to be derived from greater resource efficiency. During 
the  Barroso  presidency  the  EU  Environment  Commissioner,  Janez  Potocnik,  placed 
great  emphasis  on  resource  efficiency  and  the  circular  economy,  creating  the 
European  Resource  Efficiency  Platform,  the  Resource  Efficiency  Roadmap  and  the 
Circular Economy Package.  

The Juncker presidency begins in an era characterised by a greater representation of 
Euro-sceptic parties in the European Parliament and a changed picture of Commission 
structure  that  sees  combined  Commissioner  roles  for  energy  and  climate,  and  for 
environment,  fisheries  and  maritime  affairs,  along  with  new  Vice-President  roles  that 
alter  the  reporting  and  decision-making  process.  The  circular  economy  package  is  at 
the heart of the early changes to the Commission both due to its prominent role within 
the  restructured  departments  but also  due to  the  withdrawal  of  the  2014  package  in 
favour  of  a  revised,  and  ‘more  ambitious’  and  flexible,  package  to  be  developed  in 
2015.  

The  research  undertaken  for  this  report  has  sought  the  views  of  both  policymakers 
and  businesses  regarding  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  in  this  time  of  flux.  It  has 
used  a  semi-structured  interview  approach  to  canvas  the  views  of  some  26 
participants  (13  from  each  of  the  policymaking  and  business  communities).  The 
research aims to provide a multi-actor vision of what the key priorities are as well as 
discuss  different  policy  strategies  and  instruments  that  are  needed  to  make  the  EU 
more  resource-efficient,  while  understanding  the  constraints  of  the  policy-making 
process and the diversity of views and values embedded in policy decisions.  

For  policymakers,  the  role  of  the  EU  was  considered  to  be  one  of  providing  a  clear 
policy framework, harmonisation across MSs and contributing to the exchange of best 
practices.  The  potential  impact  of  taxation  shifts  was  recognised,  yet implementation 
issues acknowledged. Research and technological development was seen as critical, as 
was  a  detailed  consideration  of  factors  affecting  the  end-of-life  of  products.  The 
practice  of  policy-making  in  silos  was  identified  as  a  key  barrier  to  more  effective 
policy  in  the  field  of  resource  efficiency,  a  view  that  was  also  raised  strongly  by 
businesses  which  are  accustomed  to  operating  with  a  value  chain  perspective.  The 
need  for  policy-making  to  understand  and  address  trade-offs  was  also  an  important 
issue. With regard to the pillars of a new, ‘more ambitious’ circular economy package, 
the  interviews  pointed  to  the  need  to  cover  the  entire  material  use  cycle,  with  an 
emphasis on waste prevention and product design.  

Businesses  are  looking  for  the  EU  to  provide  them  with  support  in  building  the 
evidence  base  for  understanding,  measuring  and  monitoring  resource  use  and 
efficiency  and  early  stage  R&D,  whilst  also  supporting  MSs  to  create  the  markets  for 
recycled  materials.  They  see  the  Commission  as  having  great  opportunity  to  engage 
and  facilitate,  promoting  a  level  playing  field  internationally,  linking  value  chain 
partners across borders, and ensuring that information flows are as well understood as 

April 2015  5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

material  flows,  mirroring  strongly  those  opinions  of  the  policymakers  interviewed. 
Finally  they  are  looking  to  the  Commission  to  demonstrate  the  criticality  of  resource 
efficiency in the drive for greater  economic growth and competitiveness, and provide 
consistency of policy direction that can stimulate long-term investment, matching the 
views  expressed  by  policymakers.  Incentives-focused  measures  and  those  that 
address  both  supply  and  demand  of  materials,  sometimes  through  review  of  existing 
legislation,  were  stressed  as  key  to  the  transition  to  a  more  resource-efficient  EU  in 
the future.  

2. Introduction 

This  research  comes  at  the  cross-over  in  the  European  Commission  between  the 
Barroso  presidency  and  that  of  Jean-Claude  Juncker.  The  political  context  is  also 
shaped by the results of the European Parliament elections in May, when a number of 
countries elected candidates that are sceptical of the European Union and the manner 
in which it operates. 

During the Barroso presidency the Environment Commissioner, Janez Potocnik, placed 
great emphasis on resource efficiency and the circular economy, including through the 
creation  of  the  European  Resource  Efficiency  Platform,  the  Resource  Efficiency 
Roadmap and the Circular Economy Package.  This research looks at how that agenda 
could be taken forward in the new political context. 

To  do  this  it  canvasses  the  opinions  of  policymakers  and  businesses  to  understand 
drivers and barriers to the implementation of policies for resource efficiency, in order 
to gain insights into and offer suggestions for the role that the European Commission 
should seek to play.  

The  research  has  been  undertaken  by  University  College  London’s  Institute  of 
Sustainable  Resources  (UCL  ISR),  led  by  Professor  Paul  Ekins.  The  research  has  also 
benefited  from  parallel  funding  from  UCL’s  European  Institute  to  engage  with 
stakeholders on the topic of resource efficiency.  

In  undertaking  the  work  the  authors  would  like  to  gratefully  acknowledge  the 
assistance  of  the  Ellen  MacArthur  Foundation  and  the  Aldersgate  Group  for  reaching 
out  to  their  business  members  to  engage  in  the  study,  and  also  to  the  expert 
panellists  who  took  part  in  a  discussion  on  the  future  of  the  resource  efficiency 
agenda,  which  took  place  at  UCL  on  the  26th  November  2014.  We  would  also  like  to 
thank all the participants who were interviewed (see Appendix A for details).   

April 2015  6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

3. The European resource efficiency agenda up to 2014 

3.1.  Policy and Strategy 

Resource  efficiency  has  gained  increasing  attention  from  policy  makers  in  Europe  in 
recent  years.  The  growing  attention  has  been  the  consequence  of  changes  in 
commodity markets, with higher volatility and significant price increases (which began 
in 2002) and growing concerns about potential resource scarcity in a number of critical 
materials,  about  resource  dependency,  and  about  the  potential  threat  to  EU 
competitiveness  from  these  issues.  The  resource  agenda  has  thus  been  built  around 
issues  of  supply  security,  environmental  protection  and  the  potential  economic  and 
competitive  gains  deriving  from  improved  resource  efficiency.  By  joining  together 
economic  and  environmental  concerns,  resource  efficiency  thus  entered  the  core  of 
the policy strategy as a ‘flagship initiative’ at the EU level.  

In 2010, the EU launched the 2020 strategy, which is the EU's growth strategy up to 
2020. The strategy to a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy was not only about 
promoting the recovery of the EU economy but also setting the basis for development 
models  that  overcome  the  shortcomings  of  the  existing  predominant  growth  model. 
Resource  efficiency  was  understood  as  an  opportunity  to  maintain  a  high-tech 
manufacturing  base  in  Europe,  which  uses  resources  in  efficient  ways  and  is  able  to 
compete and create jobs:  

“Sustainable  growth  means  building  a  resource  efficient,  sustainable  and  competitive 
economy,  exploiting  Europe's  leadership  in  the  race  to  develop  new  processes  and 
technologies,  including  green  technologies,  accelerating  the  roll  out  of  smart  grids 
using ICTs, exploiting EU-scale networks, and reinforcing the competitive advantages 
of our businesses, particularly in manufacturing and within our SMEs, as well through 
assisting consumers to value resource efficiency. Such an approach will help the EU to 
prosper  in  a  low-carbon,  resource  constrained  world  while  preventing  environmental 
degradation, biodiversity loss and unsustainable use of resources. It will also underpin 
economic, social and territorial cohesion” (EC, 2010) 

Five  headline  targets  were  adopted  in  a  number  of  key  areas:  employment, 
innovation,  education,  social  inclusion  and  climate/energy  -  to  be  reached  by  2020. 
The  climate/energy  target  aimed  for  a  20%  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions, 
20%  penetration  of  renewables  and  20%  increase  in  energy  efficiency.  No  specific 
target was set for material efficiency, although resource efficiency was adopted as one 
of the 7 flagship initiatives, which provided the framework to support the priorities of 
the 2020 strategy.  

This  flagship  initiative  recognises  the  need  to  improve  resource  efficiency  to  face  the 
challenges  posed  by  the  increasing  pressure  on  resources  linked  to  growing  global 
population  and  the  increasing  resource  consumption  of  large  emerging  economies, 
while 
improved 
competitiveness  deriving  from  reduced  resource  costs,  and  increased  resource 

it  also  highlights  the  potential  economic  opportunities  and 

April 2015  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

productivity.  Increased  resource  efficiency  was  seen  as  instrumental  in  achieving 
Europe’s  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  reduction  targets  of  80  to  95%  by  2050 
and  contributing  to  the  security  of  Europe’s  supply  of  strategic  raw  materials  and 
fuels. The main purpose of the flagship initiative was to create coordinated action and 
commitment  to  the  long-term  vision  outlined  in  the  2020  strategy,  thus,  providing  a 
sense  of  direction  for  investment  and  innovation.  It  made  reference  to  ‘getting  the 
prices right’ and the need for coordinated support on R&D and Innovation to develop 
necessary  technologies  and  the  designing  of  balanced  policies  that  tackle  both  the 
demand  and  supply  side.  Roadmaps  set  out  the  main  components  of  the  flagship 
initiative.  

The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) has as a main aim to 
identify  ways  to  increase  resource  productivity  and  achieve  decoupling  of  economic 
growth from resource use and environmental impacts. It provides orientation in terms 
of policy strategy to transform Europe’s economy into a resource-efficient economy by 
2050 and defines milestones for 2020 to track progress towards this 2050 vision. The 
roadmap  specifically  points  to  areas  that  have  significant  potential  in  terms  of 
improving resource efficiency and practical ways to unlock that potential. Market and 
other  barriers,  such  as  inconsistency  between  policies  are  also  identified.  Economy-
wide  measures  required  to  move  towards  a  resource-efficient  economy,  such  as 
environmental and resource taxes to reflect the environmental effects of resource use, 
and the desire to increase the value obtained from resources, and the need for long-
term innovation, are also discussed.  

In  parallel  to  these  processes  and  as  proposed  in  the  Roadmap,  in  2012  the 
Commission  set  up  the  European  Resource  Efficiency  Platform  (EREP),  a  high-level 
advisory  group  with  the  mandate  to  provide  policy  guidance  on  the  transition  to  a 
more  resource-efficient  economy.  A  manifesto  and  set  of  short-term,  medium-term 
and long-term recommendations were published reflecting the work undertaken by the 
Platform.  

In  July  2014,  the  European  Commission  adopted  the Communication  "Towards  a 
circular  economy:  a  zero  waste  programme  for  Europe" and  an annex to  establish  a 
common  and  coherent  EU  framework  to  promote  the  circular  economy.   The  key 
elements of the circular economy package are: 

•  boosting recycling and preventing the loss of materials from the economy; 
• 
• 

creating jobs and economic growth; 
showing how new business models, eco-design and industrial symbiosis can move the EU 
economy towards zero-waste; 
reducing greenhouse emissions and environmental impacts. 

• 

Key  measures  of  the  package  were  the  definition  of  an  overall  headline  target  to 
increase material productivity, measured as GDP relative to Raw Material Consumption 
(RMC)  by  30%  relative  to  the  level  in  2014,  by  2030.  The  Commission  also  put 
forward  a legislative  proposal  to  review  recycling  and  other  waste-related  targets  in 
the EU, including a 70% recycling target for municipal waste, a 80% recycling rate for 
packaging  waste  by  2030,  landfill  bans  for  recyclable  materials  by  2025  and  the 
objective to virtually eliminate landfill by 2030. Achieving the new waste targets was 
estimated  to  have  the  potential  to  create  180  000  new  jobs,  while  making  Europe 
more  competitive  and  reducing  demand  for  largely  imported  material  resources.  The 

April 2015  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Commission  also  proposed  other  initiatives  to  promote  the  circular  economy,  related 
to sustainable buildings, green employment and green action for SMEs.1   

As  noted  above,  headline  targets  for  resources  and  the  environment  in  the  EU  2020 
strategy,  focused  exclusively  on  energy  and  climate  change.  Discussions  at  the 
European  Parliament  and  Commission  included  the  question  of  whether  to  set  a 
broader  range  of  targets  related  to  resource  efficiency,  as  agreed  in  the  7th 
Environment  Action  Programme  (EAP).  In  its  last  set  of  recommendations,  published 
in March 2014, the EREP proposed the introduction of a lead indicator and target that 
could  provide  guidance  to  the  European  Semester  process,  whereby  the  European 
Commission suggests specific policies for MSs, in line with the EU 2020 objectives. The 
indicator  proposed  was,  as  noted  above,  a  resource  productivity  indicator,  GDP 
relative  to  RMC.  Based  on  modelling  exercises,  resource  productivity  in  the  EU  was 
expected,  without  further  policies,  to  increase  by  15%  between  2014  and2030.  The 
proposal  from  EREP  was  to  double  this  to  a  30%  increase  by  2030.  The  modelling 
suggested that such an increase in resource productivity would have a positive impact 
on job creation and GDP growth (Cambridge Econometrics and Bio, 2014). Currently, 
the  adoption  of  this  target  and  its  inclusion  as  part  of  the  2020  strategy  is  under 
discussion in the on-going review of the strategy.  

With regard to the specific mix of policies that would deliver the 30% target, thereby 
reducing  primary  material  use,  the  former  circular  economy  package  proposed  a 
review  of  waste  targets  with  a  focus  on  stricter  recycling  targets,  and  measures  to 
promote secondary markets and improve resource management in the building sector, 
the most resource-intensive sector. It is hoped that the new circular economy package 
will  provide  an  overarching  framework  to  facilitate  the  transition  to  more  circular 
models of resource use though much of the responsibility is likely to fall at the level of 
MSs. The policy mixes that MSs could adopt towards improving resource efficiency are 
varied  and  are  briefly  discussed  below.  In  parallel  with  the  headline  indicator,  the 
Commission  is  developing  a  resource  efficiency  scoreboard  that  provides  a  wider 
picture  of  the  use  of  resources  in  the  EU,  including,  in  addition  to  carbon  and 
materials, water and land.  

3.2.  Decision-making Dynamics  

The rapid ascension of the resource efficiency agenda in EU policy has run in parallel 
with  the  development  of  national  strategies. As  also  in  other  policy  areas,  regulatory 
policy  making  in  the  EU  has  a  “reciprocal,  two-level  character”  (Liefferink  and 
Andersen, 2005: 50). On the one hand, policy making is highly influenced by MSs and, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  EU  policy  framework  has  a  direct  influence  in  the  national 
policy-making  processes,  because  of  its  legal  capacity  to  impose  targets  and 
regulations at the national level. The interface between EU and national policy making 
has  been  the  object  of  increased  academic  interest  (see,  for  example,  Weale,  2005; 
Nilsson  et  al.,  2012;  Baker,  2014)  although  there  is  limited  research  that  specifically 
addresses  how  the  EU-national  level  interface  and  dynamics  have  influenced  and 
played  a  role  in  the  definition  of  the  resource  efficiency  agenda.  As at  national  level, 
but  having  also  the  extra  dimension  of  different  MSs,  policy  making  in  the  EU  is  a 
complex  process  where  policy  priorities  and  policy  instruments  are  negotiated  with  a 

1 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/ 

April 2015  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

number  of  different  actors  that  hold  different  and,  sometimes  conflicting,  sets  of 
values,  interests  and  practices.  This  helps  to  explain  the  political  difficulties  in 
advancing  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  when  trade-offs  are  to  be  made.  Also 
concerns have been raised recently about the capacity of the EU to lead the resource 
efficiency  transition  in  a  context  of  weakened  institutions  and  rise  of  Eurosceptic 
fractions in the Parliament.   

Even  win-win  policies  that  could  significantly  contribute  to  increased  resource 
efficiency, such as the removal of environmental harmful subsidies, can be extremely 
difficult  to  implement  in  practice,  given  Commission  decision-making  rules  (for 
example,  unanimity  or  qualified  majority),  the  distribution  of  power  with  MSs 
(decisions  on  environmental  harmful  subsidies  are  usually  in  the  competence  area  of 
MSs)  and  lobbying  by  vested  interests.  Complexities  of  the  policy  making  process  at 
the  EU  level  is  also  revealed  in  the  recent  review  of  waste  policy.  Environmental 
regulation  is  subjected  to  ordinary  EU  legislative  processes,  which  entails  the 
involvement of the EU policy institutions, namely the Council, the Commission and the 
Parliament.  Negotiation  of  the  legislation  between  and  by  these  institutions  can 
considerably  affect  the  scope  and  ambition  of  a  piece  of  regulation.  In  the 
environmental  area,  negotiations  have  been  traditionally  led  by  environmental  lead-
countries but the enlargement of the Union has increased the range between leaders 
and laggards. Liefferink and Andersen (2005) suggest a classification of strategies that 
leading  MSs  may  adopt  to  try  to  influence  environmental  policy.  This  classification 
categorises strategies according to two variables: whether the MS acts as a direct or 
indirect  pusher,  and  whether  its  forerunner  role  is  purposeful  or  incremental.  For 
example, countries with a long tradition of environmental regulation such as Denmark 
or Germany, may try to exert a push towards more stringent environmental regulation 
and  try  to  align  with  other  countries  or  commission  experts  to  push  EU  regulatory 
standards.  Although  it  could  be  said  that  the  EU  has  generally  contributed  to  more 
stringent  environmental  standards  across  Europe,  it  may,  in  some  cases,  have 
restricted  the  adoption  of  more  ambitious  policies  when  these  were  perceived  as 
having a negative effect on the functioning of the internal market, such as the Danish 
bottle  system  that  was  perceived  as  being  in  conflict  with  the  internal  market  and 
indirectly  led  to  the  drafting  of  the  Waste  Packaging  Directive  (Liefferink  and 
Andersen,  2005).  The  complexity  of  the  political  landscape  introduces  important 
challenges for the negotiation of a new resource efficiency/ circular economy package.  

4. The new European context: 2014 onwards 

4.1.  Introduction 

The  resource  efficiency  agenda  has  built  on  existing  environmental  policy,  which 
provides a comprehensive framework of policies aimed at reducing the environmental 
impacts  associated  with  resource  use  and  promoting  the  recycling  and  recovery  of 
resources.  Of  special  importance  are  the  policies  for  waste  management  and  energy 
efficiency, two areas in which the EU has been particularly active. In many cases, EU 
legislation  has  become  an  important  driver  for  resource  efficiency  improvements  in 
MSs  and  has  also  contributed  to  the  setting  of  more  stringent  international 

April 2015  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

agreements  or  standards.  However,  the  last  elections  for  the  EU  Parliament  in  May 
2014,  and  the  changes  in  the  European  Commission  have  created  uncertainties  with 
regards  to  the  future  of  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  and  the  circular  economy 
package,  which  have  generated  anxiety  among  environmental  actors  and  forward-
thinking companies.  

4.2.  The European Parliament 

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are directly elected by EU voters every 5 
years. The Parliament is one of the EU’s main law-making institutions, along with the 
Council of the European Union ('the Council') and has three main roles: 

•  debating and passing European laws, with the Council 
• 

scrutinising  other  EU  institutions,  particularly  the  Commission,  to  make  sure  they  are 
working democratically 

•  debating and adopting the EU's budget, with the Council. 

The  role  of  the  Parliament  is  stronger  than  in  the  past  -  the  Lisbon  Treaty  of  2009 
gave  the  European  Parliament  an  equal  role  with  the  Council  (which  is  made  up  of 
ministers from MS governments) in passing legislation. This is a result of an increase 
in the range of policies covered by the new ordinary legislative procedure whereby the 
Council  and  Parliament  work  together  (called  co-decision).  Parliament  must  also  give 
its permission for other important decisions, such as allowing new countries to join the 
EU, and has to approve the nominated Commissioners. The President of the European 
Commission  is  chosen  by  the  Council,  but  the  Lisbon  Treaty  requires  the  Council  to 
take  into  account  the  outcome  of  the  Parliament  elections  and  this  has  created  a 
presumption in favour of the candidate from the largest party.  

The European Parliament elections of May 2014 saw a strengthened representation of 
Euro-sceptic parties in the EU Parliament, with such parties from seven countries now 
making up around 30% of the Parliament (Schwarzer, 2014). The breakdown of party 
representation  is  provided  in  Figure  1  below.    Martin  Schulz  of  the  S&D  party  is  the 
Parliament president. 

April 2015  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

2014, 751 members 
Figure 1: Comparison of the composition of the European Parliament July 2014 and 2009 

2009, 766 members 

European People’s Party (EPP) 
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) 
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) 
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) 
European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) 
The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) 
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) – since collapsed 
Non attached (NI) 

The  Parliament  operates  20  standing  committees,  the  most  relevant  to  the  resource 
efficiency  agenda  being  the  Committee  on  the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Food 
Safety  (ENVI).  With  the  introduction  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  and  the  extension  of  the 
legislation covered under co-decision, the powers of this Committee grew substantially 
as this area of policymaking was one of the main areas to move into co-decision, and 
as  such,  into  the  realm  of  Parliament  decision-making  on  legislation.      The  new 
composition of the ENVI committee does not differ much from the previous committee 
with  a  balanced  distribution  of  left-wing  and  right-wing  parties,  although  the  ALDE 
group may hold a strategic role in shifting the balance in a specific direction 

4.3.  The European Commission 

The  Commission’s  work  is  based  on  the  principle  of  collective  responsibility,  which 
means  that  decisions  are  collectively  taken  by  the  College  of  Commissioners,  which 
decides  the  strategic  objectives  and  defines  the  annual  work  programme.  The  new 
Commission  President  Jean-Claude  Juncker  has  expanded  the  number  and  roles  of 
Vice-Presidents.  The  Vice-Presidents  act  on  behalf  of  the  President  and  can  exercise 
the President’s rights and prerogatives in their area of responsibility. Their main role is 
to steer and coordinate specific areas of work singled out by the new Commission as 
key  priorities.  The  introduction  of  these  figures  has  been  justified  in  terms  of 
promoting  cooperation  among  Commissioners  in  a  number  of  key  areas.  In  the 
mandate letters (letters written by the Commission President to new Commissioners), 
the role of Vice-Presidents includes (EC, 2014):  

April 2015  12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

1.  “Steering and coordinating work in their area of responsibility”.  
2.  “Assessing  how  and  whether  proposed  new  initiatives  fit  with  the  focus  of  the  Political 

Guidelines”.  

3.  “Managing  and  organising  the  representation  of  the  Commission  in  their  area  of 
responsibility  in  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  national  Parliaments  and  other 
institutional settings as well as at international level”. 

4.  “Promoting a proactive and coordinated approach to the follow-up, implementation, and 

communication of our priority policies across the Union and internationally”.  

Morever, Juncker clarifies that “as a general rule, (he) will not include a new initiative 
in  the  Commission  Work  Programme  or  place  it  on  the  agenda  of  the  College  unless 
this  is  recommended  (…)  by  one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  on  the  basis  of  sound 
arguments  and  a  clear  narrative  that  is  coherent  with  the  priority  projects  of  the 
Political Guidelines”. This statement gives an idea of the relevance of Vice-Presidents 
in the new organisation of the Commission and the control exercised by the President 
in  setting  the  policy  priorities  that  will  define  the  work  of  the  Commission.  This 
restructuring  has  been  welcomed  by  some  as  a  sign  of  reducing  conflicts  and 
promoting  cooperation,  while  it  is  seen  by  others  as  a  measure  to  increase  central 
control over policy-making (European Voice, 2014).  

Another  important  change  with  a  potential  impact  in  the  delivery  of  the  resource 
efficiency agenda is the restructuring of portfolios. Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete 
has responsibility for both energy and climate. The Climate and Energy Commissioner 
responds  to  the  first  Vice-President,  Frans  Timmermans,  and  also  to  the  Vice-
President  of  the  energy  union,  Maroš  Šefčovič,  and  Vice-President  for  jobs,  growth, 
investment and competitiveness, Jyrki Katainen. Some have interpreted this initiative 
as a way to create a stronger coordinated action between energy and climate change, 
some environmental NGOs have concerns that this would subordinate climate policy to 
the  energy  market  dynamics  (European  Voice,  2014).  Also  Commissioner  Karmenu 
Vella  takes  responsibility  for  both  the  environment  and  the  fisheries  and  maritime 
affairs,  as  shown  in  diagram  below.  The  Environment  Commissioner  has  also  to 
respond to the first Vice-President and the Vice-Presidents of the energy union and of 
jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness.  

April 2015  13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Figure 2: New structure of the European Commission. Source: European Commission, 2014.  

April 2015  14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

After  some  pressure  from  MEPs  and  NGOs  regarding  the  lack  of  reference  to 
sustainability issues in his political discourse, in his speech in the European Parliament 
on  the  22nd  of  October,  Juncker  agreed  to  include  the  horizontal  responsibility  of 
sustainable development in his first Vice-President’s portfolio:  

“I  have  decided  to  enlarge  Frans  Timmermans'  remit  to  include  the  horizontal 
responsibility for sustainable development. As you know, sustainable development is a 
principle  enshrined  in  the  EU  Treaties  (Article  3  TEU)  and  should  thus  be  taken  into 
account  by  all  institutions  in  all  their  actions  and  policies.  It  is  also  part  of  the  EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights for which Frans is horizontally in charge. Sustainability 
and  environmental  concerns  are  important  to  our  citizens.  We  have  the  tools  to 
address  them  in  the  new  Commission:  with  powerful  green  portfolios  that  have  big 
budgets and regulatory teeth”2. 

4.4.  The reassessment of the EU resource efficiency agenda 

In  the  Environment  Commissioner’s  mandate  letter,  Juncker  calls  for  the  need  to 
continue  “to  overhaul  the  existing  environmental  legislative  framework  to  make  it  fit 
for  purpose”  (European  Voice,  2014).  The  mandate  later  makes  reference  to  the 
potential  of  the  green economy  and  recognises  that  “Protecting  the  environment  and 
maintaining  our  competitiveness  can  go  hand-in-hand,  and  environment  policy  also 
plays  a  key  role  in  creating  jobs  and  stimulating  investment”.  Among  specific 
mandates  to  Vella,  Juncker  emphasises  the  need  to  “Assess  the  state  of  play  of  the 
Circular Economy package in the light of the first reactions of the European Parliament 
and Council to see whether and how it is consistent with our jobs and growth agenda 
and our broader environmental objectives”.  

On 16th December 2014 the Commission’s work programme was released and included 
the  decision  to  withdraw  the  circular  economy  package,  in  favour  of  a  “more 
ambitious” and flexible package to be developed in 2015, in consultation with different 
Commission Directorates, and other institutions and stakeholders.  

4.5.  Conclusions 

The discussion above shows that there is uncertainty about the future direction of the 
resource  efficiency  agenda.  With  the  previous  proposal  on  the  circular  economy 
withdrawn, there is a need to reconsider and especially to examine what can be done 
to  better  complement  the  waste  element  of  the  circular  economy  through  a  broader 
focus on resource efficiency as a whole.  

2 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-705_en.htm 

April 2015  15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

5. Research approach 

5.1.  Introduction 

This  research  addresses  the  initial  question  “What  should  the  new  Commission  do  to 
take  the  EU  resource  efficiency  agenda  forward?”  that  during  the  course  of  the 
research  and  the  policy  developments  was  reformulated  to  “what  would  a  ‘more 
ambitious’  circular  economy  package  look  like?”.    The  research  tackles  these  issues 
from both within the policymaking process and of businesses, canvassing the opinions 
of national and EU policymakers as well as experts in the policymaking field, and also 
those  of  businesses,  as  key  partners  in  the  delivery  of  a  resource-efficient  economy 
and  strong  influencers  of  the  political  process.  The  study  was  completed  between 
August and March 2014.   

5.2.  The policymaker perspective 

Participants 

Policy-makers  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  their  expertise  in  the  area  of  resource 
efficiency.  A  combination  of  Brussels-based  and  MSs’  policy  officers  was  sought  to 
have  a  more  balanced  view  on  their  perceptions  of  the  role  the  EU  should  play.  The 
interviewees  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  the  following  criteria:  a)  have  a  senior 
position  in  EU  institutions,  policy  think  tanks  and/or  MSs;  b)  have  knowledge  and 
expertise  in  the  area  of  resource  efficiency;  c)  be  directly  involved  in  shaping  EU  or 
MSs policies in resource efficiency.  

A  total  of  20  policy  officers  were  invited  to  participate  in  interviews.  A  total  of  13 
interviews were conducted, 12 with senior policy makers and 1 with a policy expert.  
The list of interviewees is provided in Appendix A.  

Methodological notes 

The  research  design  was  based  on  semi-structured  in-depth  interviews  of  about  an 
hour  of  duration.  The  interview  outline  was  sent  to  the  interviewees  in  advance  and 
provided a guide for the interview, although the interviews were organised more as an 
informal  discussion,  where  the  different  topics  were  discussed  as  part  of  the 
conversation.  

Summary  notes  of  the  interviews  were  taken  and  transcribed.  Interview  notes  were 
coded  to  better  identify  emerging  themes.  A  combination  of  content  and  discourse 
analysis  was  used  in  the  analysis  of  the  data.  Interviewees  were  also  offered  the 
possibility to provide feedback and comment on the first draft of the report to ensure 
that their views were adequately reflected in the analysis.  

Interview insights 

Interviewees were asked about the role of the EU in the resource efficiency agenda as 
well  as  the  key  priorities.  Policy  strategies  to  address  those  key  priorities  as  well  as 

April 2015  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

policy  instruments  were  discussed  in  the  light  of  a  new  ‘more  ambitious’  circular 
economy  package.  The  interviewees  were  also  asked  about  the  potential  impacts  of 
the changes in the Parliament and Commission with regard to the resource efficiency 
agenda,  and  the  policy  approaches  that  are  more  likely  to  be  supported  in  the  new 
context.  

5.3.  The business perspective 

Participants 

Business participants for the study were sought through: a) invitations to businesses 
working  with  UCL  ISR  in  other  capacities;  b)  a  mail-out  to  the  members  of  the  Ellen 
MacArthur Foundation C100 group of companies; and c) a mail-out to the members of 
the Aldersgate Group. This approach meant that 248 individuals were invited to take 
part. 

Of  these  13  businesses  and  business  organisations  chose  to  participate  from  the 
Metals  &  mining,  Oil  &  gas,  Electronics,  Bio-resources,  Finance,  Textile,  Renewable 
energy,  and  Recycling  industries.  A  list  of  participating  organisations  is  provided  in 
Appendix A.  

A mixed method approach 

The research utilised a mixed method approach, combining a survey of core questions 
with  a  semi-structured  approach.  This  allowed  for  some  commonality  across  all 
participants  but  facilitated  the  flexibility  required  to  take  into  account  the  different 
sectors  and  therefore  the  relevance  of  different  resource  efficiency  measures  for  the 
businesses taking part. 

All  respondents  were  asked  to  answer  two  questions,  delivered  through  an  online 
survey. 

1.  How would you prioritize the EREP short-term recommendations for resource efficiency? 

Select from “High priority”, “Medium priority”, “Low priority”, “No priority”.  

2.  Do you think it is useful to group some or all of these measures within a Circular Economy 
framework as per the EU's recent communication. Select from “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, 
“Neither agree nor disagree”, “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” 

The  questionnaire  outline  is  included  in  Appendix  B  and  provides  details  of  both  the 
EREP short-term recommendations and the Circular Economy Package.  

Respondents  were  also  asked  to  provide  details  of  the  measures  that  they  had 
identified as high priority, in particular what conditions are required to ensure they are 
successful and what the most effective way of implementing them is. Participants had 
the option to provide this information in the online survey or to complete an interview. 
Those  that  chose  to  undertake  the  interview  were  further  prompted  to  comment  on 
particular aspects of the EREP medium- to long-term recommendations (see Appendix 
B for details) that fell within their particular area of interest or expertise.  

Limitations of the approach 

The  research  aimed  to  capture  reflections  on  the  two  core  questions  of  the  basic 
survey, although response rates were low and therefore further research is needed to 

April 2015  17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

offer  a  more  comprehensive  analysis  of  what  industries  would  like  to  see  in  a  new 
circular  economy  package.  The  survey  was  complemented  with    semi-structured 
interviews,  although  the  content  of  the  interviews  was  not  consistent  across 
businesses as different individuals and sectors had different areas of interest. As such, 
the outcome of this section of the work can provide insights but not reflect an overall 
business  position.  Furthermore,  as  the  research  has  focused  on  the  potential  role  of 
the Commission in taking the resource efficiency agenda forward, it has by necessity 
sought the views of those companies that support resource efficiency. It has not been 
an  aim  of  this  research  to  provide  a  balanced  view  on  whether  resource  efficiency 
should  be  a  priority  for  the  Commission.  This  would  require  a  different  approach  to 
both questions and the recruitment process.  

5.4.  Stakeholder discussion 

The preliminary findings of the research were presented at a stakeholder event on 26th 
November  2014  at  UCL,  in  partnership  with  the  UCL  European  Institute,  to 
approximately  50  attendees.  In  addition  to  presentations  from  the  authors  of  this 
paper, presentations were made by Andrew Warren, former Director of the Association 
for  the  Conservation  of  Energy,  and  Dr.  Louis  Brimacombe,  Head  of  Environmental 
Technology,  Tata  Steel  Group  UK.  Joss  Blériot  of  the  Ellen  MacArthur  Foundation 
chaired  a  panel  discussion  responding  to  audience  questions.  He  was  joined  on  the 
panel by Prof. Rudi Wurzel (Hull University), Dr. Charlotte Burns (University of York), 
Dr.  Nick  Eyre  (Environmental  Change  Institute,  Oxford  University)  and  Dr.  Louis 
Brimacombe. The insights gathered during this event have been incorporated into this 
research report.  

Initial findings of the research were also discussed in an event hosted by MEP Gerber 
Jan Gerbrandy at the European Parliament on the 17th of March 2015. The aims of the 
event were to provide some research insights into the development of a new circular 
economy package.  

6. The policymaker perspective 

6.1.  Introduction 

Policy-making  at  the  EU  level  is  a  complex  process,  populated  by  a  large  number  of 
institutions  and  actors  that  interact  at  different  levels  to  define  policy  priorities  and 
trajectories  of  policy  actions.  Formal  rules  of  policy-making  and  decision-making 
processes  are  laid  down  in  the  foundational  treaties,  but  an  array  of  different  actors 
work within these rules to try to influence the policy agenda (Jordan, 2005). A growing 
body  of  literature  within  the  field  of  EU  policy  dynamics  has  analysed  “real-world” 
politics  at  the  EU  level  (see,  for  example,  Weale,  2005;  Zito,  2005;  Wallace  et  al., 
2010). The resource efficiency agenda is not an exception to this and it has been built 
around  the  system  of  “concurrent  majorities”,  as  expressed  by  Weale  (2005).  This 
system operates at two levels (Weale, 2005): horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, 
the system is defined by negotiation processes and power distribution among MSs and 
national agendas and vertically, across EU institutions. EU politics is thus much more 
than  the  sum  of  national  policy  agendas  and  has  its  own  governance  regime  and 

April 2015  18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

institutional characteristics. The principle of shared authority between not only the EU 
and  MSs  but  also  among  EU  institutions  (Parliament,  Council  and  Commission) 
increases  the  chances  of  veto  by  actors  operating  at  different  levels  (Weale,  2005), 
constraining  policy  change  (Tsebelis,  1995).  The  resource  efficiency  agenda  is  a 
relatively  new  area  of  policy  making,  which  has  seen  a  rapid  rise  in  profile  due  to 
changes  experienced  in  global  commodity  markets  since  2000.  The  growing  material 
requirements  of  emerging  economies  have  been  reflected  in  the  price  trajectory  of 
basic materials. Metals, for example, have nearly doubled their prices since 2000 and 
prices are expected to continue to be volatile (UNEP 2014)3.  

This  research  did  not  entail  a  study  of  the  political  economy  of  EU  regulation  and 
national  environmental  regulation,  as  this  was  out  of  the  scope  of  the  analysis.  The 
focus has been to understand the perception of relevant actors with regards to the key 
priorities  of  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  and  the  possible  ways  and  strategies  to 
move it forward in a new context characterized by a more fragmented Parliament and 
a  Commission  with  different  values  and  views  on  the  role  of  resource  efficiency  in 
promoting competitiveness and economic development. Parallel research (Kemp et al., 
2014)  has  pointed  to  a  number  of  key  conditions  that  were  required  for  an 
environmental policy to be adopted:  

1) “it must address an environmental problem which is accepted by science and policy 
makers and politicians as a problem,  
2) there should be an advocacy coalition for the policy intervention,  
3) acceptance for the policy solution must be won (obtained) from the problem holder,  
4) government is authorised to act legally,  
5)  society  must  view  the  policy  intervention  as  reasonable  and  not  an  undue 
infringement of freedom or as distributionally unfair,”.  

From these criteria, and with regard to the first issue, it should be noted that resource 
efficiency  analysis  has  not  yet  achieved  the  sophistication  of,  for  example,  the 
scientific models used in relation to climate change, and the specific limits to resource 
exploitation  are  far  from  being  agreed.  The  second  and  fourth  criteria  seem  also 
crucial to build consensus over the need to adopt policy strategies and measures. With 
regard  to  the  second  criterion,  although  a  growing  coalition  of  forward-thinking 
companies has shown strong support for the circular economy and resource efficiency 
agenda, there is still a strong industrial base that see the change as threatening, and 
that has been well represented by Business Europe (see Chapter 7 for more details). 
Also  societal  perceptions  on  the  issue  may  be  fragmented  and  not  well  articulated, 
without a prevailing value-system in support of resource efficiency. 

In this very complex policy context, a number of themes seem to have emerged from 
the  interviews  undertaken  with  senior  policy  officers,  as  captured  in  the  diagram 
below.  Themes  discussed  in  all  interviews  appear  in  uppercase  while  issues  that 
emerge in some of the interviews are represented in lowercase. 

3 
http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2791&ArticleID=10885 
for the media announcement of the publication of UNEP 2014 

See 

April 2015  19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Figure 3: Emerging themes around resource efficiency (RE) from the policymaker interviews. 

Source: authors’ elaboration 

One issue that emerged from the interviews was a clear view of the role of the EU 
in  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  and,  following  on  from  that,  the  sort  of  policy 
strategies  and  priorities,  but  also  instruments,  that  can  help  in  a  transition  to 
more  resource-efficient  futures.  Systemic  barriers  to  resource  efficiency  and  the 
role  of  policy  to  overcome  them  were  also  major  issues  emerging  from  the 
research.  The  following  sections  summarise  the  findings  of  the  key  topics  that 
were discussed in the interviews.  

6.2.  The role of the EU in the resource efficiency agenda 

One common element present in all interviews was the recognition of the importance 
of  the  EU  in  relation  to  resource  efficiency.  A  number  of  key  areas  were  highlighted 
where the role of the EU is deemed crucial:  

•  To provide a clear policy framework, with a long-term commitment or policy vision that 

creates certainty for businesses and economic actors; 

•  To  contribute  to  the  harmonisation  of  policy  frameworks  across  MSs,  to  provide  a  level 
playing  field,  in  accordance  with  the  single  market,  removing  obstacles  for  companies 
operating in different level; 

•  To define a strategic raw materials policy in line with the raw materials initiative 

April 2015  20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

•  To  contribute  to  the  exchange  of  best  practices  and  create  economies  of  scale  in 

innovation and development.  

With  regards  to  the  first  point,  the  creation  of  a  desirable  vision  of  the  world  is 
considered a strong element in providing policy coherence and guidance. This needed 
to  be  accompanied  by  a  long-term  commitment  and  by  changes  in  the  framework 
conditions and the structure of incentives in place. Some interviewees also pointed to 
the  need  to  establish  indicators,  which  provide  guidance  as  to  the  progress  being 
achieved towards the vision. However, the type of indicators and their binding or non-
binding  character  was  something  on  which  the  positions  of  different  interviewees 
differed.  

With  regard  to  the  second  point,  it  is  important to  recognise  that  the  EU28  is  a  very 
diverse  group  of  countries  with  different  starting  points  with  regards  to  resource 
efficiency. Some of the interviewees called for a recognition of this diversity in starting 
points and the need to: 1) support the action of the “able and willing” or front-runners 
while  2)  recognising  the  starting  point  of  countries  that  are  in  a  different  stage  of 
development, and also the diversity of cultural, economic and regulatory systems. The 
desirability  of  flexible  regulation  and  also  flexibility  in  the  definition  of  targets  is 
something  that  emerged  from  the  interviews.  The  possibility  to  create  a  compliance 
range within targets or the definition of built-in flexible instruments within Directives is 
something that could play a role in that direction. The need for flexibility in regulation 
was  also  considered  important  in  relation  to  changes  in  knowledge  and  technology 
that should be reflected in the level of ambition of the measures proposed. 

One of the limitations pointed out by some of the interviews is the lack of involvement 
of the EU in the implementation phase of EU regulation. Although this is clearly a MS 
competence,  some  MSs  with  limited  technical  capability  could  benefit  from  more 
guidance  in  the  transposition  of  Directives  and  exchange  of  best  practices.  The 
publication  of  guidelines  could  help  in  this  direction  but  some  suggested  the creation 
of a coaching service (or resources available to commission this independently) where 
there  is  a  more  direct  support  in  the  implementation  process.  This  type  of  measure 
could also contribute to the creation of the level playing field between MSs.  

The  changing  character  of  the  role  of  government  and  its  reflection  in  policy-making 
processes,  both  at  the  EU  but  also  at  the  MS  level,  is  something  that  needs  to  be 
acknowledged,  moving  from  top-down  processes  to  more  collaborative  processes 
based  on  the  dialogue  of  different  stakeholders.  In  this  respect  a  number  of 
interviewees  pointed  to  effectiveness  of  policy  approaches  that  are  based  on 
collaboration along the supply chain (this will be elaborated in following sections) and 
the role of round tables, platforms and other mechanisms of stakeholder engagement. 

6.3.  Key priorities in the resource efficiency agenda 

A number of key areas of priority for the resource efficiency agenda emerged from the 
interviews. Figure 2 below identifies those areas for which more support was shown as 
well  as  other  areas  that  were  also  defined  as  a  priority  for  some  interviewees.  The 
diagram  represents  in  uppercase  main  areas  identified  as  a  priority,  while  the  lower 
case  denotes  more  specific  areas  of  policy  or  elements  discussed  by  interviewees  in 
relation to the priority areas).  

April 2015  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Figure 4: Key priorities for policymakers in the resource efficiency agenda.  

In  some  cases  the  areas  of  priority  point  to  general  framework  conditions  while  in 
other  cases  they  point  to  more  specific  policy  strategies  and  even  instruments.  One 
element  that  came  up  in  the  interviews  is  the  pivotal  importance  given  to  taxation 
systems. Although it is acknowledged that the competences of the EU in taxation are 
very limited, taxation systems were seen as a priority and a crucial component of the 
resource  efficiency  agenda.  It  should  be  noted  that  issues  of  feasibility  were  not 
discussed in this research and the complexity of changing taxation systems, although 
recognised,  was  not  specifically  addressed.  Taxes  are  a  key  element  of  the  often-
quoted objective of ‘getting prices right’. In the absence of the right price signals it is 
unlikely  that  systematic  progress  can  be  achieved  in  the  area  of  resource  efficiency. 
For  as  long  as  resource  use  does  not  reflect  the  costs  of  pollution  from  resource 
extraction  to  the  final  disposal  of  materials,  overexploitation  of  resources,  and 
associated  environmental  damage,  is  likely  to  continue.  Some  of  the  MSs  showed 
some  progress  in  this  area  and  they  believe  that  the  EU  should  be  more  active  in 
supporting  environmental  fiscal  reform,  as  this  would  support  the  work  of  front-
runners,  while  leaving  enough  flexibility  to  MSs  to  adopt  their  own  measures. 

April 2015  22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Greening the European Semester was also considered important in providing direction 
to MSs and creating policy coherence.  

Research  and  technological  development  was  also  considered  key  in  ensuring  the 
feasibility  of  the  policy  vision.  Resource  efficiency  has  been  an area  where  important 
progress  has  been  made  in  reducing  the  material  intensity  of  processes  through 
technology,  and  this  is  an  area  which  can  not  only  provide  economic  benefits  in 
Europe, but can also give the European economy an extra competitive edge. In fact, 
innovation  and  technology  development  was  an  area  considered  pivotal  in  moving 
towards more sustainable models of production and consumption.  

With  regards  to  the  issue  of  defining  indicators  and  setting  targets  at  the  EU  level  a 
number of different positions emerged from the interviews. In general all interviewees 
agree  on  the  importance  of  the  role  of  indicators  in  guiding  policy  action.  However, 
there  was  disparity  of  opinion  as  to  what  types  of  indicators  should  be  chosen,  their 
character  and  the  level  at  which  they  should  be  adopted.  Generally,  systems  of 
indicators  were  preferred  to  single  indicators  as  they  provide  a  more  comprehensive 
picture  of  an  area  as  complex  as  resource  efficiency.  In  line  with  the  EREP 
recommendations and Circular Economy Package, some of the interviewees supported 
the  inclusion  of  the  target  of  a  30%  increase  in  resource  productivity,  measured  as 
GDP relative to RMC, by 2030, while others considered this indicator inadequate, as it 
does  not  take  into  account  quality  issues,  such  as  the  environmental  impacts  of 
different  material  streams.  In  addition,  the  ambition  of  the  targets  was  a  contested 
issue. Some pointed out that members of the International Resource Panel (IRP) in a 
recent meeting had estimated that the 30% increase would only represent a tenth of 
the  effort  needed  to  achieve  a  factor-four  resource  productivity  improvement  at  a 
global  level,  while  others  showed  concern  at  the  level  of  ambition  of  the  target  for 
countries  in  different  contexts  and  stages  of  development.  In  general,  most  of  the 
interviewees  agreed  that  if  adopted  the  target  should  be  non-binding  and  leave 
enough flexibility to MSs with regards to defining the policy mix to achieve it.  

Aspects related to framework conditions such as a harmonised definition of ownership 
rights  to  ease  the  transition  to  a  service-based  economy,  where  ownership  may  be 
linked  to  the  performance  rather  than  product,  or  ‘getting  prices  right’,  through 
changes in incentive structures, to provide consistent signals to economic actors, were 
identified  as  a  priority  by  some  interviewees.  Also,  instruments  such  as  Extended 
Producer Responsibility (EPR) were thought by some to be among the key priorities of 
the resource efficiency agenda. EPR was seen instrumental in: a) extending business 
focus from ‘cradle to gate’ to a full life cycle approach and b) internalising end of life 
costs  of  products.  It  was  also  suggested  that  take  back  and  physical  responsibility 
systems  could  contribute  to  create  incentives  for  the  emergence  of  new  business 
models in relation to product life extension, remanufacturing and component/ material 
recovery.  However,  the  limitations  of  current EPR  schemes in  Europe and  the  lack  of 
harmonised implementation were considered an important limitation of the potential of 
EPR systems. These elements will be discussed in more detailed in following sections.  

6.4.  Systemic  barriers  to  resource  efficiency  and  role  of  policy  in 

easing the transition 

A  number  of  systemic  barriers  to  resource  efficiency  were  identified  through  the 
interviews,  spanning  a  number  of  different  areas  and  varying  in  their  level  of  detail 

April 2015  23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

and specificity. Some of the barriers are related to the way products are designed and 
their management at the end of their lives  – although products may contain valuable 
resources  it  is  often  very  difficult  to  trace  these  materials  and  recover  them  in 
effective and economically feasible ways. Also, the planned obsolesce of products has 
significantly  shortened  the  use-life  of  a  number  of  products  with  important 
consequences in terms of resource consumption. Also related to products is the push 
of  businesses  for  the  differentiation  of  their  products,  which  increases  the  costs  and 
difficulties of end-of-life management and reparability of products.  

Another  important  set  of  barriers  is  related  to  the  sectoral,  fragmented  approach  of 
policy-making  processes.  Policy  makers  tend  to  work  in  silos  and  develop  strategies 
that are focused on specific sectors or industries. This often results in the perspective 
of  the  supply  and  material  chain  being  lost,  reducing  the  opportunities  for  beneficial 
interventions  along  the  supply  chain  and  creating  trade-offs  and  frictions  between 
different  sectors  or  phases  of  the  chain.  Also  related  to  this  is  the  fact  that  policy-
making processes are trapped in narratives of prevailing paradigms and that breaking 
that inertia is by no means an easy task. There is thus a need for narratives that build 
on  a  new  vision  for  which  past  policy  approaches  may  not  be  adequate  and  may 
indeed be the source of important obstacles. For example, it is very difficult to change 
the focus of materials  management from waste to resources by just reviewing waste 
directives.  The  definition  of  waste  itself  has  in  some  cases  impeded  the  successful 
reuse  of  secondary  materials  and  therefore  presents  obstacles  to  the  emergence  of 
new business models linked to the effective recovery of materials and keeping them in 
the productive system.  

Related to this is also the framing of responsibility in society and the definition of what 
is  or  is  not  acceptable.  It  is  important  to  change  what  it  is  perceived  as  being  the 
default  or  “normal”  way  of  doing  things  in  respect  of  resources  and  in  the  use  of 
natural capital more generally.  

6.5. 

 Framework conditions for resource efficiency 

The framework conditions of a system define the basic context within which actors in 
that  system  behave  and  interact.  The  definition  of  such  a  framework  for  resource 
efficiency  was  agreed  to  be  one  of  the  key  roles  of  the  EU.  What  those  framework 
conditions  should  be  was  more  difficult  to  establish,  although  there  was  agreement 
among respondents that they should include:  

-  A clear vision and a long-term commitment that results in continuity and consistency to 
policy-making  and  therefore  assurance  to  businesses  about  future  policy  priorities  and 
directions; 

-  A structure of incentives that reflects the scarcity of resources and planetary boundaries. 

While  the  policy  concepts  required  to  increase  resource  efficiency,  such  as  the 
internalisation  of  externalities,  are  reasonably  clear,  on  a  practical  level  they  are 
extremely difficult to implement because they require the creation of new institutions 
and  the  re-alignment  of  existing  incentives.  In  the  interviews  it  was  suggested  that 
voluntary  approaches  based  on  the  supply  chain  had  proven  successful  in  promoting 
collaboration  between  the  different  phases  of  the  supply  chain,  generating  mutually 
beneficial  improvements,  and  finding  collaborative  ways  of  optimising  material  use 
from its extraction to its final use and even through to its end-of-life management.   

April 2015  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

However,  it  is  also  important  to  recognise  that  the  re-alignment  of  incentives  and 
greater  resource  efficiency  may  benefit  society  overall,  but  would  result  in  trade-offs 
that created losers as well as winners. Policy needed to recognise such trade-offs and 
give  support,  time  and  flexibility  to  enable  the  “losers”  to  adjust  to  the  new 
circumstances.  

6.6.  Policy strategies and policy instruments for resource efficiency 

The  interviews  explored  in  some  detail  the  key  policy  approaches  and  strategies,  as 
well as more specific policy instruments that are likely to play a role in moving the EU 
towards  greater  resource  efficiency.  Policy  strategies,  which  showed  some  diversity, 
were favoured not only for their effectiveness but also for their feasibility in terms of 
gaining support from stakeholders.  

It was noted that voluntary approaches have proven effective and generally raise less 
opposition.  As  noted  above,  action  through  the  supply  chain  is  an  example  of  a 
voluntary approach that was cited by a number of interviewees as very transformative 
and  effective.  In  fact,  a  number  of  MSs  have  adopted  very  successful  pilot 
programmes to promote supply chain collaboration. In most cases these programmes 
do not only address environmental/resource efficiency issues but also aspects such as 
material  quality,  knowledge  transfers  and  labour  conditions.  Government,  or  trusted 
independent actors, can play a very relevant role facilitating this kind of supply chain 
collaboration.    A  number  of  initiatives  related  to  the  food  supply  chain  have  been 
undertaken  in,  for  example,  the  Netherlands  or  the  UK  with  very  positive  outcomes. 
Supply  chain  actions  can  contribute  to  creating  a  safe  space  for  pre-competitive 
collaboration  that  enables  the  testing  of  innovative  initiatives  and  new  approaches. 
Given  the  global  character  of  supply  chains  and  the  high  integration  of  EU  markets, 
initiatives of this kind at the EU level could be very successful. Voluntary agreements 
at  the  sectoral  level,  where  targets  and  timelines  are  collaboratively  agreed  between 
industries  and  government,  but  there  is  flexibility  with  regards  to  the  specific  mix  of 
instruments to achieve those targets, have also proven effective. Examples of effective 
implementation  of  these  types  of  instruments  may  be  found  in  the  Netherlands  and 
Finland. 

Most  of  the  interviewees,  though,  recognised  that  soft  approaches  and  instruments 
may  not  be  sufficient  to  achieve  transformational  change  in  resource  efficiency.  The 
need to change taxation systems was again highlighted as an effective policy strategy, 
while  respondents  acknowledged  the  difficulty  for  the  EU  to  play  a  role  in  this  area, 
with  the  need  for  MS  unanimity  providing  a  formidable  barrier  to  the  viability  of  any 
EU-wide proposal. However, the EU could perhaps play a more active role by making 
recommendations  through  the  European  Semester  and  also  through  the  provision  of 
guidance and support to front-runners. The role of economic  incentives, such as VAT 
reductions  or  tax  allowances,  has  also  been  highlighted  as  a  powerful  financial 
instrument to help open new niches, promote innovation and help rolling out emerging 
technologies.  

Other  strategies  suggested  by  the  interviewees  were  the  sharing  of  best  practices 
among  MSs,  sustainable  sourcing  approaches  linked  to  supply  chain  initiatives,  and 
adopting resource efficiency criteria for access to EU funding.  

April 2015  25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

At  the  level  of  more  specific  instruments,  interview  respondents  mentioned  the 
following as among the more promising to improve resource efficiency:  

- 

- 

Product  passports  that  provide  details  about  the  material  composition  of  products  and 
offers information for its repairing and recovering of materials; 
Financial instruments, both in the form of taxes or levies on materials and in the form of 
incentives  such  as  VAT  reduction  for  recycled  or  remanufactured  products,  or  tax 
allowances  for  cleaner  technologies.  While  taxes  may  be  politically  more  contested, 
incentives could play an important role and have positive effects on innovation, although, 
of course, they have to be financed by taxes elsewhere. 

-  Disclosure of non-financial information by businesses; 
- 

Extended  Producer  Responsibility  (EPR)  could  be  enhanced  to  better  reward  eco-design, 
through  the  implementation  of  modular  fees.  Case  studies,  though,  suggest  that  it  is 
extremely difficult to calculate the extent of fee modulation and the criteria to define it. 
The implementation of EPR has been very varied across MSs, with reports of considerable 
complexity  in  the  implementation  of  different  schemes.  Lack  of  harmonisation  may 
become  an  obstacle  for  companies  operated  in  a  number  of  MSs.  To  avoid  this, 
modulation  criteria  should  be  defined  at  the  EU  level.  Other  potential  challenges  come 
from a focus on the inputs of the recycling processes rather than the outputs from it, an 
issue that relates to the quality of recycling and the production of recyclates of adequate 
quality to substitute for primary resources.  
Stimulating  markets  for  green  products  through  initiatives  such  as  environmental 
footprint indicators for products. Some interviewees pointed to the need to ensure that 
the footprint indicators are useful and meaningful for companies, and propose a hotspot-
focused approach to reduce the burden of compliance while ensuring impact; The single 
market for green products is currently implemented only in BtoB, where it seems to have 
yielded  some  positive  outcomes,  while  communicating  footprints  effectively  to  final 
consumers  can  be  extremely  difficult  and  some  businesses  have  expressed  concerns 
regarding  the  disclosure  of  environmental  information  to  consumer.    The  product 
test 
environmental 
communication both at the BtoB and BtoC levels. 
Informative instruments and networking tools for the manufacturing base to understand 
material flows. 
The  power  of  activity  licenses  to  close  the  cycle  of  materials  in  something  raised  by  a 
number  of  interviewees.  Although  the  competences  of  the  EU  on  this  area  are  limited, 
more could be done to strengthen the role of material cycles and systems in the process 
of licensing activities. Approaches such as industrial symbiosis could be promoted through 
a better understanding of the industrial metabolism of a region and the synergies that can 
be created.   

footprint  pilot  project,  which 

is  currently  underway,  will 

- 

- 

- 

6.7.  The circular economy package 

The withdrawal of the Circular Economy package by the Commission during the course 
of  the  research  introduced  an  interesting  shift  of  focus  from  gathering  views  on 
whether  the  former  package  provided  an  adequate  framework  for  resource  efficiency 
strategies  to  collating  views  on  what  new  package  should  look  like  to  adequately 
respond to resource efficiency challenges faced by Europe.  

April 2015  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

The next two sections provide some insights on the limitations of the previous package 
and what would stakeholders like to see in the new package. 

6.7.1 The former circular economy package 

Interviewees were asked for their views on the former circular economy package and 
whether  it  defined  a  comprehensive  agenda  for  resource  efficiency.  The  views  of  the 
respondents were diverse. While some of them recognised that it may provide a useful 
framework  for  advancing  in  this  area,  some  considered  it  insufficient  to  tackle  the 
challenges ahead. Even those who supported the package on general terms pointed to 
a  number  of  possible  gaps  or  problems.  One  common  view  was  that  the  package 
focuses  too  much  on  waste  and  recycling,  while  approaches  to  actually  prevent 
resources  being  wasted  were  insufficiently  addressed.  Although  recognising  the 
practical difficulties in measuring and defining targets for waste prevention, a number 
of  interviewees  thought  that  it  should  have  been  more  of  a  priority.  The  notion  of 
“preparing  to  reuse”  is  also  insufficiently  addressed  in  the  package  and,  more 
generally,  in  the  waste  framework  regulation.  As  it  stands  now,  there  are  no  actual 
incentives for MSs to act on reuse, partly at least because it is actually very difficult to 
account for something that has not yet become waste. The package has maintained a 
strong  traditional  focus  on  recycling  of  materials  rather  than  on  prevention,  reuse  or 
redesign to reduce the occurrence of waste in the first instance.  

Hence,  interviewees  pointed  to  the  need  to  shift  the  approach  from  waste  to  the 
product  design  and  the  supply  chain,  which  is  where  much  of  the  value-added  for 
businesses  resides  and  where  more  important  savings  can  be  made.  The  package 
needed  a  stronger  focus  on  eco-design,  life  cycle  assessment,  supply  chain 
management  and  new  business  models.  However,  in  general,  the  view  of  the 
interviewees was that the withdrawal of the circular economy package have created a 
sense of uncertainty and discontinuity and could act to undermine perceptions of the 
importance and relevance of resource efficiency. Even those who see withdrawal of the 
package  as  an  opportunity  to  create  an  improved  package  have  concerns  related  to 
possible delays and the perception of discontinuity this may bring. 

6.7.2 A ‘more ambitious’ circular economy package  

In  the  light  of  the  limitations  of  previous  package,  interviewees  identified  key  pillars 
for  a  new  CE  package,  as  shown  in  figure  5  below,  with  each  pillar  discussed  in  the 
text that follows. 

April 2015  27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Figure 5: Key potential pillars of the new circular economy package 

ENABLING POLICY FRAMEWORK  

There were different interpretations as to what would be the main components of the enabling 
policy framework required for the transition towards more circular models of production and 
consumption,  but  in  most  cases  interviewees  pointed  to  the  need  to  better  integrate  the 
‘polluter pays principle’ mainly through economic instruments. They also pointed to the notions 
of ‘soft law’ and smarter regulation, involving the modernisation and simplification of regulations 
to reduce the costs of compliance and monitoring, and the adoption of flexible standards, which 
provide some room for innovation and encourage the development of bottom-up initiatives, such 
as  industrial  symbiosis.  It  also  alludes  to  multi-stakeholder  dialogue  (e.g.  round  tables),  more 
emphasis on certification routes with accreditation at the EU level to facilitate, for example, the 
development of end-of-waste criteria, and testing for pollution to guarantee safety of secondary 
materials and a transition from the concept of waste to that of cascade of resources.    

The enabling policy framework also considers changes in taxation systems, with a shift 
from  labour  to  material  taxation.  The  interviewees,  though,  recognised  that  although 
green  tax  reform  offers  a  transformative  potential,  implementation  is  extremely 
complex  and  politically  difficult  to  negotiate.  The  European  Semester  is  seen  as 
potentially  having  an  important  role  to  play  in  guiding  tax  reforms.  Fiscal  measures 
can  also  be  implemented  to  incentivise  repair  and  reuse  and/or  product  design,  e.g. 
incentive  schemes  or  VAT  reductions.  Finally,  better  enforcement  of  policies  and 
monitoring of compliance are required to contribute to a level-playing field and ensure 
adoption of best practices in the implementation of EU regulation.   

LIFE CYCLE THINKING AND SUSTAINABLE VALUE CHAIN APPROACH 

April 2015  28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

One element that was emphasised by both policy makers and businesses interviewed 
is the need to adopt a life cycle approach to material use, which would contribute to 
an improved understanding of the environmental implications of material use, not only 
in the production and consumption phase but also in the end-of-life phase. Life cycle 
thinking  is  also  well  aligned  with  a  supply  chain  approach  that  considers  the 
implications  of  the  whole  material  cycle,  from  the  sourcing  of  materials  (e.g. 
sustainable  sourcing  of  raw  materials),  manufacturing  and  production,  consumption 
and  use,  and  the  final  reuse,  recycling  or  disposal/  recovery  of  materials.  The 
interviewees  suggested  that  the new  package  should  thus  shift the focus  from waste 
to the entire material cycle. The adoption of a supply chain approach in design policies 
aligns  well  with  the  way  businesses  operate  and  may  create  positive  interactions 
between business and policy strategies. 

The  full  life  cycle  and  supply  chain  approach  require  a  combination  of  policy 
instruments  or  policy  mixes  that  work  at  different  stages  of  the  material  cycle.  This 
requires an overarching framework that ensures that all instruments work in the same 
direction,  and  intense  dialogue  across  all  stakeholders  involved  in  the  supply  chain. 
Instruments  primarily  based  on  voluntary  standards  can  operate  at  the  raw  material 
sourcing phase, while product design and extended producer responsibility (EPR) may 
cover  the  production-consumption  phase  and  extend  to  the  end-of-life  stage. 
Reporting  and  labelling  may  also  be  employed  for  the  use  phase  to  provide 
information to help consumers to make sustainable choices, while waste regulation is 
also required to cover the end of life phase. Value chain approaches may also consider 
the  introduction  of  incentives  or  market-based  instruments  for  circular  economy 
business models that prolong the use life of products/components and materials. Such 
models  include  remanufacturing,  the  share  economy  and  urban  mining  approaches 
(including  seabed  mining,  Rare  Earth  Oxides  mining).  Aligning  instruments  along  the 
supply  chain  provides  policy  coherence  with  the  business  process  and  consistency 
between policy instruments.   

CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF INCENTIVES AND REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES 

The  next  pillar  would  be  the  creation  of  market  incentives  to  use  resources  more 
efficiently  and  the  removal  of  obstacles  to  resource  efficiency.  Tax  reforms  would 
significantly contribute to change the structure of incentive towards more cyclical use 
of resources. Incentives for the use of secondary materials can also contribute to the 
creation of markets and reduce dependence on primary raw materials.  

The creation of incentives for circular models of resource use needs to be accompanied 
by the removal of obstacles to resource efficiency. This includes the unsolved issue of 
‘environmentally harmful subsidies’, but interviewees also pointed to concrete barriers 
such  as  accounting  and  depreciation  rules  that  may  create  obstacles  for  the 
development  of  performance-based  models  or  add  to  the  administrative  burden 
associated  with  the  use  of  waste  streams  as  a  resource.  In  the  latter  case,  end-of-
waste criteria can play a role together with instruments such as certifications.  

ECOINNOVATION AND NEW BUSINESS MODELS  

Eco-innovation  has  been  identified  as  the  fourth  potential  pillar  of  the  new  circular 
economy  package.  Technological  innovation  but  also  organisational  and  system 

April 2015  29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

innovation  has  been  highlighted  by  policy-makers  as  a  key  component  of  the 
transition  to  circular  economy  models.  There  is  an  important  potential  for  generating 
economies  of  scale  of  innovation  across  Europe  but  this  requires  further  efforts  to 
facilitate cooperation and knowledge transfer. This is an area where the role of the EU 
may be of special relevance, as it can foster exchange of information, knowledge and 
best practices. Interviewees pointed to the need to provide support to dissemination of 
eco-innovations  and  also  adopt  more  flexible  regulatory  approaches  (soft  law)  to 
create  room  for  experimentation.  Interviewees  provided  examples  were  waste 
regulations create obstacles for alternative ways of using waste as a resource.  

In  terms  of  product  innovation, the  top-runner  approach  was  considered  a  good  way 
to  foster  eco-innovation  and  also  to  create  incentives  for  European  firms  but  also 
importers  to  improve  the  performance  of  products.  Industrial  symbiosis  also  offers 
potential  to  identify  how  to  make  better  use  of  underutilised  resources,  and  can  be 
integrated  with  planning  and  licensing  processes.  There  is  also  a  role  for  the  EU  to 
subsidize risky R&D that has the potential to bring systemic change.  

CREATE A GOVERNANCE SYSTEM 

The  fifth  pillar  indicated  by  the  interviewees  is  the  creation  of  a  governance  system 
that  provides  an  overarching  policy  framework  for  resource  efficiency,  which  could 
operate  in  a  similar  way  to  that  created  for  energy  and  climate  change,  providing  a 
clear  policy  horizon  and  enhancing  consistency  between  policy  and  instruments.  This 
would  be  accompanied  by  the  definition  of  a  system  of  indicators  that  could  monitor 
progress  towards  resource  efficiency  and  the  circular  economy,  that  would  also 
integrate issues of supply security linked to the raw material initiative agenda.  

While  the  creating  of  a  system  of  indicators  is  deemed  necessary  to  monitor  the 
resource  trajectory  and  impact  of  policies,  the  definition  of  targets  was  a  debated 
issue.    Some  interviewees  strongly  believed  that  a  binding  target  set  at  the  EU  level 
was necessary to ensure progress and commitment, while others strongly opposed an 
EU-wide  binding  target.    A  non-binding  target  that  provides  reference  is  something 
that was in most cases accepted as a compromise solution. 

6.7.3  Insights  from  MSs:  what  MSs  would  like  to  see  in  a  new  circular 
economy package 

This section collects the views and insights of what a small sample of MSs would like 
to  see  in  the  new  circular  economy  package.  We  invited  MSs  that  took  part  in  the 
initial  research  to  provide  a  brief  text  of  what  they  would  like  to  see  in  a  ‘more 
ambitious’  circular  economy  package.  The  five  pillars  approach  proposed  above  is 
reflected in these contributions.  

BOX 1: THE NETHERLANDS 
The  transition  towards  a  Circular  Economy  is  expected  to  anticipate  the  ecological  challenges  of  the 
21stcentury  related  to  natural  resource  degradation  and  climate  change.  A  key  strategy  to  achieve  this 
transition  is  resource  productivity,  which  also  creates  economic  opportunities  and  offers  solutions  to  deal 
with  (supply  chain)  risk  management.  The  Circular  Economy  Package  thus  contributes  to  our  society’s 
resilience and the competitiveness of Europe’s industry. 

April 2015  30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

With  this  position  paper,  the  Netherlands  wishes  to  provide  input  for  the  new  proposal  for  a  Circular 
Economy  Package,  in  response  to  the  European  Commission’s  announcement  to  publish  a  new  and  more 
ambitious proposal. The Netherlands consider this is an opportunity to improve and strengthen the package 
by  addressing  aspects  that  were  previously  insufficiently  addressed,  and  to  develop  a  more  integrated 
approach  of  the  European  policy  for  circular  economy,  security  of  supply  of  critical  raw  materials  and 
resource efficiency. The Netherlands therefore welcomes a broader and more ambitious proposal by the end 
of  the  year,  in  which  key  elements  of  the  current  proposal  are  likely  to  return  and  which  incorporates  the 
milestones  of  the  Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe,  as  well  as  the  Raw  Materials  Initiative. The 
transition  towards  a  circular  economy  demands  a  system  change  of  technical,  institutional  and  cultural 
transformation. It requires a holistic and integrated policy framework that triggers capacity building for both 
technological  and  non-technological  research,  development  and  innovations.  Such  a  framework  should  be 
accompanied  by  clear  and  consistent  legislation  to  enable  public  and  private  actors  across  the  EU  to 
implement  resource-productive  strategies  for  the  future,  and  plan  and  decide  on  long-term  investments 
focusing  on  sustainable  materials  sourcing,  sustainable  production  (Ecodesign,  remanufacturing), 
sustainable consumption, waste prevention, reuse and recycling and security of supply. 

The following describes the initial vision of the Netherlands regarding the main elements for a new Circular 
Economy package. The elements are discussed in order of 1) what aspects the package should address (the 
what),  2)  using  which  policy  instruments  they  should  be  addressed  (the  how),  and  finally  3)  how  we  will 
ensure  progress.  The  Netherlands  would  furthermore  like  to  offer  the  Commission  support  in  the 
development of the new package and would be pleased to elaborate on the elements presented below and 
share and discuss further ideas. 

1.    The Circular Economy Package should address the entire circle 

For a transition to a circular economy a wide array of measures is needed throughout the entire circle, from 
the  extraction  of  raw  materials  to  recycling.  Therefore,  besides  proposals  to  improve  waste  management, 
the  Package  should  also  include  proposals  for  sustainable  sourcing,  waste  prevention  and  reuse,  and 
resource security. 

1.1.  Sustainable Sourcing 

Natural  capital  forms  the  foundation  for  all  economic  activity.  To  limit  the  environmental  impact  on 
ecosystems  and  ensure  sustainable  supply,  it  is  therefore  essential  to  stimulate  sustainable  trade  and  the 
market  for  sustainable  primary  resources.  This  can  be  achieved  by  developing  standards  for  sustainable 
sourcing  of  raw  materials  and  by  facilitating  public  private  partnerships,  multi-stakeholder  schemes  and 
supply chain initiatives (such as the Sustainable Trade Initiative). 

1.2.  Sustainable Production and Consumption 

-        Improving the sustainability and resource-efficiency of product design. The Package should introduce 
proposals  for  broadening  the  Ecodesign  Directive  and  include  dynamic  product  standards  for  all  products 
with  environmental  impact,  not  only  energy  consuming  appliances.  In  addition,  the  Ecodesign  Directive 
should  aim  to  improve  material  efficiency  as  well,  addressing  aspects  such  as  reusability,  reparability, 
recyclability, recycled content, recoverability, upgradeability and durability of products. 

-        Better  integrated  product  policy.  Based  on  past  experiences,  the  new  Circular  Economy  package 
should identify ways to enhance, streamline and optimize the current set of instruments to provide a more 
integrated  and  coherent  European  policy  framework  for  more  sustainable  products  that  have  a  lower 
ecological footprint. 

-        Improving transparency in the market for sustainable products and services (incl. maintenance, reuse 
and refurbishment activities). This means ambitious follow-up on the Communication on a Single Market for 
Green  Products  and  further  development  of  the  Product  and  Organisation  Environmental  Footprinting 
project, to harmonise sustainability labels, improve consumer communication and prevent misleading green 
claims. 

-        Stimulate more sustainable consumption patterns: consumers are key to a socio-economic transition. 
The  Circular  Economy  Package  should  also  strive  to  enable  consumers  and  producers  to  make  better 
choices,  resulting  in  a  higher  demand  for  sustainable  products,  an  increase  in  sustainable  lifestyles  and 
sustainable  diets,  and  consequently  a  race-to-the-top  in  the  supply  side  of  the  market  by  companies. 
Furthermore, public authorities also play an important part through sustainable procurement. Assessment of 
consumption patterns in relation to sustainability should therefore be stimulated and harmonized. 

1.3.  Improving Waste Management 

April 2015  31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Waste legislation is an integral part of the Circular Economy package. The current framework is however not 
entirely suitable to stimulate the transition towards a circular economy and can be improved in many ways. 
Besides  raising  the  ambition  level,  important  elements  include  clear  and  harmonized  definitions  (e.g. 
municipal  waste,  food  waste),  improved  monitoring  and  reporting,  extended  producer  responsibility  and 
easier international transport of (safe) secondary materials. 

A new approach to the concept of ‘waste’ is needed to facilitate private initiatives based on the philosophy 
‘from  waste  to  resource’.  Production  residues  should  in  some  cases  be  qualified  as  by-products  or  as  a 
resource for new products instead of waste (e.g. animal by-products), and for certain waste streams end-of-
waste criteria should be developed (with environmental protection and public safety in mind). The practical 
implementation of waste legislation can  more effectively be based on the actual risk of illegal disposal. The 
legislative  framework  should  encourage  more  re-use  and  ‘upcycling’  (high  quality  recycling)  instead  of 
‘downcycling’  and  incineration.  Furthermore,  as  in  the  recent  waste  package  it  should  strive  to  eliminate 
the land  filling  of  recyclable  materials.  In  revising  the  waste  legislation,  sufficient  consideration  should 
given  to  relating  policy  domains,  such  as  REACH,  renewable  energy,  fertilizers,  animal  feed  and  animal 
byproducts, in order to ensure policy coherence. 

1.4.  Resource security 

For  the  EU  to  become  more  resource  independent,  it  is  necessary  to  identify  resource  vulnerabilities,  limit 
the  exposure  to  risks  of  supply  and  increase  resource  efficiency.  The  existing  EU  policies  for  resources, 
mainly  1)  circular  economy  (e.g.  the  Circular  Economy  package  and  the  Bioeconomy  for  Europe),  2) 
resource  efficiency  (e.g.  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe)  and  3)  resource  security  (e.g.  the  Raw  Materials 
Initiative), are currently insufficiently integrated.  Streamlining industrial policy within other EU policies is of 
pivotal  importance,  to  raise  productivity,  integrity  and  sustainability  of  the  EU  industry.  Streamlining  and 
incorporating industrial policy with  Resource efficiency and a circular economy is therefore of key interest. 
The Netherlands believes that an appropriate integration of these policies could enable them to act mutually 
reinforcing,  allow  the  potential  of  a  circular  economy  to  accelerate  the  desired  industrial  revolution,  and 
secure  and  strengthen  the  EU’s  competitive  position.  For  instance,  the  Netherlands  is  carrying  out  a 
quantitative analysis on supply vulnerabilities of certain metals and minerals as well as biotic resources, in 
order to relate these to opportunities for recycling and resource efficiency. 

2.    The  Circular  Economy  Package  should  introduce  market  incentives  and  remove  regulatory 
barriers for sustainable innovations 

The  transition  towards  a  circular  economy  requires  a  major  role  to  be  played  by  the  private  sector  and 
creates  opportunities  for  business  development  and  thus  green  growth.  To  facilitate  the  private  sector  in 
taking  its  part  an  enabling  environment  should  be  created  for  research  and  development  and  innovation, 
through  directed  funding,  but  also  for  wide  scale  implementation  through  smarter  regulation,  and 
application of the notion ‘the polluter pays’. 

2.1.  Stimulate investments in innovation and new business models 

A  new  package  should  encourage  mainstream  adoption  of  best  available  practices  and  circular  business 
models. Frontrunners should be promoted, while companies that lag behind should be pushed to improve. It 
should  therefore  include  proposals  to  introduce  new,  and  redirect  existing  EU  instruments,  funds  and 
subsidies in order to stimulate investment in sustainable innovation and new business models. For instance 
through a new system of dynamic standard-setting regularly adapted to proven best practices for products 
and processes, avoiding lock-in at previous levels of environmental performance (e.g. Japanese Top-Runner 
approach  and  other  examples).  Knowledge  and  experience  on  best  practices  should  be  disseminated  by 
promoting  shared  learning  among  companies,  establishing  knowledge  platforms  and  encouraging  multi-
stakeholder  alliances.  These  should  also  address  resource  vulnerabilities  to  ensure  the  EU’s  resource 
independence.  Lastly,  sufficient  EU  funds  and  subsidies  should  be  available  for  societally  challenging  and 
economically  risky  R&D  with  high  potential  for  system  changes  towards  circularity  and  sustainability,  but 
also for market introduction and up scaling of sustainable innovations. 

investments 

incentivize  sustainable 

2.2.  Price incentives and tax reform 
To 
the 
is  essential 
financial/economic  system  and  accordingly  create  a  level  playing  field.  For  instance  by  phasing  out 
environmentally harmful subsidies (e.g. for fossil fuels) and by internalizing environmental costs in primary 
production.  Reuse  and  recycling  (the  secondary  materials  market)  can  also  be  stimulated  through  market 
based instruments. 
Regarding  environmental  tax  reform,  the  Commission  is  invited  to  support  and  work  with  progressive 
Member  states  on   the  shift  of  taxes  from  labor  to  energy  and  resources.  For  instance,  by  facilitating  

incorporate  external  costs 

into 

to 

it 

April 2015  32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

cooperation  between  Member  States  and  encouraging  Member  States  to  implement  green  taxes  (e.g.  on 
fossil fuels). 

2.3.  Removing EU-wide barriers and regulatory obstacles 
The current EU regulatory framework does not always take into account innovations and new developments. 
Frontrunners and circular business cases are sometimes hampered by regulatory constraints. By identifying 
and  addressing  these  obstacles,  by  developing  smart  and  result-oriented  regulation  and  by  creating  room 
for experimentation, a  more  enabling environment  is created for innovative companies. Modernization and 
simplification  of  EU  regulations  are  needed  to  ease  the  administrative  burden  for  companies.  A  critical 
assessment is also needed of obstacles created by existing regulation other than waste, for instance certain 
sectoral legislation which cause entry barriers for new products and applications (e.g. REACH; Novel foods 
regulation; Fertilizer Regulation, Nitrates directive; Hygiene Regulations). 

3.    Governance system based on monitoring and reporting 

Along the lines of what will become the governance system of the 2030 Climate and Energy framework, the 
transition  to  a  circular  economy  would  also  need  an  integrated  governance  and  monitoring  process  to 
ensure  that  all  policies  and  measures  at  European,  regional,  national  and  local  level  contribute  to  the  set 
objectives. This governance system should: 

-        Adjust policies, measures and actions for circular economy in an overarching framework, resulting in 
long-term policy coherence and providing investors long term certainty. 

-        Secure  delivery  on  existing  and  new  targets  for  recycling  and  other  aspects  that  facilitate  the 
transition to a circular economy. 

-        Identify  and  assess  resource  vulnerabilities  (metals  and  minerals  as  well  as  biotic  resources)  and 
establish appropriate options to ensure sustainable resource security. 

-        Keep track of progress through an appropriate system of existing and new monitoring and reporting 
activities  and  using  appropriate  and  comprehensive  indicators  which  reflect  the  true  environmental  impact 
of resources used (including land, water and CO2 emissions). 

Note:  within  the  current  framework  of  the  European  Semester  green  growth  is  addressed  using  the  2020 
objectives  for  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  an  increased  share  of  renewable  energy  and 
increased energy efficiency. To ensure continuity of the 2020 framework, the Netherlands believes that for 
the period up  to 2020 it is important to continue with these  three objectives. However in light of the EU’s 
efforts  to  become  more  resource  independent  and  to  initiate  the  transition  to  a  circular  economy,  in  the 
European  Semester  more  attention  and  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  sustainability  and  resource 
productivity. In due time (for the period beyond 2020) the European Semester should be adjusted to reflect 
the actual way the economy developing and the relevance of green growth. This should be accomplished by 
generating  more  information  on  the  use  of  natural  resources,  their  vulnerability  and  their  environmental 
impact.  An  appropriate  set  of  indicators  should  be  developed  to  enable  a  better  insight  into  the  progress 
made on green growth. 

BOX 2: ENGLAND 
We feel that the guiding considerations for the development of more ambitious proposals should be to:  

1) Seek greater resource efficiency, reduce reliance on virgin materials and keep materials in circulation;  

2) Reduce complexity and ensure that measures are complementary not contradictory or duplicative;  

3)  Adopt  a  holistic  approach  to  developing  the  new  circular  economy  package  as  a  whole  -  the  impact  of  waste  prevention  actions 
needs to be taken into account in considering the “waste part of the circle”;  

4)  Maintain  the  integrity  of  the  EU  single  market  and  support  measures  to  deliver  growth  and  innovation,  avoiding  and  where 
appropriate reducing burdens on business, especially SMEs;  

5) Respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality but also recognise when EU action is needed, to provide long term visions, 
harmonise policy frameworks where needed and ensure exchanges of best practice - essentially to create enablers at EU level, but to 
also;  

6) Allow Member States freedom to act in the most economically and environmentally advantageous way.  

April 2015  33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

The following ideas for measures to achieve these high level goals are ones we would want to see examined 
in the context of these considerations. They are drawn from our own thinking, from our discussions with a 
range of stakeholders and with other Member States and Commission officials. 
The  types  of  measures  set  out  below  should  not  be  seen  as  agreed  UK  policy  but  rather  be  viewed  as 
constructive  ideas  intended  to  stimulate  debate  on  what  activities  might  best  be  pursued  at  an  EU  level. 
Measures considered should be tested against the guiding considerations identified above. We believe that 
actions focused on design and innovation; smarter regulation; overcoming barriers to recycling and re-use 
(including how waste is defined and regulated); exploring how we can stimulate new business models; and 
the  scope  for  public  procurement,  in  partnership  with  private  sector  buyers,  to  stimulate  the  market  for 
remanufactured/reused goods, offer real potential for collective action by Member States.  

1) Establishing an enabling policy framework – As in the Communication, this should combine smarter 
regulation,  market-based  instruments,  research  and  innovation,  incentives,  measures  of  performance, 
information exchange and support for voluntary approaches.  

2) Design and innovation - including:  

(cid:31) More coherent product policy: by consolidating and ensuring consistency among existing instruments 
(e.g. ecodesign, ecolabel) and closing loopholes.  

(cid:31) Create incentives and remove regulatory barriers for innovative business models: for example Product 
Service Systems (PSS), in which high turn-over products are leased rather than sold; Industrial Symbiosis, 
in  which  one  business’  waste  is  another’s  resource;  guidance  to  encourage  and  streamline  Extended 
Producer Responsibility schemes.  

(cid:31)  Better,  more  sustainable,  design  which  promotes  growth  in  the  reparability  and  re-use  sector,  and 
increases the use of recycled materials through: developing EU guidance; examining where the barriers to 
collaboration sit and how these might be addressed; and raising awareness through training and education. 

(cid:31) Promote circular innovation through collaborative R&D. We have been working with DG Research 
and  Innovation  to  identify  opportunities  for  this  through  programmes  such  as  Horizon  2020.  We  would 
welcome the opportunity to share further learning.  

3) Harnessing action by business and consumers and supporting SMEs  

Better information has a key role to play:  

(cid:31) Establish a European network to exchange good practice, standardise approaches and develop guidance, 
e.g. on life cycle costing methodologies and use of labels;  

(cid:31) Informative instruments and networking tools for the manufacturing base to understand material flows;  

(cid:31) Guidelines to encourage collaboration across businesses without breaching EU competition rules (e.g. to 
allow for collaboration in the pre-competitive space), to help facilitate action on Voluntary Agreements. 

(cid:31) Preventing unnecessary burdens on SMEs is key: we should take risk-based approaches to new burdens, 
seek to reduce burdens where possible and simplify reporting.  

4) Modernising waste policy: waste as a resource  

We believe that targets should only be proposed when there is clear and robust evidence of their net social 
and economic benefits to the EU and its Member States.  
We support the Commission in their aim to take a holistic approach to developing the new circular economy 
package. This should critically examine the efficiency and efficacy of the target architecture across 
the circular economy proposals, as a whole.  

We  would  like  the  Commission  to  focus  on  measures  necessary  to  meet  the  twin  objectives  of  improving 
resource  efficiency  and  keeping  materials  in  circulation,  thereby  prioritising  actions  to  prevent  materials 
becoming waste. Interventions on waste necessarily need to take into account the consequences of actions 
proposed to prevent waste. If targets relating to the management of materials once they become waste are 
considered  necessary,  these  should  work  together,  and  avoid  duplication,  complexity,  and  incentivising 
unintended  outcomes  with  respect  to  these  twin  objectives.  The  ambitious  challenge  is  to  meet  our 

April 2015  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

environmental  objectives  in  a  way  which  also  promotes  growth  and  jobs,  by  devising  a  simple  structure 
which  gives  high  level  direction  while  leaving  discretion  to  Member  States  and  businesses  in  how  best  to 
meet these requirements.  

The economic benefits of valuing waste as a resource are potentially huge. UK research estimates that the 
core  waste  sector  generated  £6.8bn  (€9.2bn)  in  gross  value  added  (GVA)  and  supported  103,000  jobs  in 
2013 in the UK alone. By removing barriers to repair, re-use and leasing activity that help extend the life of 
products,  the  contribution  to  the  economy  could  be  much  greater.  Data  for  2013  suggest  that  the 
contribution  of  this  sector  could  have  been  as  high  as  £41bn  (€55bn)  to  approximate  GVA  (aGVA)  and 
672,000 jobs in the UK.  

Within  the  context  of  the  approaches  above,  we  feel  that  the  Commission  should  therefore  examine  the 
opportunities to:  

(cid:31) Allow Member States to incentivise greater repair, reuse, remanufacturing and recyclability, and recycled 
content in specified products, in product design and remanufacture through: guidelines or a new approach 
to  the  current  EU  definition  of  waste  which  would  promote  greater  re-use  while  continuing  to  ensure 
effective regulation; and seeking flexibility in existing EU structures to make more instruments available to 
Member States.  

(cid:31) Develop guidance to encourage and streamline Extended Producer Responsibility schemes;  

(cid:31) Encourage Member States to use public procurement to stimulate the market, in conjunction with private 
sector buyers where appropriate, for reused/remanufactured and recycled content in specified goods:  

‘The  Next  Manufacturing  Revolution’  report  estimates  that  the  potential  benefit  of  remanufacturing,  for  3 
key  sectors,  could  be  in  the  region  of  £5.6bn-£8bn  (€7.6bn-€10.8bn)  a  year  in  increased  profitability, 
excluding initial capital outlay.  

A  joint  report  by  the  All  Party  Parliamentary  Groups  for  Sustainable  Resource  and  for  Manufacturing 
identified other sectors with potential for growth in reuse and remanufacture, including electrical appliances, 
white goods, paints and chemicals, post-industrial and pre-consumer textiles, and carpet flooring.  

BOX 3: FRANCE 

France regrets that the first “circular economy” package has been withdrawn. In this context, the preparation of a new package should 
be an opportunity to expand the scope of the package and to increase its ambition.  

It could consist of the following actions:  

1) A legislative proposal related to «sustainable production and consumption»: 

Such  a  framework  text  would  allow  a  better  coordination  between  the  policies  on  waste  and  on  sustainable  consumption  and 
production. This would enable to close the loop of the “circular economy” by creating true EU market dynamics for recycled products 
and materials: 

- A non-discrimination of recycled materials and products 

- Requirements for public procurement to drive the demand for sustainable products (and notably criteria on the incorporation of 
recycled materials)  

- Extend the lifetime of products. This requires actions at EU level, for instance: display of the product lifetime, display of the time 
availability  of  spare  parts,  promotion  of  the  repair  sector,  prohibition  of  planned  obsolescence,  promotion  of  longer  warranties, 
promotion of eco-design fostering the extension of product lifetime. 

- Combat food waste.  

2)  Amending  the  ecodesign  directive:  France  is  favourable  that  the  ecodesign  directive  incorporates  a  more  "circular  economy" 
dimension  in  order  to  define,  where  possible,  minimum  requirements  related  to  resource  efficiency  and  the  circular  economy 
(integration of recycled materials, recyclability, reparability, product lifetime..). 

April 2015  35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

3) Extending the scope of the waste framework directive (WFD) to facilitate “circular economy”: in addition to the progress of the 
Council  work,  France  would  be  favourable  to  the  “de-compartmentalisation”  of  the  WFD.  To  this  end,  it  should  fully  take  into 
consideration  the  concept  of  “circular  economy”,  and  the  promotion  of  industrial  ecology  by  presenting  waste  policy  as  a  pillar  of 
“circular economy” policy; it should cover all types of waste (including industrial); and should harmonise issues of waste status and end 
of waste status. 

4)  Furthermore,  it  would  be  appropriate  to  further  develop  the  life  cycle  approach  in  product  policies,  including  the  definition  of 
harmonized  methodologies  for  assessing  the  environmental  performance  of  products.  France  supports  the  Commission’s  pilot  on 
product environmental footprint (PEF) and its communication.  

5)  Waste  prevention.  France  considers  that  prevention  is  legitimate  to  be  detailed  in  the  WFD  in  that  it  is  at  the  top  of  the  waste 
hierarchy. It is therefore quite normal to require Member States to implement preventive measures. However, France is not convinced 
of the relevance of an annual reporting to the extent that the effectiveness of a preventive measure can only be measured over time 
(let alone the bureaucracy of such reporting). 

7. The business perspective 

7.1.  Business and the Resource Efficiency Agenda 
Businesses are critical to the delivery of a resource-efficient Europe.  Not only do they 
control  the  resource  extraction  and  use  that  takes  place  to  create  the  economy’s 
infrastructure,  goods  and  services,  they  also  influence  the  way  in  which  consumers 
use  resources  as  they  interact  with  those  goods  and  services  through  their  design. 
Businesses  may  be  thought  of  as  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the  system,  as  reactive 
agents  that  respond  to  regulatory  and  policy  frameworks  applied  at  the  national  and 
EU  level,  and  also  react  to  consumer  demand.  However,  businesses  may  also  be 
thought  of  as  proactive  agents  in  the  system.  Working  with  policymakers  as  part  of 
the  governance  system,  as  implementers  and  advisors,  and  influencers  of  consumer 
behaviour by providing goods and marketing that can shift their buying practices. As 
outlined earlier in this report, the European Commission has taken a strong stance on 
resource efficiency and businesses will need to be willing and able parts of the system 
to deliver it. 

Availability  of  resources  is  a  key  issue  for  businesses  in  the  EU,  not  just  due  to 
technical  constraints,  but  also  due  to  geopolitical  issues  such  as  export  restrictions, 
threatening their ability to remain competitive. Emerging competitors from outside the 
EU may acquire an advantage in terms of price and accessibility to natural resources, 
and  also  face  less  stringent  standards  of  environmental  and  social  performance 
(Rademaekers,  Asaad  &  Berg,  2011).  Increasing  resource  prices  impact  on  the 
competitiveness  of  EU  industry  along  with  other  aspects  such  as  labour  cost  and 
productivity (Rademaekers, Zaki & Smith, n.d.).  

A  number  of  recent  studies  have  looked  to  identify  the  opportunity  that  resource 
efficiency  offers  to  business  as  well  as  characterise  the  drivers  and  barriers  for  its 
adoption. Cost reduction, product quality improvement and increased productivity are 
seen as major direct benefits, along with regulatory compliance (Rademaekers, Asaad 
&  Berg,  2011;  AMEC  &  Bio  Intelligence  Service,  2013).  AMEC  &  Bio  Intelligence 
Service  (2013)  calculated  the  potential  for  gross  savings  for  businesses  in  three 

April 2015  36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

sectors4  to  be  between  10%  and  17%  of  turnover  from  realising  the  opportunities 
from  resource  efficiency.    Looking  economy-wide  and  assessing  three  different 
baseline  efficiency  scenarios,  gross  economic  benefits  ranged  from  €466  billion  to 
€914  billion,  and  when  considered  as  net  values  (taking  into  account  investments 
needed with assumptions made on the cost of capital) between €245 billion and €604 
billion,  or  between  3%  and  8%  of  turnover  for  the  three  sectors.  Indirect  benefits 
investors,  and 
include  relationships  with  business-to-business  customers  and 
improved corporate image (Rademaekers, Asaad & Berg, 2011).   

Barriers  to  adoption  of  more  resource-efficient  practices  within  businesses  can  be 
considered  to  arise  from  five  different  types  of  sources,  often  acting  in  concert  as  a 
web of constraints (from Bastein et al., 2014):  

institutional – barriers caused by political institutions, e.g. regulations and laws;  

• 
•  market  –  market  conditions,  economic  climate,  value  network  conditions,  e.g. 

monopolies, lack of information, subsidies, supplier leverage;  

•  organisational  –  firms  as  social  systems  influenced  by  goals,  routines,  organisational 
structures,  e.g.  company  strategy  or  focus,  lack  of  funds,  lack  of  a  Chief  Sustainability 
Officer (CSO) 

•  behavioural  –  individuals’  values  and  attitudes  within  companies,  e.g.  lack  of  attention, 

• 

lack of perceived control, lack of information; 
technological – insufficient or too costly technology, e.g. lacking equipment or other tools, 
undeveloped technology from the market, unable to support technology. 

The figure below summarises the various drivers and barriers to resource efficiency.  

4  Sectors  analysed  were  food  and  drink  manufacturing;  fabricated  metal  products;  and 
hospitality and food services.  

April 2015  37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Figure 6: Business Drivers and Barriers for Resource Efficiency (Source: AMEC 2012, cited in AMEC & Bio Intelligence 
Service, 2013) 

Action  on  resource  efficiency  by  businesses  is  already  taking  place  with  economic 
conditions  in  Europe  applying  pressure  on  companies  to  seek  savings  in  production 
and material supply costs in their own operations and throughout their supply chains 
(AMEC  &  Bio  Intelligence  Services,  2013).    Approaches  include  “first  order  learning” 
where  companies  adopt  incremental  changes  in  production  by  implementing  short-
term  investments,  and  (less  frequently)  “second  order  learning”  where  companies 
adopt  fundamental  changes  to  the  way  they  operate  usually  involving  longer-term 
investments  (Rademaekers,  Asaad  &  Berg,  2011).  Diaz  Lopez  et  al.,  (2014) 
categorised the types of activities that companies undertake to increase their resource 
efficiency  as  (1)  delivering  green(er)  products  and  product-service  combinations;  (2) 
greener production within their own company; (3) greener production and closing the 
loop along the supply chain; and (4) focus on life-cycle redesign.  

A number of businesses have also become active in promoting the resource efficiency 
agenda within Europe. Examples include the Resource Efficient Alliance, facilitated by 
European  Partners  for  the  Environment,  formed  in  2006  as  “a  group  of  public  and 
private economic players developing synergies to accelerate the implementation of the 
EU  Objectives  2020  by  leveraging  their  market  forces”  (Resource  Efficiency  Alliance, 
n.d.).  In  addition,  Boots,  Kyocera,  Sinvestec,  The  Resource  Association,  Unilever, 
Veolia,  Viridor  and  WRAP  are  on  the  UK  NGO  Green  Alliance’s  Circular  Economy 
taskforce  investigating  policy  solutions  that  would  enable  businesses  to  make  the 
necessary changes for a more circular economy, optimising the UK's resource use, and 
Veolia  Water,  Kingfisher,  Unilever,  KPMG,  Siemens,  Mapei  and  Umicore  are 
April 2015  38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

represented on the European Resource Efficiency Platform. Other prominent business 
groups  have  made  resource  efficiency  an  important  part  of  their  mandate,  the  Ellen 
MacArthur Foundation and Aldersgate Group, described in more detail in Box 1, being 
key examples of this. Business Europe, however, are more measured in their support 
calling into question the use of targets for resource productivity whilst supporting the 
principle  of  resource  efficiency5.  Many  have  also  been  active  in  response  to  recent 
actions  by  the  new  Commission  on  the  resource  efficiency  and  circular  economy 
agenda, as discussed in Section 4.4. 

BOX  4:  KEY  BUSINESS  ORGANISATIONS  LEADING  IN  RESOURCE 
EFFICIENCY 

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation 
The  Ellen  MacArthur  Foundation  works  in  education,  business  innovation  and 
analysis  to  accelerate  the  transition  to  a  circular  economy.  It  has  instigated 
the  “Circular  Economy  100”  -  a  global  platform  bringing  together  leading 
companies,  emerging  innovators  and  regions  to  accelerate  the  transition  to  a 
circular  economy.  The  Circular  Economy  100  programme  is  based  on  the 
principle  that  more  value  can  be  gained  from  collective  problem-solving  than 
can  be  achieved  by  working  alone  and  supports  this  transition  through  (a) 
creating  a  mechanism  for  collective  problem-solving;  (b)  building  a  library  of 
best practice guidance to help businesses fast track success; and (c) providing 
a  scalable  mechanism  for  building  circular  economy  capabilities  within 
businesses.  The  Ellen  MacArthur  Foundations  global  partners  are  Unilever, 
Renault,  Kingfisher,  Philips  and  Cisco  and  the  Circular  Economy  100  boasts  a 
membership of some 90 companies. 
For more details see http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org  

The Aldersgate Group 
The UK-based Aldersgate Group is an alliance of leaders from business, politics 
and civil society that drives action for a sustainable economy. Their members 
include  some  of  the  largest  businesses  in  the  UK  with  a  collective  global 
turnover  of  over  £300bn  and  politicians  of  all  parties.  The  Aldersgate  Group 
Manifesto,  launched  in  December  2014,  includes  “prioritisation  of  energy  and 
resource  efficiency”  as  one  of  its  six  target  areas  for  the  next  parliament  to 
help  the  UK  effectively  address  today’s  big  environmental  challenges,  whilst 
maximizing economic benefits for the UK, alongside (i) accelerating the move 
to  a  competitive  low  carbon  economy;  (ii)  improving  our  understanding  and 
the  state  of  our  natural  capital;  (iii)  equipping  the  UK’s  workforce  with  the 
right  skills  to  benefit  from  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  transition  to  a 
sustainable  economy;  (iv)  increasing  financial  flows  towards  low-carbon  and 
other  environmental  projects;  and,  (v)  ensuring  the  UK  continues  to  benefit 
from progressive European environmental standards. 
For more details see http://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk  

5 
http://www.businesseurope.eu/content/default.asp?PageID=568&DocID=33134  

release 

press 

See 

at: 

April 2015  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

This  report  seeks  not  to  re-evaluate  the  drivers  and  barriers  to  adoption  that  have 
been  covered  in  the  previous  research,  or  indeed  to  investigate  further  the  role  of 
business  lobbying  within  the  EU,  but  instead  to  address  the  specific  question  of  the 
role  that  the  European  Commission  should  take  in  facilitating  a  resource-efficient 
economy.    

7.2.  Business-wide survey 
As described in Section 5.3 of this report, participants were asked to rate the 14 EREP 
short-term proposals (described in Appendix B), as high priority, medium priority, low 
priority or no priority.  Figure  shows the results.  

Figure  7:  Results  of  business-wide  survey  asking  companies  how  they  would  prioritise  the  EREP  short-term 
recommendations 

Table 1: Key for vertical axis of Figure 7 

Ref. 
in 
Figur
e  
1 

2 
3 

EREP short-term recommendations 

Set  ambitious  and  credible  targets  for  overall  resource  productivity  of  the  EU 
economy. 
Develop indicators to include carbon, materials, water and land 
Give  attention  to  valuing  ecosystems,  identifying  opportunities  arising  from 
waste  management  and  recycling  and  developing  footprint  indicators  to 
account for EU imports 

April 2015  40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
12 

13 

14 

Work  towards  a  binding  reporting  framework  for  businesses  to  report  non-
financial information 
Initiate  pilot  schemes  for  natural  capital  accounting  of  Member  States  and 
businesses 
Phase  out  environmentally  harmful  subsidies  as  a  matter  of  urgency  with 
special emphasis on subsidies to fossil fuels and the use of water in agriculture, 
energy and industry 
Review  the  EU  waste  management  and  prevention  targets  and  encourage 
Member  States  to  move  to  a  circular  economy  with  adequate  collection  and 
processing,  high-quality  recycling,  phasing out  landfill  and  reducing  residual 
waste to a minimum 
Review  EU  waste  policy  to  set  the  right  price  signals  through  market-based 
instruments (payment schemes, charges and taxes) accompanied by technical 
criteria and carefully targeted bans if necessary 
Develop  guidance  to  encourage,  expand  and  improve  Extended  Producer 
Responsibility schemes 
Explore  the  use  of  a  "product  passport",  such  as  an  Environmental  Product 
Declaration 
Promote a pan-European network of industrial symbiosis initiatives 
Adopt  a  more  coherent  product  policy  by  mainstreaming,  consolidating  and 
ensuring  consistency  among  existing  instruments  (ecodesign,  ecolabel...)  and 
closing loopholes 
Develop  a  systematic  monitoring  mechanism  based  on  real  public  tenders  to 
assess Green Public Procurement 
Establish  a  European  network  to  exchange  good  practice,  standardise 
approaches  and  develop  guidance  on  issues  such  as  life  cycle  costing 
methodologies and use of labels 

The results in Figure 6 show the importance ascribed by respondents to the survey to 
a  varied  and  comprehensive  resource  efficiency  agenda:  all  of  the  measures  were 
identified as “high priority” by at least one respondent.  

The two measures most commonly identified by companies as “high priority” are 

•  Review  the  EU  waste  management  and  prevention  targets  and  encourage 

Member States to move to a circular economy 

•  Develop indicators to include carbon, materials, water and land 

Those  that  received  the  least  support,  in  terms  of  low  numbers  of  companies 
identifying them as high priority, and also those identifying them as no priority were: 

•  Work  towards  a  binding  reporting  framework  for  businesses  to  report  non-

• 

financial information 
Initiate  pilot  schemes  for  natural  capital  accounting  of  Member  States  and 
businesses 

The second part of the cross-business survey asked participants whether they thought 
it  was  useful  to  group  some  or  all  of  these  measures  within  a  Circular  Economy 
framework as per the EU’s recent communication. As Figure shows, the response was 
a  largely  (although  not  entirely)  positive  one.  This  does  not  necessarily  reflect 
approval  of  the  content  of  the  package.  Instead  it  demonstrates  the  importance  of 
having  a  set  of  interconnected  policies  on  resource  efficiency  that  reflects  the 

April 2015  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

interdependence  of  the  issues.  Even  the  respondent  that  disagreed  with  the 
statement,  by  virtue  of  a  more  strategic  disagreement  with  the  use  of  the  circular 
economy  agenda  to  achieve  resource  efficiency,  agreed  that  the  use  of  a  package  of 
policies was a positive feature when addressing resource efficiency. Others warned of 
“policymaking by buzz words” and stressed the importance of the individual measures.   

Figure 8: Results of business-wide survey on the Circular Economy Package 

7.3.  Business Insights 
The  comments  summarised  below  delve  deeper  into  the  EREP  measures  and  expand 
beyond  them  to  consider  broader  themes  within  the  resource  efficiency  agenda.  As 
discussed  in  Section  5.3,  due  to  the  semi-structured  nature  of  the  investigation,  and 
the  low  number  of  businesses  responding  to  the  survey,  these  views  do  not 
necessarily  represent  an  industry  consensus  but  give  insights  into  the  range  of 
industry opinions around resource efficiency, particularly in the context of the EU.  

The text below is divided into two sections. The first highlights some common themes 
that  arose  across  the  interviews  and  that  apply  to  more  than  one  of  the  measures 
discussed.  The  second  section  provides  insights  on  particular  resource  efficiency 
measures,  and  how  they  can  be  applied  in  the  most  beneficial  way,  or  particular 
industry challenges.  

Common themes 

The systems approach 
Life  cycle  thinking  and  analysis  over  the  whole  value  chain  were  deemed  critical  to 
achieving  a  resource-efficient  economy,  moving  from  just  producer  responsibility,  to 
value  chain  responsibility.  Understanding  resource  use  as  a  system  can  facilitate  the 
most effective interventions and avoid unintended consequences in other parts of the 
value  chain.    Many  of  the  businesses  interviewed  pointed  to  a  systems  approach  in 
April 2015  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

their own way of working, which has increased their awareness of resource efficiency 
issues  and  has  made  them  more  nuanced  in  their  understanding  of  risks  and 
opportunities.  Yet  policy-making  tends  to  operate  through  departmental  silos.  When 
trying  to  implement  a  circular  economy  or  resource  efficiency  based  approach  this 
creates challenges and causes frustration among businesses. In essence, the life cycle, 
systems  approach,  relies  on  relationships  between  governments,  consumers  and 
businesses from all sectors to be truly successful. Facilitating these relationships is an 
important component of the move to a resource-efficient economy.  

An economic imperative 
Despite  the  indication  from  the  Commission  that  the  resource  efficiency  and  circular 
economy  agendas  do  not  fit  with  the  Juncker  presidency  goals  of  jobs  and  growth, 
many  businesses  in  fact  saw  the  opposite  –  that  resource  efficiency  was  essential  to 
strong  economic  performance  by  European  companies.  Innovative  business  models 
and  approaches  to  resource  efficiency  were  seen  as  an  important  area  in  which 
European  companies  could  successfully  compete,  with  the  potential  to  offset  the 
competition  on  cost  coming  from  outside  the  EU,  where  labour  and  production  costs 
may  be  lower,  and  access  to  raw  materials  greater.  In  this  regard,  businesses  are 
already addressing the resource efficiency agenda, and making progress through new 
technologies and new business models that can make the best use of materials. With 
greater  policy  support,  however,  they  could  do  much  more.    The  need  for  resource 
efficiency  to  be  much  more  than  just  a  DG  Environment  agenda  was  strongly 
communicated.  Some  businesses,  however,  took  a  more  cautious  view  –  feeling  that 
the resource efficiency agenda could be one of growth and jobs, as long as the policy 
support was developed in an appropriate way that would allow for opportunities to be 
realised rather than adding to the burden on businesses.  

Seeing  resource  efficiency  as  an  economic  benefit,  along  with  the  need  for  a  value 
chain approach, were overwhelmingly the most common themes in the interviews. 

the  potential 

for  a  disparity 

in  operational  costs  (and 

A level playing field 
A common theme running through the interviews was a need for a level playing field, 
expressed by one participant as “EU is good; global is better”. Different standards can 
create 
therefore 
competitiveness)  as  a  result  of  production/operational  methods.  Where  imports  are 
not  subject  to  the  same  compliance  requirements  as  EU-based  firms  this  can  create 
significant  business  challenges.  Differential  requirements  can  also  create  an 
administrative  burden  and  increased  reputational  risk  due  to  higher  levels  of 
transparency.  Indeed the reluctance for companies to take on binding regulations for 
non-financial reporting observed within the survey may at first seem to reflect a desire 
to hide poor performance. However concerns regarding the global, and indeed within 
country  differences  in  reporting  obligations  due  to  state  or  private  ownership 
structure, are very prominent. A mandatory system operating at the global level, and 
covering  both  listed  and  non-listed  companies  of  sufficient  scale,  could  gather  more 
support.  Some  progress  towards  creating  a  level  playing  field  through  ‘soft’  routes 
such as supply chain requirements of EU companies and Europe’s involvement on the 
international  stage  in  organisations  such  as  the  World  Bank,  International  Monetary 
Fund  and  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  were  noted, 
but others felt that the Commission could do much more.  

April 2015  43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

The need for scale 
To  capitalise  on  the  potential  economic  benefits,  resource-efficient  business  models 
need to be able to work at scale, and have application beyond the single company of 
the individual visionary business leader. There needs to be a greater understanding of 
the barriers to scalability as this is likely to represent the difference between a niche 
model  and  one  that  can  provide  strong  economic  benefits  and  therefore  wide 
adoption.  

A challenge of short-termism 
Short-term  attitudes  to  investment  create  barriers  for  adoption  of  some  resource 
efficiency practices and new business models. This is prevalent within businesses, but 
also  within  their  customer  organisations  including  public  bodies.  Can  businesses  be 
encouraged  to  follow  Unilever’s  lead  in  not  giving  quarterly  earnings  guidance  and 
profit updates? 

A need to move forward despite uncertainty 
Many  businesses  were  unsure  of  how  the  new  Parliament  and  Commission  would 
impact  on  the  Commission’s  activities  at  this  early  stage,  although  most  did  not  see 
the changes to the European Parliament as being a blockage per se to progress at the 
European  Union  level  –  instead  they  encouraged  the  Commission  to  move  forward 
with  a  resource  efficiency  agenda.  The  opportunity  for  the  new  Parliament  to 
encourage  more  cross-DG  working  was  voiced,  as  was  the  potential  for  the  resource 
efficiency  agenda  to  be  one  that  could  demonstrate  the  positive  aspects  of 
collaboration at the European level.  

Issue-specific insights 

Indicators  
The importance of widening the indicator set to include all of carbon, materials, water 
and  land  was  recognised  by  a  number  of  businesses.  However,  so  too  were  the 
difficulties  associated  with  that,  in  particular  with  regard  to  indicators  for  water  and 
land. The need for research to provide the evidence base for the development of these 
indicators  was  seen  as  crucial,  including  the  methods  of  calculation  and  what  should 
be taken into account. A need for a better understanding of the inter-linkages between 
carbon, materials, water and land was also highlighted, and the need to consider this 
in any indicator development work.  

Indicators  when  done  well  were  seen  to  incentivise  technological  development, 
however when done poorly were seen to just create burden and cost – hence the call 
for  a  strong  evidence-based  approach,  and  a  thorough  consideration  of  how  the 
indicators should be used. Indeed the difficulties associated with formulating accurate 
and  robust  indicators  apart  from  carbon  more  than  likely  underpin  the  reluctance  to 
move  towards  natural  capital  accounting  in  the  short  term  expressed  by  some 
respondents.    Creating  a  mechanism  for  businesses  to  input  data  into  the  evidence-
building  processes  of  the  Commission  was  seen  as  an  important  opportunity  where 
business  and  the  Commission  could  collaborate  to  support  strong  evidence-based 
policy making. 

In  applying  indicators  at  the  corporate  level,  some  businesses  stressed  the  need  for 
flexibility in application, along with transparency in the calculation approaches used. 

April 2015  44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Targets 
As indicators are developed the natural extension is to set targets and this was seen 
as  one  of  the  key  strengths  of  the  Commission,  reflecting  their  ability  to  rise  above 
national agendas and look across the Union, setting a clear direction of travel. The two 
themes of flexibility and a thorough evidence base were highlighted, as they were on 
discussion around indicators. For the former, the need for flexibility in how to meet the 
targets  was  emphasised.  For  the  latter  the  complexity  of  resource  efficiency  targets 
was discussed.  Here the concept of life cycle, or system, thinking is relevant – there 
is  a  need  to  ensure  that  the  target  is  placed  on  the  right  part  of  the  value  chain  to 
ensure  that  the  maximum  resource  efficiency  is  enabled.  For  example,  recycled 
content  targets  cannot  be  met  by  manufacturers  if  the  recycling  industry  is  not 
incentivised to provide the right quantity and quality of materials.  

The value and availability of materials 
There  is  a  need  to  focus  the  debate  on  the  quality  of  recycling  and  not  just  the 
quantity. In line with one of the common themes coming out of this research, taking a 
full  system  view  will  enable  efforts  to  be  appropriately  allocated  to  ensure  that  the 
quality  of  the  material  is  maintained  as  much  as  possible  as  it  cycles  through  the 
economy without creating negative impacts on other resources through, for example, 
extra  energy  use.    The  point  was  made  that  much  of  the  focus  to  date  has  been  on 
metals; however manufacturing industry needs a good supply of high-quality resins to 
be able to provide more products with reused materials. As noted above, incentives to 
create supply of these materials need to be matched with those to create demand for 
them.  

Information management 
One of the fundamental requirements for achieving the evidence base that will support 
moves  towards  increased  resource  efficiency  is  the  generation  of  robust  information 
flows  throughout  the  value  chain  -  these  information  flows  were  seen  as  equally 
important  as  knowing  about  the  material  flows  themselves.  With  information  on 
material components passed through the value chain alongside the products in which 
they  are  embedded,  the  highest-quality  recycling  and  maximum  reuse  of  materials 
can be achieved. The availability and transparency of repair manuals was identified as 
another  means  through  which  greater  resource  efficiency  could  be  achieved.  This  is 
something  that,  when  previously  available,  supported  extensive  networks  of  repair 
shops,  and  still  operates  effectively  in  the  automotive  industry.  Yet  in  many  other 
industries such manuals and practices based on them have been discontinued. 

The relationship between resource efficiency and carbon 
A  couple  of  respondents  commented  on  the  EU  Emissions  Trading  System  (ETS)  and 
its  relevance  for  resource  efficiency.  Some  highlighted  the  need  to  make  the  carbon 
price through the ETS the most prominent tool in addressing carbon emissions and to 
avoid  anything  that  could  dampen  the  signal  and  place  other  indirect  carbon  costs 
onto  businesses.  High  carbon  prices  achieved  through  the  ETS  were  seen  as  key  to 
driving innovation in carbon reduction, and the need to make this a global system was 
stressed.  Apart  from  the  level  of  the  price,  some  businesses  pointed  to  the  fact  that 
emissions trading has changed the way people think about things and there is now an 
expectation  in  the  wider  industry  that  carbon  will  get  more  expensive.  In  theory  it 
should be easier to monetize material efficiency than carbon efficiency, and therefore 
it is important to learn lessons from the ETS. If you get material efficiency right then 

April 2015  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

carbon  will  come  down  anyway  –  in  this  regard  the  ETS  is  running  before  you  can 
walk.   

New business models 
The  leasing  economy  is  one  of  the  new  business  models  gaining  attention  at  the 
moment  in  the  resource  efficiency  debate.  The  concept  is  a  good  one  and  in  some 
industries application is relatively simple. In others however the implementation phase 
is  difficult  and  therefore  support  is  needed.  The  public  sector  as  a  large-scale 
purchasing  body,  and  one  with  a  longer-term  perspective  and  incentives  for  higher 
levels of sustainability, should in theory be a good customer for new business models 
that  enhance  resource  efficiency.  However  barriers  in  adoption  of  leasing  systems 
have been experienced due to accounting practices that are focused on the short term 
and a lack of awareness.  

Investing in R&D 
R&D  is  a  risky  and  costly  endeavour,  and  taking  research  through  basic  R&D  to 
commercial  application  is  difficult.  Businesses  can  only  take  on  this  risk  in  policy-
created  markets  where  they  have  reasonable  certainty  that  the  market  will  be 
supported  at  the  level  required  for  profitability.  Short-termism  is  a  challenge  within 
organisations  and  investments  with  a  payback  period  of  more  than  3  years  are  very 
difficult to justify within businesses. It was felt that the Commission did not do enough 
to support business-led innovation in resource efficiency, and that there was a need to 
develop  an  innovation  strategy  that  facilitates  a  research  agenda  closely  linked  to 
commercialisation  opportunities.    Public  private  partnerships  were  identified  as 
potential ways to deliver this.  

Re-considering legislation through the lens of the circular economy  
A  need  to  review  and  potentially  clarify  existing  legislation  from  a  circular  economy 
perspective  was  identified.  Examples  given  included  the  high  cost  of  transport  of 
products  for  recycling  and  re-use  due  their  classification  as  hazardous  waste, 
constantly  evolving  legislation  on  chemicals  and  other  materials  that  prevent  their 
recovery  and  reprocessing,  and  subsequent  re-sale  into  the  European  market; 
planning constraints on developing industrial symbiosis on existing sites; and building 
codes  that  do  not  accommodate  recycled  materials.  Whilst  this  legislation  is  in  place 
for  a  reason,  it  is  important  to  consider  how  it  may  be  revised  to  complement  new 
business  models  and  how  the  original  purpose  can  still  be  served  within  a  new-style 
economy  that  maximises  material  re-use  at  the  scale  required  to  be  economically 
viable. Again, this needs to be done from a full life cycle perspective and work across 
policy  area  boundaries  to  be  fully  effective.    This  includes  both  consideration  of  non-
environmental policy and also looking outside of areas that are within EU control. For 
example,  fiscal  policy  and  public  procurement  are  within  the  control  of  MSs,  yet  the 
potential  for  them  to  provide  incentives  for  resource  efficiency  were  noted  by  some 
respondents, and the need for the Commission to provide a supporting role to Member 
States in this regard was highlighted. 

Incentives-led approaches 
Resource  efficiency  was  seen  as  something  that  should  be  stimulated  by  incentive-
driven  rather  than  penalty-based  approaches  to  ensure  that  it  can  go  hand  in  hand 
with  European  competitiveness.  Examples  given  included  support  for  business-led 
innovation,  stimulating  demand  for  recycled  materials  through  public  procurement, 
and lower VAT for reused/recycled materials.  Such an opportunity-based viewpoint on 

April 2015  46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

resource  efficiency  was  considered  to  open  the  door  for  investment  and  also  to 
address  some  of  the  negative  perceptions  from  the  wider  community  regarding 
European-level bureaucracy.  

An engagement challenge 
A final insight, not from the interviews but from the research process itself, is that it 
has  been  difficult  to  get  companies  to  engage  on  this  issue  for  this  research.  This  is 
undoubtedly  for  the  most  part  a  reflection  of  multiple  requests  and  small  teams 
fielding  such  queries  but  could  also  reflect  a  growing  apathy  within  the  business 
community  for  resource  efficiency  initiatives  arising  from  the  EU,  and  perceptions  of 
inconsistencies  and  a  lack  of  long-term  direction  in  the  messages  coming  out  of  the 
Commission. Indeed, some interviewees commented on the lack of engagement with 
businesses  from  the  European  Commission  in  the  policy-making  process,  which,  in 
their view, missed opportunities for the development of implementable and evidence-
based legislation. 

7.4.  The Role for the European Commission 

Drawing from the survey results and the insights gathered during the interviews, the 
following  are  considered  to  be  businesses  priorities  for  the  Commission  in  terms  of 
taking forward the resource efficiency agenda.  

SUPPORT 
Make  the  case:  The  European  Commission  can  assist  the  resource  efficiency 
“champions” within organisations by providing a suitable evidence base. Key areas for 
research  identified  by  different  participants  included  development  of  indicators, 
especially  for  water  and  land,  and  their  interactions;  technical  development  of 
materials for re-use beyond metals; measuring, monitoring and accounting of material 
use within the value chain; communication of recycled material quality and potential; 
and  a  focus  on  the  whole  value  chain.  Industry  seems  willing  to  contribute  data  to 
support the creation of this evidence base.  

Support  the  early  stages:  By  providing  support  mechanisms  for  early-stage 
research  and  development,  risk-sharing  and  long-term  investment  opportunities  the 
Commission  can  help  to  overcome  many  of  the  barriers  faced  by  businesses  in 
developing  more  resource-efficient  business  models,  which  once  operational,  can  be 
economically beneficial.  

Support  Member  States:  Some  of  the  key  opportunities  for  driving  a  resource-
efficient economy are within the control of Member States, including fiscal policy and 
green  public  procurement.  Whilst  the  European  Commission  cannot  mandate  in  this 
regard  it  can  provide  the  support  and  the  evidence  base  for  Member  States  to  allow 
them  to  implement  more  resource-efficient  policies  that  will  promote  a  more  circular 
economy.   

ENGAGE & FACILITATE 
Outside  the  EU:  The European Commission  can  help to  promote  resource  efficiency 
outside the EU through addressing imports and engaging with colleagues worldwide to 
support the standardisation of indicators, requirements and mechanisms. This applies 
as  much  to  information  tools  as  to  economic  tools.  Europe  is  a  key  influencer  at  the 

April 2015  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

global level and can do much to facilitate the uptake of existing European standards, 
which  would  lead  to  a  greater  competitive  advantage  for  those  European  companies 
already following those procedures.  

Throughout  the  value  chain:  To  achieve  its  full  scale,  resource  efficiency  requires 
full  value  chain  cooperation  and  the  Commission  has  an  important  role  to  play  in 
facilitating this holistic view and creating partnerships that work across businesses and 
sectors  and  the  wider  community.  It  is  well  placed  to  do  this  as  it  can  transcend 
national boundaries in the way that value chains do. It needs to foster openness in its 
own policy making to such a multi-actor approach. 

Get  the  information  flowing:  The  need  for  good  information  flows  has  been 
highlighted  and  the  Commission  has  a  great  opportunity  to  facilitate  this.  It  already 
has a track record in developing labelling systems and therefore is in a good position 
to progress into new areas of information management.  

SET THE DIRECTION 
Strong  direction:  Businesses  are  looking  for  consistency,  direction  and  strong 
support that will enable them to make important investments, which they will not get 
with a constantly changing EU agenda.  Targets are a key means for the Commission 
to set a long-term direction, and one in which it has been successful in the past. 

Show circular thinking: The Circular Economy package received much support from 
the interviewees, mostly as a result of the integrated policy approach that it supports. 
The need to review other legislation for its ability to support the circular economy was 
also  identified,  as  was  the  need  for  the  Commission  to  work  across  its  own 
departmental  boundaries  to  address  the  full  implications  of  policy  and  the  need  for 
integrated thinking on policy implementation.  

Seize  the  potential:  Those  that  commented  on  the  changes  in  the  European 
Parliament  and  Commission,  and  their  potential  effect  on  European  policy  making, 
stressed  the  importance  of  strong  and  coordinated  European  action.  They  saw  the 
potential  for  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  to  demonstrate  the  benefits  of 
collaborative  approaches,  and  to  speak  to  the  core  objectives  of  the  incoming 
Commission of stimulating growth, jobs and competitiveness.  

8. Discussion 

The  findings  from  the  interviews  reported  above  seem  to  point  to  the  recognition  of 
the  importance  of  the  role  the  EU  can  play  in  the  area  of  resource  efficiency.  Both 
policy  makers  and  businesses  have  placed  great  emphasis  on  the  need  for  policy 
guidance  and  the  long-term  commitment  that  provides  a  stable  framework  for  long-
term investment. Consistency between policies and policy areas is something deemed 
crucial  by  both  businesses  and  policy  makers.  Changes  in  the  direction  of  the  policy 
process  as  a  result  of  short-term  political  cycles  create  the  perception  of  disruption 
and  discontinuity  and  constrain  the  actions  of  economic  actors  and  businesses.  The 
definition  of  a  clear  vision  with  well-defined  milestones  has  been  one  of  the  issues 

April 2015  48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

raised  by  policy  makers  and  businesses.  In  this  sense,  the  withdrawal  of  the  circular 
economy  package  by  the  new  European  Commission  has  created  unwelcome 
uncertainty with regards to the future of the policy agenda in this area.  

Another  common  issue  that  emerges  from  both  businesses  and  policy  makers  is  the 
role of the EU in promoting a level playing field. While businesses would prefer global 
action,  improving  the  single  European  market  though  harmonised  legislative 
frameworks can reduce the obstacles faced by companies operating in more than one 
country. Although it is important to retain the flexibility of MSs in their transposition of 
Directives,  most  of  the  interviewees  agreed  to  the  need  for:  a)  setting  a  core  of 
common  compliance  requirements  that  reduces  the  administrative  burden  of 
compliance  and  b)  providing  more  guidance  in  the  implementation  process,  including 
evidence of best practices and technical support.  

The need to frame resource efficiency as an economic imperative to create wealth and 
jobs  in  Europe  is  also  an  important  aspect  raised  by  both  businesses  and  policy 
makers. Resource efficiency is seen as a route to increase the optimal use of resources 
and help to close material and energy cycles. It can therefore contribute to generating 
economic savings in a context of rising and volatile raw material prices. Also important 
is  the  supply  risk  angle  and  the  dependency  of  Europe  on  resources  from  outside  its 
boundaries.  In  this  sense,  resource  efficiency  will  contribute  to  preserve  resources 
within  the  European  productive  system,  reducing  the  dependency  on  virgin  raw 
materials.    Both  businesses  and  policy  makers  noted  that  the  idea  of  resource 
efficiency could add a new dimension to the emphasis on growth and jobs, and would 
be  in  tune  with  the  profound  changes  in  the  business  context  in  recent  years, 
recognising  the  competitive  edge  that  increased  resource  efficiency  can  bring  to  EU-
based companies. Some interviewees also expressed the concern that, if the EU does 
not  move  quickly  in  this  area,  other  countries  with  a  strong  focus  on  resource 
efficiency and circular economy, such as China, would take the lead and this will be a 
missed opportunity for Europe to retain its leadership.  

The  discussion  of  the  role  of  indicators  revealed  a  general  agreement  by  both 
businesses and policy makers of the usefulness of indicators in guiding action. While in 
general  the  proposals  of  the  EREP  in  this  direction  were  welcomed,  interviewees 
stressed  the  risk  that  poorly-designed  indicators  could  generate  both  unintended 
consequences and extra burdens on business. Collaborative approaches and a strong 
evidence  and  scientific  base  could  help  to  create  a  broad  consensus  about  the 
indicators to be used.  

Innovation  and  research  is  highlighted  by  both  policy-makers  and  businesses  as 
pivotal in gaining improvement in resource efficiency. The role of the EU in this area is 
also  considered  extremely  relevant  as  it  can  support  pilot  programmes  and  early 
stages  of  development,  where  risk  is  high,  and  also  can  contribute  to  generate 
economies  of scale and wider applications of innovation with potential gains in terms 
of competitiveness and job creation.  

A  number  of  systemic  barriers  to  resource  efficiency  were  identified  by  both  policy 
makers  and  businesses.  Some  of  these  barriers  are  linked  to  the  frictions  between 
current  laws  and  practices  in  relation  to  resources  and  those  that  would  promote 
resource efficiency. For example, the issue of waste and its current definition may be a 
hurdle  for  new  business  models  based  on  the  re-use  and  re-circulation  of  secondary 

April 2015  49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

resources. Similarly, the definition of ownership, or the obstacles to sharing business 
models,  provide  other  examples  of  the  need  to  adapt  legislative  frameworks  to  the 
needs of a circular economy.  

Related to this is the issue of setting the right framework conditions. This is something 
discussed mainly by policy officers but it is also of obvious relevance to businesses. An 
area that was consistently mentioned by respondents was the importance of incentives 
and  the  internalisation  of  externalities.  Taxation  can  play  an  important  role  in  this 
regard although gaining support for taxation reforms, especially at the EU level where 
unanimity is required, is extremely challenging.  

Among  the  policy  approaches,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  both  policy  makers  and 
businesses  highlighted  the  usefulness  of  approaches  based  on  the  supply  chain  that 
are  collaborative  in  nature  and  can  potentially  lead  to  important  benefits  in  the 
different  stages  of  the  chain.  The  life-cycle  and  material-centric  approaches  of  these 
initiatives gives them a transformational potential to improve resource efficiency both 
in the EU and beyond EU. The pilot approaches adopted in a number of countries have 
not  only  proven  effective  for  resource  efficiency,  but  have  also  had  a  wider  scope, 
covering  interrelated  issues  such  as  sustainable  sourcing,  quality  of  materials, 
innovation, and training and knowledge transfer to primary producers.  

In general, businesses seem to prefer soft instruments to regulation as they allow for 
greater  flexibility  and  can  be  more  cost-effective.  However,  while  policy  makers 
considered  that  voluntary  instruments  were  important,  they  also  thought  that  they 
may  not  be  sufficient  to  achieve  the  change  required  and  should  be  accompanied  by 
measures such as taxation that help to change the structure of incentives. Businesses, 
on the other hand, are more inclined towards positive incentive structures such as tax 
exemptions  rather  than  penalties  or  tax  increases.  The  shift  of  taxation  away  from 
labour  and  towards  pollution  and  the  use  of  resources  was  extensively  discussed 
during the policymaker interviews, which revealed that its practical implementation is 
complex and requires a strong societal support, which is not yet present in many MSs. 

New  business  models  and  emerging  new  business  niches  are  gaining  increased 
attention  by  policy  makers  and  businesses  alike.  There  is,  however,  not  much 
understanding  of  under  what  circumstances  these  models  emerge  and  what  hurdles 
and  obstacles  may  impede  their  further  development.  Although  there  is  a  body  of 
research has looked at new business models for resource efficiency (see, for example, 
Bastein  et  al.,  2014),  it  is  clear  that  many  obstacles  and  systemic  constraints  to  the 
widespread success of these models remain. There is general agreement of the need 
to support new business models for resource efficiency, but a limited understanding of 
how  to  do  so,  and  whether  this  was  best  done  by  MSs  or  the  EU.  Incentives  are 
obviously  important  in  this  respect.  Other  specific  instruments  mentioned  in  the 
interviews are the clarification and harmonisation of ownership rights, changes in the 
definition of waste, and conditions of support for pilot schemes through research and 
development and flexible regulatory approaches.   

Respondents  also  stressed  the  need  to  reform  a  policy  process  that  is  highly 
fragmented  and  move  to  one  that  is  more  integrated  and  coordinated.  Some 
interviewees  emphasised  the  need  to  build  on  synergies  between  different  policy 
strategies  and  create  connections  between  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  and  the 
energy/climate  change  agenda.  This  could  help  the  wider  resource  efficiency  agenda 

April 2015  50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

learn  from  the  better  established  area  of  energy  efficiency  while  ensuring  that  the 
potential  GHG  emission  reductions  from  wider  resource  efficient  measures  were 
properly taken into account.  

9. Conclusions 

Resource  efficiency  and  the  circular  economy  have  gained  increasing  attention  in 
recent years from policy makers and businesses. Changes in commodity markets have 
increased  awareness  of  potential  resource  scarcity,  and  the  link  between  natural 
resource  management  and  ecosystem  preservation.  The  emerging  EU  agenda  on 
resource  efficiency  has  a  number  of  key  components:  a)  security  of  supply  and 
sustainable management of natural resources; b) efficient use of resources and the re-
circulation of materials round the economy, and c) development through innovation of 
more efficient, less material-intensive products and processes.  The previous European 
Commission  placed  great  emphasis  on  resource  efficiency  as  a  route  to  economic 
growth  and  job  creation,  and  a  condition  for  future  European  competitiveness.  The 
work  of  the  previous  Commission  culminated  in  the  Circular  Economy  package  that 
was approved on July 2014.  

Changes in the European Parliament as a result of the elections in May and a profound 
restructuring  of  the  Commission  have  created  uncertainty  about  the  future  of  the 
resource efficiency agenda, which has been enhanced by the withdrawal of the circular 
economy package later in 2014, although with the promise that it will be reintroduced 
in 2015 in a ‘more ambitious’ form. In this research we have explored both from the 
policy-making  angle  and  from  the  business  side  the  main  issues  relating  to  taking 
forward the resource efficiency agenda, such as priority setting, policy approaches and 
policy instruments. The aim of the research was to provide a multi-actor vision of what 
are the key priorities for improved resource efficiency, and to explore different policy 
strategies  and  instruments  that  could  give  them  effect,  while  understanding  the 
constraints  of  the  policy-making  process  and  reflecting  the  diversity  of  views  and 
values of different stakeholders.  

From the point of view of the policy makers, the EU is perceived to have an important 
role  to  play  in  setting  the  framework  conditions  to  support  a  move  towards  more 
resource-efficient  business  models  and  the  circular  economy,  while  ensuring  a  level 
playing  field  for  businesses  and  economic  actors.  The  resource  efficiency  agenda  is 
also considered to have the potential to promote job and wealth creation and maintain 
an innovative industrial base in Europe. A number of policy strategies, including both 
voluntary  and  more  formal  approaches,  have  been  highlighted  by  policy  makers  as 
priorities for resource efficiency. Among the first type of approaches, the supply chain 
approach where government facilitates collaborative interactions among key players in 
the  supply  chain  seems  both  promising  and  politically  feasible.  For  the  second  type, 
shifting  taxation  away  from  labour  to  materials/resources  was  of  keen  interest  to 
policymakers, tempered with the recognition of political barriers to the policy at both 
MS  and EU levels.  More  broadly,  innovation  in  the  development  of new  products  and 
processes, as well as business models, was perceived to have a pivotal role to play in 

April 2015  51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

increasing resource efficiency in ways that can both reduce resource use and achieve 
economic savings and competitive edge.  

Similarly,  from  the  point  of  view  of  businesses,  the  EU  has  a  very  important  role  to 
play  in  increasing  resource  efficiency.  The  priorities  here  include  ensuring  a  level 
playing field and harmonising regulatory systems and compliance requirements to fully 
exploit the opportunities of the single market. Companies also stressed the importance 
of  having  a  long-term  policy  commitment  based  on  a  well-defined  vision  to  guide 
investment  and  innovation  at  the  company  level.  Incentive-led  programmes,  rather 
than taxation or penalties, and voluntary schemes based on a supply chain approach 
are also seen as effective and adequate by businesses. Resource efficiency is framed 
more  as  an  economic  imperative  rather  than  a  merely  environmental  policy  and  is 
seen  as  important  for  cost  savings  and  gaining  competitive  advantage  in  highly 
globalised markets.  

In  summary,  the  research  findings  point  to  the  relevance  and  desirability  of  the  EU 
adopting  a  policy  framework  for  increasing  resource  efficiency  in  Europe.  Such  a 
framework  could  play  an  important  role  in  setting  the  priorities  and  long-term 
commitments of both MSs and businesses, in creating a level playing field in respect of 
resource use, and influencing companies in moving towards a more circular economy. 
There  are  many  possible  policy  instruments,  ranging  from  voluntary  approaches  to 
economic  instruments  and  regulation,  that  could  be  combined  in  different  ways,  and 
the  precise  mix  of  instruments will  clearly  need  to  be  the  subject  of  negotiation  with 
stakeholders.  However,  the  research  shows  the  need  for  these  instruments,  and 
accompanying  indicators  and  targets,  to  have  a  sound  evidence  base,  to  be  aligned 
with  a  long-term  vision  for  resource  efficiency,  and  to  be  built  from  a  life-cycle, 
systemic  perspective  that  integrates  economic  as  well  as  environmental  policy 
objectives.  

April 2015  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

10.  References 
AMEC  Environment  &  Infrastructure  and  Bio  Intelligence  Service,  2013.  The 
opportunities  to  business  of  improving  resource  efficiency.  Final  Report.  European 
Commission Contract Ref 070307/2011/610181/ETU/F.1 

Bastein, T., Koers, W., Dittrich, K, Becker, J., Diaz Lopez, F.J., 2014. Business barriers 
to the uptake of resource efficiency measures. Report to the European Commission as 
part of the POLFREE project. Available at www.polfree.eu/publications 

Cambridge  Econometrics  and  Bio,  2014.  Study  on  modelling  of  the  economic 
and  environmental  impacts  of  raw  material  consumption,  available  online  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies.htm#9  

Diaz Lopez, F.J., Becker, J., Nerkers, F., Eris, B., Koers, W., van Vliet, H. and Bastein, 
T.,  2014.  New  business  models  that  support  resource  efficiency.  Report  to  the 
European  Commission  as  part  of 
the  POLFREE  project.  Available  at 
www.polfree.eu/publications  

European  Voice,  2014.  Jucker’s  plan  would  “shut  down  environmental  policy” 
campaigners  warn,  published  on 
the  11.09.2014.  Available  online  at: 
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/is-environment-off-the-commissions-agenda/ 

Jordan,  A.  (Ed.),  2005.  Environmental  policy  in  the  European  Union:  actors, 
institutions, processes (second edition). Earthscan: London.  

Kemp, R. and Dijk, M. ,2013. Analytical Framework of drivers and barriers to resource 
efficiency.  Report  to  the  European  Commission  as  part  of  the  POLFREE  project. 
Available at www.polfree.eu/publications 

Kemp, R., Dijk, M., Domenech, T., 2014. Why have resources been used inefficiently, 
synthesis  report  to  the  European  Commission  as  part  of  the  POLFREE  project. 
Available at www.polfree.eu/publications 

Hajer,  M.  A.,  1996.  Ecological  modernisation  as  cultural  politics,  in  Lash,  S.  et  al. 
(eds), 
Risk,  Environment  and  Modernity:  Towards  a  New  Ecology,  Sage:  London,  pp.  246–
268. 

Liefferink, D., Andersen M., 2005. Strategies of the “green” Member States in the EU 
environmental  policy-making,  in  Jordan,  A.  (Ed.),  2005.  Environmental  policy  in  the 
European  Union:  actors,  institutions,  processes  (second  edition).  Earthscan:  London, 
pp. 49-66.  

Nilson,  M.,  Zamparutti,  T.,  Petersen,  J.,  Nykvist,  B.,  Rudberg,  P.,  McGuinn,  J.,  2012. 
Understanding  Policy  Coherence:  Analytical  Framework  and  Examples  of  Sector–
Environment  Policy  Interactions  in  the  EU,  environmental  policy  and  gvernance,  22 
(6): 395-423.  

April 2015  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Putnam,  R.,  1988.  Diplomacy  and  domestic  politics:  the  logic  of  two-level  games, 
International Organisation, Vol. 42 (3): 427-460. 

Rademaekers, K., Asaad, S.S.K. & Berg, J., 2011. Study on the Competitiveness of the 
European Companies and Resource Efficiency. Final report to the Directorate General-
Enterprise and Industry.  

Rademaekers, K., Zaki, S.S., & Smith, M. n.d. Sustainable industry: going for growth 
and resource efficiency. European Commission Enterprise and Industry.   

Resource Efficiency Alliance, no date. Resource Efficiency Alliance factsheet. Available 
at http://www.epe.be/files/REA_Factsheet.pdf; accessed 01/12/2014.  

Rockström, J, Steffen, W, Noone, K. et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. 
Nature (2009) 461: 472-475.  

Schwarzer, D. (27 May 2014) Euroscepticism, Apathy and Change: Views on the 2014 
European  Parliament  Elections.  German  Marshall  Fund.  Weblog  [Online]  Available  at 
http://blog.gmfus.org/2014/05/27/euroscepticism-apathy-and-change-views-on-the-
2014-european-parliament-elections/ [Accessed 30 July 2014] 

in 
Tsebelis,  G.  (1995).  Decision  making 
presidentialism,  parliamentarianism,  multicameralism  and  multipartyism,  British 
Journal of political science, 25 (3): 289-325. 

in  political  systems:  veto  players 

UNEP  (von  Weizsäcker,  E.U.,  de  Larderel,  J,  Hargroves,  K.,  Hudson,  C.,  Smith,  M., 
Rodrigues, M.) (2014) Decoupling 2: technologies, opportunities and policy options’, a 
Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  Decoupling  to  the  International  Resource  Panel, 
UNEP, Nairobi   

Vogel,  D.  (2005).  The  hare  and  the  tortoise  revisited:  the  new  politics  of  consumer  
and  environmental  regulation  in  Europe,  in  Environmental  policy  in  the  European 
Union: actors, institutions, processes (second edition). Earthscan: London (225-252). 

Weale, A. , 1996. Environmental rules and rule-making in the European Union, Journal 
of European Public Policy, Vol. 3 (4): 594-611. 

Weale,  A.  (2005).  Environmental  rules  and  rule-making,  in  the  European  Union,  in 
Environmental  policy  in  the  European  Union:  actors,  institutions,  processes  (second 
edition). Earthscan: London (125-140). 

Zito,  A.  (2005).    Task  expansión:  a  theoretical  overview,  in  Environmental  policy  in 
the  European  Union:  actors,  institutions,  processes  (second  edition).  Earthscan: 
London (141-161). 

April 2015  54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

11.  Appendix A: Participants 

11.1.  Policymakers 

The  following  senior  policy  officers  and  experts  were  interviewed  as  part  of  the 
research:  

Stephane Arditi, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 

- 
-  Marion H.J. Braks,  Miniterie van Economische Zaken (The Netherlands) 
- 

Sylvain  Chevassus,  General  Commission  for  Sustainable  Development  (MEDDE),  Ministry 
of Environment, sustainable development and Energy (France) 

Paula Eskola, Motiva (Finland) 

-  Ander Elgorriaga, Ihobe- Sociedad Publica de Gestion Ambiental (Basque Country) 
- 
-  Neil Fourie, Department for Environment, food and Rural Affairs- DEFRA (UK) 
- 
- 
-  Doris  Nicklaus,  Department  of  the  Commissioner  General  for  Sustainable  Development 

Simon Johnson, DEFRA (UK) 
Isabella Murfin, DEFRA (UK) 

- 

(MEDDE), Ministry of Environment, sustainable development and Energy (France) 
Pieter de Pous, EEB 
Christine Reh, University College London, Department of Public Policy. 

-  Ariadna Rodrigo, Friends of the Earth 
- 
-  Clare Southworth, DEFRA (UK) 

Koen de Snoo, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Millieu (The Netherlands) 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  views  expressed  by  the  interviewees  are  based  on  their 
personal  perceptions  and  do  not  necessarily  represent  the  official  views  of  the 
organisations they represent.  

11.2.  Businesses 

The following businesses took part in the survey: 

•  ADBA 
•  CEFIC 
•  Environcom Group 
•  Euromines 
•  Hewlett Packard 
• 
•  Philips International 
•  Schilder and Brown 

iFixit 

April 2015  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

•  Shell 
•  Sun Power Corporation 
•  Tata Steel 

An additional 2 organisations took part in the research but did not wish to be named.  

April 2015  56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

12.  Appendix B: Business survey/interview outline 

Section 1: Basic survey 
A  brief  tick  box  survey  looking  at  priorities  for  some  key  components  of  resource 
efficiency  policy  based  on  the  European  Resource  Efficiency  Platform  (EREP) 
recommendations and the EU’s Communication on a Circular Economy Package.  

Q1a. The European Resource Efficiency Platform (EREP) considers the following to be 
essential  components  of  a  resource-efficient  economy  in  the  short  term.  Please 
indicate the priority you place on each of the components. Responses will be discussed 
during  the  interview.  If  you  do  not  feel  you  can  select  one  of  the  options  provided, 
please leave that row blank. 

[for each of the options below tick “High Priority”, “Medium Priority”, “Low Priority” or 
“No Priority”]  

•  Set ambitious and credible targets for overall resource productivity of the EU economy.   
•  Develop indicators to include carbon, materials (GDP/Raw material consumption), water 

and land. 

•  Give  attention  to  valuing  ecosystems,  identifying  opportunities  arising  from  waste 
management and recycling and developing footprint indicators to account for EU imports. 
•  Work  towards  a  binding  reporting  framework  for  businesses  to  report  non-financial 

information. 
• 
Initiate pilot schemes for natural capital accounting of Member States and businesses. 
•  Phase  out  environmentally  harmful  subsidies  as  a  matter  of  urgency  with  special 
emphasis  on  subsidies  to  fossil  fuels  and  the  use  of  water  in  agriculture,  energy  and 
industry. 

•  Review the EU waste management and prevention targets and encourage Member States 
to  move  to  a  circular  economy  with  adequate  collection  and  processing,  high  quality 
recycling, phasing out landfill and reducing residual waste to a minimum. 

•  Review EU waste policy to set the right price signals through  market based instruments 
(payment  schemes,  charges  and  taxes)  accompanied  by  technical  criteria  and  carefully 
targeted bans if necessary. 

•  Develop  guidance  to  encourage,  expand  and  improve  Extended  Producer  Responsibility 

schemes. 

•  Explore the use of a "product passport", such as an Environmental Product Declaration.   
•  Promote a pan-European network of industrial symbiosis initiatives. 
•  Adopt  a  more  coherent  product  policy  by  mainstreaming,  consolidating  and  ensuring 
consistency among existing instruments (ecodesign, ecolabel...) and closing loopholes. 
•  Develop a systematic monitoring mechanism based on real public tenders to assess Green 

Public Procurement. 

•  Establish  a  European  network  to  exchange  good  practice,  standardise  approaches  and 
develop guidance on issues such as life cycle costing methodologies and use of labels. 

April 2015  57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

Q1b. Do you think it is useful to group some or all of these measures within a Circular 
Economy  framework  as  per  the  EU's  recent  communication,  the  main  components  of 
which are summarised below: 

[respondents  select  from  “Strongly  agree”,  “Agree”,  “Neither  agree  or  disagree”, 
“Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree”] 

•  Setting up an enabling framework 

o  analysing governance and market failures which hamper the avoidance of waste 

and its reuse; 

•  Designing and innovating for a circular economy 

o  designing out waste along the supply chain;  
o  a coherent EU framework for promoting the circular economy;  
o  demonstration and innovation projects across supply chains;  
o  more circular models for  products and services  through product policy and  eco-

design; and  

o  cascading use of biomass.  

•  Unlocking investment in the circular economy 

o  development of new financial instruments;  
o 
o 

targets and guidelines for green public procurement;  
integration of resource efficiency and circular economy into funding criteria of EU 
funds;  

o  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  newly  adopted  instruments  to  promote  non-

financial reporting and long term financing; and  

o  public private partnerships. 

•  Modernising waste policy and waste targets 

o  a  review  of  waste  targets;  consideration  of  priority  waste  streams  (food,  C&D 
waste,  critical  raw  materials,  phosphorus  and  marine  litter);  and  a  resource 
efficiency target. 

Section 2: Semi-structured discussion 
The  interview  will  take  the  format  of  an  informal  conversation  and  not  necessarily 
cover all of the questions below. They are included as a guide only. Interviewees can 
choose not to answer certain questions or focus on certain areas only, and additional 
questions may arise as the conversation progresses.  

Potential areas of conversation are: 

2a)  Discussion  of  survey  results  from  Section  1,  focusing  on  “high”  and  “low/no” 
priority measures. 

2b) Discussion based around six themes identified as medium to long term priorities in 
the EREP proposals with a particular focus on anticipated barriers and how the EU can 

April 2015  58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

assist  in  overcoming  them.  The  six  themes  are  as  follows,  with  potential  guide 
questions included below each theme: 

1.  Promoting new, resource efficient business models 

•  What are the most important measures that the EU needs to put in place to enable 
your  business  to  fully  exploit  the  resource  efficiency  potential  in  production 
processes, product design and end of life management? 

•  What  measures  should  the  EU  establish  to  promote  service-based  business  models 

such as leasing and sharing? 

2.  Boosting Extended Producer Responsibility 

•  How can the EU create a fair business environment and level playing field with regard 

to EPR schemes? 

3.  Enabling consumers to make more sustainable choices 

•  What EU policies can support consumers to make more sustainable choices? 
•  How important will EU common principles and methods for measuring environmental 

impacts of products and organisations be? What are the challenges? 

•  What will be the most important aspects of product standards development? 

4.  Developing employment and skills 

•  What are the key needs with regard to green skills and employment in your business 

and how can the EU support this? 

5.  Financing to enable the transition 

•  What are the key barriers to investment in resource efficiency in your organisation? 

How can the EU assist to overcome this? 

•  How can increased reporting and transparency of non-financial information assist in 
supporting  resource  efficiency  investment?  What  is  needed  to  maximise  this 
potential? 

•  What is needed from investors and how can the EU support this?  

6.  Speeding up the development and use of indicators. 

•  What  are  the  most  relevant  footprint  and  other  indicators  to  support  resource 
efficiency?  What  are  the  challenges  with  collecting  this  data  at  the  organisational 
level? 

2c) How do you think European policy making will be changed by the changing public 
attitudes to the EU as reflected by changes in the EU Parliament? 

2d)  Are  there  any  other  key  issues  that  you  would  like  to  add  or  discuss  which  you 
believe  will  have  a  relevant  influence  in  the  way  the  resource  efficiency  agenda  is 
forward?
taken 

April 2015  59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the EU Resource Efficiency Agenda Forward 

April 2015  60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
1
-
1
5
-
3
1
5
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi: 10.2779/19745